Too much dishonesty in chess

[Paul Dupré]

Which means the same thing, below 2000 FIDE and below 2000 ECF.

Why has normal practice changed since I was involved in FIDE events, that's my question ?

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.

Hasn't that always been the case ?

[Paul Dupré]

Why has normal practice changed since I was involved in FIDE events, that's my question ?

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.

Hasn't that always been the case ?

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.

At least nowadays juniors ratings change more often.

[Richard Bates]

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.

Hasn't that always been the case ?

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.

At least nowadays juniors ratings change more often.

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'.

But anyway, as others have pointed out, nothing in this confusing thread has anything to do with "dishonesty".

[Roger de Coverly]

[Under-rated juniors may have always been a problem.

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.

[MJMcCready]

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.

[Richard Bates]

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.

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.

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.

[Paul Dupré]

Hasn't that always been the case ?

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.

At least nowadays juniors ratings change more often.

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'.

But anyway, as others have pointed out, nothing in this confusing thread has anything to do with "dishonesty".

My point is you can't stop players from improving, surely you accept that ?

[Paul Dupré]

Guildford FIDE Congress 2023 should have been advertised as Guildford Chess Congress and would probably have received less entries.

[John Upham]

and would probably have received less entries.

fewer entries

(entries is a plural quantity)

[Wadih Khoury]

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:

• 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

[Mike Gunn]

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.

[NickFaulks]

The 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

Junior ratings have been a shambles everywhere since the lockdowns, for reasons which are easy to understand, so let's look at the adults.

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.

[Roger de Coverly]

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.

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.

[Roger de Coverly]

Oh 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.

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.

[NickFaulks]

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.

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?