Grading order in League Chess

[Nigel Wright]

Does anybody belong to a league which enforces strict grading order in league chess? And does it work?

Also, in people's opinions, which is better - a grading order or no grading order? I can understand if 2 people with grades of 64 and 67 don't play in grading order, but if a 44 plays higher than a 125, surely something odd is going on there. What would the boundaries be for deciding which order (if any) similarly graded players would play in?

thanks

[Greg Breed]

It depends on the League rules.
In the League I control things are fairly relaxed and grading order is generally followed. Common sense always applies and captains can discuss things before the match starts.

Such a large grading gap that you suggested would not be allowed, but I would probably allow something up to 10 or 15 points if the captain said that player's performance was higher than their rating suggested (usually kids, but not always!). Again, common sense dictates and captains should agree beforehand - always!

Grading orders are there for a reason - they are representative of player strength, therefore they should play in order of player strength not to gain game points unfairly by playing out of order.

A team that is out-graded on every board would expect to lose the match (or at best, tie). 'Fudging' the player order would allow an unrepresentative result to ensue. This is seen as unfair by most people and is frowned upon hence the rule for playing in grading order.

[Gavin Strachan]

The Essex and I think North Essex Leagues impose an order though if the gradings are fairly close together then a certain amount of flexibility can be applied. Also the Essex League has a rule that club champions can be placed higher. Sometimes players are playing well/badly and so they move around a little. In one match we played this season for Brentwood, I was accidentally put down a board though the difference between myself and the player I was swapped with is only one point! I know of several players in the past who do not like to be put on a lower board and get quite stroppy when it occurs by mistake.

[Greg Breed]

In any case it's the captain's decision and therefore his/her responsibility.

[Nigel Wright]

What would happen if the two captains disagree on what is fair? A fist fight springs to mind, but postponing the match and getting an adjudicator to make a final decision seems more appropriate...

[Greg Breed]

If they disagree then they would have to play in grade order. Postponing the match is not an option for something as trivial as this.

[William Metcalfe]

1 of the leagues i play in has a 10 grading point rule which i like as it gives the captains some flexability especially if all the teams grades are fairly close together
example reg board 1 is graded 100 and the next 4 players are 98 96 95 92 the captain could play the players in any board order depending on how a player has been playing /how he feels on the night /ect

[IM Jack Rudd]

The 4NCL has the 80-point rule, which works in the same way as the 10-point rule just mentioned.

[Charles W. Wood]

Bradford running playing strength order system with no guidance. We did have a situation once where the highest graded player turn up ill with flu, so we lowered him down the team order, he was 140 and he lost to a 50 grade. We where asked about the team order but the opposing team captain had agreed the board move and vouched for the situation to be upheld. I quite like that system.

[Greg Breed]

You see... that's when common sense prevails and the captains come to an agreement.
The way it should be.

[Charles W. Wood]

You see... that's when common sense prevails and the captains come to an agreement.
The way it should be.

I truly believe that the more rules go in the more you work them. I'm suggesting no rules, but sometimes we don't trust people enough. If both captains agree I can't see any problem.

But remember; in my world bees don't have stings and drogons still fly.

[Tim Spanton]

When I played in the Doncaster & District League some 30 years ago, there was a fairly stricty rule on playing strength. If a captain wanted to play players out of grading order, he - it was always a he - had to give a good explanation to the opposing captain. One captain, however, had his own scheme: each season he started the team in grading order and moved players up or down strictly according to results, eg if board 4 won and board 3 only drew, board 4 played above board 3 in the next match. His team got pretty askewed grading-wise very quickly, but other captains accepted it - some grdugingly - because they knew the chap followed his scheme to the letter without exceptions.

[Greg Breed]

His team got pretty askewed grading-wise very quickly.

By "quickly" I assume you mean over a number of seasons, as currently, grades are only updated once a year!
Doesn't sound too quick to me...

[Tim Spanton]

I think you've misunderstood what I was saying, or trying to say.
Here's a hypotehtical example:
Match One Board Order
1. Smith 159
2. Jones 155
3. Roberston 153
4. Rogers 145
5. Mills 120

Now supposing Smith drew, Jones won, Roberston drew, Rogers lost, Mills won, then the new board order would be:
Match Two Board Order
1. Jones 155
2. Smith 159
3. Roberston 153
4. Mills 120
5. Rogers 145

Supposing this time Jones drew, Smith drew, Roberston drew, Mills won, Rogers won, then:
Match Three Board Order
1. Jones 155
2. Smith 159
3. Mills 120
4. Robertson 153
5. Rogers 145
etc, etc

[Greg Breed]

I see. I get your point.

I actually produce a "Performance" table for my club showing how each player did this season in the League and Knock-out tournaments. It's a fairly accurate way of predicting rating change for next season, but it uses their opponents grades as well, not just the result.

your hypotehtical example:
Match One Board Order
1. Smith 159
2. Jones 155
3. Roberston 153
4. Rogers 145
5. Mills 120

Now supposing Smith drew, Jones won, Roberston drew, Rogers lost, Mills won

But what if Smith drew against a 160, Jones won against a 150, Robertson drew with a 149, Rogers lost to a 148 and Mills won against a 90? Despite their results I wouldn't change the board order because they performed roughly as expected.

If someone is "on-fire" then I will consider moving them up, just as if someone was having a bad time I'd consider moving them down, but I certainly wouldn't do it every time based on the last result. that would cause a ruckus!