Bob Clark wrote:
I may be wrong but I thought it was optional to use the conversion instead of the ELO rating.
The grading team used to be quite keen on doing various fits of the observed relationship between the ECF grade and the international rating. For example they came up with the rather silly (FIDE-1250)/5 = ECF for ratings below 2327 (source 2006 ECF diary). Provided they always keep an 8 in the divisor, a periodic best fit check in the x of (FIDE-x)/8 = ECF would be worth doing. I might suspect that for juniors, the x is going to be a different value from that for adults.
The Scots though prefer to use a 10 as divisor when converting between players who only have national ratings. Supporters of the grading revaluation exercise would suggest that the Scots need to do the same. namely to take 80% of the previous rating, but add something so that the top of the scale hasn't moved relative to the international Elos.
It needs more reverse engineering to establish the position for all activity categories, but has everyone noticed that the grade used for juniors in calculations is neither the brought forward grade at the start of the period, nor the carried forward grade at the end? So if you want a board order based on "current form", you could look at how the junior counted for their opposition.
The White Rose player mentioned earlier was 189 in the published August list, rising to 204 in the January list. His opponents were credited with a performance against a 193 player.