New grades are out

[Andrew Farthing]

I'd like to record my thanks and congratulations publicly to Michael and to everyone else who contributed for their fantastic work. The results are tremendous, and I'm delighted that they've been received so well.

Now if only we could add a feature so that individuals could add labels to points on their grading trend graph to explain away those depressing dips: e.g. "Moved house that year", "Pollen count really high all summer" or "I never play well in a leap year." Otherwise, people might mistakenly think it was the player's fault.

[Richard Haddrell]

As Tournament secretary at my club and in view of the planned monthly updates, when would be the best time to report anomalies found for games already submitted?

As soon as possible.

I check colours and results, but rarely bother checking dates. I did notice some information on colours missing. Is it worth sending that information in, and should it go direct or via the graders?

Don’t send colour information separately. It should go to the grader as an integral part of the event so he can put it in the submission he sends to the ECF, but if that doesn’t happen it isn’t worth spending time and trouble on it. It’s not as though it affected the grading.

[Roger de Coverly]

How I end up with a 192 grade which is perhaps 20 points above what it should be is a total mystery

The game count of 15 is derived from going back to the 2008-09 season and only retaining league and Kidlington Congress games from Dec 2008 onwards.

The calculation goes

2011 205+180+210 = 595 (50% score)
2010 169 (one draw)
2009 league 158+183+157+183+159+162+5*50 = 1252 ( December is included)
2009 Kidlington 152+164+155+175+169+1*50 = 865

So a grand total of 2881, divided by 15 gives 192.

In 2009, the last 6 games in the league were at 209, counterbalancing Kidlington at 173.

The remaining 11 2009 games will disappear in July 2012, so you would need to have played 5 more games between now and then to retain a grade, which would only be based on 9 games.

[Alex Holowczak]

The problem as I see it is this. My performance last year was inconsistent, I did well in my club and badly outside. Using the current dating system my club games have been virtually ignored.

So this means that despite me performing at an average of 147 through 30 games I have had 15 games at an average of 135 bought forward. Now, I could change this so my club games are counted when the club season ended, which is the end of may. This dating system would involve 14 games at a 164 being bought forward instead.

This won't correct my grade it will merely make it wrong in the other direction. For one simple reason, last season I didn't play at 135, nor did I play at 164. I played at 147, and until that is recognised my grading is potluck based on dates.

The solution to this problem isn't the date of the game per se, it's not putting each game with its associated date. The problem is caused by having 15 games tied to the same day!

[John Foley]

A tremendous advance.
What would be nice, and I notice Paul McKeown also mentioned it, is to have some indication what the grades mean in relative terms e.g. where is the player in the overall list expressed as a decile.
I would have hesitated to suggest this, but I notice that the suggestion to colour-code the game results was implemented rapidly.
Expressing grades in relative terms may be easier to grasp in a world of fluctuating grades.

[Dreaming now] The next step is to link the games results to a pgn database e.g. 4NCL.

[John Upham]

[Dreaming now] The next step is to link the games results to a pgn database e.g. 4NCL.

I am on the way to doing this for the leagues I manage.

John

[John Foley]

[Dreaming now] The next step is to link the games results to a pgn database e.g. 4NCL.

I am on the way to doing this for the leagues I manage.

John

John, are you the man of my dreams?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I check colours and results, but rarely bother checking dates. I did notice some information on colours missing. Is it worth sending that information in, and should it go direct or via the graders?

Don’t send colour information separately. It should go to the grader as an integral part of the event so he can put it in the submission he sends to the ECF, but if that doesn’t happen it isn’t worth spending time and trouble on it. It’s not as though it affected the grading.

Fair enough. But what is the point of the colour information if it doesn't affect the grading? Dates, I can understand, as those affect the count-back, but why was colour information included if not to generates statistics, and what is the point of those stats if the colour information is incomplete. FIDE seem to try and have complete colour information. Maybe a starting point is to ask how incomplete colour information is? What percentage of results are missing colour information?

[Alex Holowczak]

Fair enough. But what is the point of the colour information if it doesn't affect the grading? Dates, I can understand, as those affect the count-back, but why was colour information included if not to generates statistics, and what is the point of those stats if the colour information is incomplete. FIDE seem to try and have complete colour information. Maybe a starting point is to ask how incomplete colour information is? What percentage of results are missing colour information?

FIDE insist on submitting a player's sex and birthdate, and the correct dates and colours for their games. They even require PGNs for norm events. None of these things are required by the ECF, but it is my opinion that they should be.

If the ECF attempted to insist on this, there would be a series of threatened revolts from graders, amidst cries that their workload is heavy enough as it is. That's something that, if it were my decision to make, I'd be prepared to gamble on.

We should probably thank whoever decided Bundles was a gross misuse of technology, and decided to put a proper system in place. Without that foresight, we wouldn't even be getting this much information. We'd just see '6 games, 764 points' everywhere. Look at people's results pre-1999 (or so) to see what I mean by that.

[Paul Cooksey]

FIDE insist on submitting a player's sex and birthdate, and the correct dates and colours for their games. They even require PGNs for norm events. None of these things are required by the ECF, but it is my opinion that they should be.

If the ECF attempted to insist on this, there would be a series of threatened revolts from graders, amidst cries that their workload is heavy enough as it is. That's something that, if it were my decision to make, I'd be prepared to gamble on.

Would the extra information benefit anyone? I assumed that FIDE did it to prevent fraud, which has been an issue in international events. But I am not aware of any similar domestic issue.

[Alex Holowczak]

FIDE insist on submitting a player's sex and birthdate, and the correct dates and colours for their games. They even require PGNs for norm events. None of these things are required by the ECF, but it is my opinion that they should be.

If the ECF attempted to insist on this, there would be a series of threatened revolts from graders, amidst cries that their workload is heavy enough as it is. That's something that, if it were my decision to make, I'd be prepared to gamble on.

Would the extra information benefit anyone? I assumed that FIDE did it to prevent fraud, which has been an issue in international events. But I am not aware of any similar domestic issue.

I don't think that's the point. I think if we were starting a domestic grading list from scratch, nobody would ever say that these things were optional in the first place.

I think that omitting these things looks incredibly amateur, and I say that as a grader who is guilty of the above crimes.

However, I am resolving to fix the error of my ways. Starting with getting dates of birth for the Uni players at BUCA's High Wycombe event.

[Paul Cooksey]

I don't think that's the point. I think if we were starting a domestic grading list from scratch, nobody would ever say that these things were optional in the first place.

I might. PGNs particularly seem like a lot of expense and dull work for minimal benefit. Why make people do it?

[Alex Holowczak]

I don't think that's the point. I think if we were starting a domestic grading list from scratch, nobody would ever say that these things were optional in the first place.

I might. PGNs particularly seem like a lot of expense and dull work for minimal benefit. Why make people do it?

I only said for norm events. It's to verify that the games played were genuine, I suspect.

I'd be quite happy for PGNs to be optional, so perhaps exclude that from my above comment. But everything else should be a pre-requisite, in my opinion.

[Richard Bates]

Colour information is utterly irrelevant to the calculation of grading. Making something a pre-requisite that is irrelevant, just to satisfy the needs of statistical junkies, is hardly likely to improve relations with graders who are, after all, volunteers. Even if for the vast majority of games no extra work would be required, that still leaves the small number of cases where it would be. Dates are different since they are now integral to the workings of the system.

[John McKenna]

Every player's grade/rating could be said to be grey as it combines two grades/ratings - one with white and one with black.