English Chess Forum

The debate is about relative accuracy. At my rating level the Ecf system is more accurate than the Fide system. Nick, over the past year 23 of your games have been submitted for FIDE rating. How would you expect to get an accurate result out of that? I agree that this is a large part of the problem...

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/index.html#11458._Pal_Benko_1928-2019 Respect: ‘When I gave my place to Fischer for the Interzonal in Palma de Mallorca in 1970, I was sure Bobby would advance to the Candidates Matches and beat the Russians. My own career was nearing its end, so why shouldn’t I gi...

All rating systems are measures of past performance. The debate is about relative accuracy. At my rating level the Ecf system is more accurate than the Fide system. I am quite reasonably concerned about breaking the only measure that currently works for imo a very marginal upside.

Yes amazing performance by Armaan Gogia http://chess-results.com/tnr463482.aspx ... ENG&snr=53

I do think it's a barrier to some people playing over the board. If they knew the sections were U1500, U1750 and U2000, I think a few people would feel a bit more comfortable. So actually I view it as a change that would make it more user-friendly for people to join over-the-board chess in the firs...

Given a sensible formula ( the most impotant element, and I don't believe this has yet been confirmed ) I would expect the new grades to be at least as reliable as those produced by the current system. Impotent may be right :) If the new 4 digit number is unrelated to the Fide rating system, but ju...

Monthly grades - fine. A small benefit for a s**t ton of work. 4 digit grade - most likely a disaster. Fide grades below 2000 are almost entirely meaningless. The current ecf grades are the only reliable measure. Changing it for a shiny new extra number has a MASSIVE potential downside (all grades b...

This is liable to complicate things rather than simplify them, thus frustrating your other goal It's not that complicated. Did they leave the playing area and have an opportunity to cheat? If no, then having a phone in a bag is clearly not cheating. I would also be happy with an inspection of the p...

So why wouldn't Palliser play for a win?

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:37 am

Might it be time for competitors to be asked to sign something saying they are aware of these requirements?

Please lets not add another layer of red tape. I agree with Ian, and think we should be looking for more leniency when it is obvious there is no possibility of cheating.

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:25 am

Why would he be?

Who knows, he might carry his phone off by mistake

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 11:19 am

LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:15 am

IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:19 pm

I think Toma and Storey both get IM norms with a win, but that's about it.

I thought that a draw was enough for Storey, his average being over 2370.

A IM norm under a cloud

What happens if he's defaulted?

I guess he saw him put the phone in the bag before play, then take the bag with him.

Next 2600: Shreyas Royal

Andy Stoker wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:30 pm

"Death ray Palliser"

How many consecutive defaults would the arbiters accept before calling the police?