Publishing ratings every month

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger - some already suggest that having new grades mid-season would be "confusing". I can't imagine that they would find two grades simultaneously to be simpler!

The FIDE approach doesn't seem to confuse people - publish last grade and "expected" change ( which is calculated as new grade minus old grade in the ECF context)

[Alex Holowczak]

If we're going to do this, can we change to Elo too please? It may be just as flawed statistically, but at least you get more instant feedback.

[Roger de Coverly]

If we're going to do this, can we change to Elo too please? It may be just as flawed statistically, but at least you get more instant feedback.

If the ECF ever did change to an Elo approach it should base it on frequent updates to the calculation base (like FIDE). For all the online wonders of the Scottish system, they have to introduce dodges and fixes to cope with improving players because they stuck with the annual league season orientated update of the calculation base.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Every player would then have two grades which would represent performance last season and performance so far this season.

Players who really want this tend to keep track of their own performance during a season anyway. This service would be best provided to those who want to track their 'live' performance, but don't know how to (mainly new players and juniors). And possibly the best people to provide that service would be the local club they are a member of, or other chess players that can explain how to do this. Does the ECF grading website include a page on how to calculate your grading performance during a season?

[Sean Hewitt]

Roger - some already suggest that having new grades mid-season would be "confusing". I can't imagine that they would find two grades simultaneously to be simpler!

The FIDE approach doesn't seem to confuse people - publish last grade and "expected" change ( which is calculated as new grade minus old grade in the ECF context)

That's true, but nobody uses the "expected" change for anything.

If more frequent lists were published, it would allow congresses like ours to put people into appropriate sections which would be a good thing. I also believe that more frequent lists would encourage new players to get a grade more quickly and existing players to play more.

[Roger de Coverly]

This service would be best provided to those who want to track their 'live' performance, but don't know how to (mainly new players and juniors). And possibly the best people to provide that service would be the local club they are a member of, or other chess players that can explain how to do this. Does the ECF grading website include a page on how to calculate your grading performance during a season?

It's no more difficult than ( sum (opponents grades ) + 50 * (wins - losses) ) / number of games for the current season. Average in the previous season(s) if less than 30 games to get what will be published.

I thought everyone knew that.

The issue now is that it was always a problem if you played a new player because you would have to guess their grade (even the ECF don't know until the end of the season). It's made doubly worse because you don't know the grades of juniors even when you can look them up on the grading website. That's because the ECF also treat them as new players.

[Ben Hague]

What about a rolling grade based on the performance over the previous 12 months, updated monthly? That would seem to remove problems with too few games being played each month to give a reliable grade based on that month. It also means that it doesn't much matter when results come in as late results will still affect the player's grade.

[Alex Holowczak]

What about a rolling grade based on the performance over the previous 12 months, updated monthly? That would seem to remove problems with too few games being played each month to give a reliable grade based on that month. It also means that it doesn't much matter when results come in as late results will still affect the player's grade.

This would be the fairest way of doing a monthly grading list.

[Sean Hewitt]

What about a rolling grade based on the performance over the previous 12 months, updated monthly? That would seem to remove problems with too few games being played each month to give a reliable grade based on that month. It also means that it doesn't much matter when results come in as late results will still affect the player's grade.

I had thought of something similar - rolling 12 months / last 30 games (which ever is larger) - produced quarterly. I'm guessing you wouldn't get to monthly from yearly in one go.

But I think we're on the same wavelength.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I thought everyone knew that.

I specifically mentioned new players and juniors as people that might not know how to calculate grading changes, but who might want to be able to track their performance.

I didn't know that the grading system now treats juniors as new players. Is this specifically covered somewhere I can read about it in more detail (how and why it was done)?

[Roger de Coverly]

I didn't know that the grading system now treats juniors as new players. Is this specifically covered somewhere I can read about it in more detail (how and why it was done)?

There's plenty of it here on this forum.

To find it you could check posts by Howard Grist and subsequent comments.