Hasn't that always been the case ?Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:56 pmBecause ratings, particularly junior ratings, are widely perceived as a lottery, and organisers/arbiters are very conscious to try to avert complaints about significantly under-rated players hoovering up all the prizes.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:47 pmWhy has normal practice changed since I was involved in FIDE events, that's my question ?Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:45 pm
Which means the same thing, below 2000 FIDE and below 2000 ECF.
Too much dishonesty in chess
-
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
- Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.
...and by the way the world is flat.
-
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
- Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
I remember Robert Willmoth winning loads of Minors in the early 1980s, he could not be banned because his grade at the time was 112.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:57 pmHasn't that always been the case ?Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:56 pmBecause ratings, particularly junior ratings, are widely perceived as a lottery, and organisers/arbiters are very conscious to try to avert complaints about significantly under-rated players hoovering up all the prizes.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:47 pm
Why has normal practice changed since I was involved in FIDE events, that's my question ?
At least nowadays juniors ratings change more often.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.
...and by the way the world is flat.
-
- Posts: 3340
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
What's your point? Under-rated juniors may have always been a problem. But the option of taking the higher of available ratings wasn't historically available. And even here you are complaining that for one particular junior the lower rating should be treated as more 'accurate'.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:00 pmI remember Robert Willmoth winning loads of Minors in the early 1980s, he could not be banned because his grade at the time was 112.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:57 pmHasn't that always been the case ?Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:56 pm
Because ratings, particularly junior ratings, are widely perceived as a lottery, and organisers/arbiters are very conscious to try to avert complaints about significantly under-rated players hoovering up all the prizes.
At least nowadays juniors ratings change more often.
But anyway, as others have pointed out, nothing in this confusing thread has anything to do with "dishonesty".
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
As far as FIDE ratimgs were concerned, rather less so when it was necessary to achieve a playing standard of 2200, 2000 or 1800 to obtain a rating in the first place.Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:11 pm[Under-rated juniors may have always been a problem.
-
- Posts: 3214
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
A lot of these problems would go away if the ECF stopped using its own rating system, which no one else uses, and adopted FIDE ratings like everyone else does. There's no valid reason for the ECF to keep doing what they are doing, its just stubbornness. This should have been fixed decades ago.
-
- Posts: 3340
- Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
No valid reason? How about a large majority of games played in England being ineligible for FIDE rating? To say it should have been fixed “decades” ago is even more ridiculous when one considers that decades ago it wasn’t just games that were ineligible but the large majority of players.MJMcCready wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 3:18 amA lot of these problems would go away if the ECF stopped using its own rating system, which no one else uses, and adopted FIDE ratings like everyone else does. There's no valid reason for the ECF to keep doing what they are doing, its just stubbornness. This should have been fixed decades ago.
However I agree the case is arguably less strong these days now the ECF has chosen to destroy its own system which was specifically designed and developed to be appropriate for English chess, in favour of its own random number generator, which undermines any case for superiority/additional “accuracy”. And one which, by mirroring directly the FIDE approach (in format and frequency), also creates additional and largely unanswerable confusion about comparability. Maybe, to be conspiratorial, that was always the intention.
-
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
- Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
My point is you can't stop players from improving, surely you accept that ?Richard Bates wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:11 pmWhat's your point? Under-rated juniors may have always been a problem. But the option of taking the higher of available ratings wasn't historically available. And even here you are complaining that for one particular junior the lower rating should be treated as more 'accurate'.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:00 pmI remember Robert Willmoth winning loads of Minors in the early 1980s, he could not be banned because his grade at the time was 112.
At least nowadays juniors ratings change more often.
But anyway, as others have pointed out, nothing in this confusing thread has anything to do with "dishonesty".
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.
...and by the way the world is flat.
-
- Posts: 331
- Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:04 pm
- Location: Sutton, Surrey
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
Guildford FIDE Congress 2023 should have been advertised as Guildford Chess Congress and would probably have received less entries.
Any postings on here represent the truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,
...and by the way the world is flat.
...and by the way the world is flat.
-
- Posts: 7234
- Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
- Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
fewer entries
(entries is a plural quantity)
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess
-
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:14 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
First, apologies in case my comments were perceived in any way as insulting. They were meant as good hearted suggestions and potential explanations.
Now, without taking sides in this argument, I thought I could add some facts to the debate.
By taking the most recent databases from FIDE and ECF, keeping only ENG players that have BOTH a FIDE standard and a ECF Standard rating, it shows that:
Table showing U20 vs O20 and overall average and #
Table showing gap by Age and ECF bands
I need to work, so I'll expand maybe later
Now, without taking sides in this argument, I thought I could add some facts to the debate.
By taking the most recent databases from FIDE and ECF, keeping only ENG players that have BOTH a FIDE standard and a ECF Standard rating, it shows that:
- The current average ECF to FIDE gap stands at around 94 points (ECF being the higher one). This is broadly compatibly with the statement that they are 100 points off. From that perspective alone, there is little justification not to use either list alone rather than a blend
- However, looking at age groups show that adults have a gap of only 70, while U20s have a gap of 191 points (!!) This is a 121 point average differential
- This means that if an adult plays a junior of equal ECF strength, on average: they will have their ECF grade unchanged, will lose on average 3.2 points and the junior will win 6.4 points
- Delving into more detail and the 1600-2000 ECF category which has most players and where paring quality is quite important (if you ignore norm seekers), the gap is significantly wider: adults still show a 75 gap, but juniors now show a 231 gap!
Table showing U20 vs O20 and overall average and #
Table showing gap by Age and ECF bands
I need to work, so I'll expand maybe later
-
- Posts: 1026
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
To answer Paul's question as to why this was done, I recall it first arose when the organisers of the British Championships decided to make (most?) of the rated sections FIDE rated and made eligibility as well as pairings based on FIDE ratings rather than ECF grades. Many players protested about this because it facilitated the type of sandbagging described above and they changed the system to the maximum(FIDE,ECF) one.
Signed ECF (joint) U125 champion, Swansea, 2006. Current ratings: FIDE 1606, ECF 1591 (daily revised 1609) - I spend a lot of time trying to achieve the same ECF and FIDE ratings as I think it's much neater that way.
Signed ECF (joint) U125 champion, Swansea, 2006. Current ratings: FIDE 1606, ECF 1591 (daily revised 1609) - I spend a lot of time trying to achieve the same ECF and FIDE ratings as I think it's much neater that way.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
Junior ratings have been a shambles everywhere since the lockdowns, for reasons which are easy to understand, so let's look at the adults.Wadih Khoury wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:02 amThe current average ECF to FIDE gap stands at around 94 points (ECF being the higher one).
However, looking at age groups show that adults have a gap of only 70
My understanding is that when the ECF's four digit system was set running, the new ratings were supposed to be on average in line with FIDE ratings. How have they drifted apart so far so quickly? I'm not criticising anyone, because we are in largely uncharted waters, but I find it difficult to consider how a perceived problem might be fixed ( particularly one which theoretically cannot happen ) before understanding how it has come to exist.
By the way, FIDE is now carrying out a comprehensive investigation into how its own rating system has performed over the past decade, and particularly over the lockdown and post-lockdown periods. I expect this to produce results which will be of value to those federations which are interested.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
I don't think that's really the case. They were converted using the formula 7.5* ECF + 700. That was correct by least squares fitting to adults when first devised but had already become out of date by 2019. Differences can just get wider. My opponents at Harrogate in January had both ECF and FIDE ratings. Although only scoring 2/5 in the Open, I gained ECF points, but lost FIDE ones. My opponents were mostly university age players rather than juniors, but had ECF ratings somewhat higher than their FIDE ones.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:01 am
My understanding is that when the ECF's four digit system was set running, the new ratings were supposed to be on average in line with FIDE ratings.
-
- Posts: 21322
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
In those days the Hastings move rate would have been 40 moves to 2 hours, 20 moves in the next hour and then 30 minutes to finish.Paul Dupré wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 9:02 pmOh dear, I forgot I changed my way of recording time on my scoresheets several year ago. So, I admit I got that wrong. We must have been using analogue clocks as the time showing is you 2hrs 20mins and me 1hr 38mins. I didn't record what we started with.
-
- Posts: 8475
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Too much dishonesty in chess
I wasn't sure of that, but if it really was the case that the old formula was out of date, would that not have been the ideal moment to update it?Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:08 amThey were converted using the formula 7.5* ECF + 700. That was correct by least squares fitting to adults when first devised but had already become out of date by 2019.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.