FIDE ratings and juniors

[Sean Hewitt]

His average performance is 194 accross 20 games, with just one of those games against a junior and only one game against a player for whom the 40 point rule would apply.

Can you help me out and explain explain

He hasn't played many graded games against other juniors, so it's the ECF's new player rules and junior add ons which will have boosted his grade over what an adult with comparable results would earn.

becasue I don't understand your conclusion.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I'm assuming he just didn't know anything about these positions, either directly or indirectly via the Grunfeld where playing e3 and then b3 is asking for trouble.

Well, you will get many players in the 160-180 grading bracket whose knowledge of openings is deficient. That your knowledge is well-rounded probably means your grade should be higher, rather than his lower.

[Roger de Coverly]

Here are his results since Christmas (excluding local league and 4NCL, not yet graded)

Take a look at the drivers of the 177 grade in July 2012 and January 2013. They are a massive score in the Stockport league. An adult with say an established 140 grade would not have got as high a score from that performance by virtue of being unable to exploit the 40 point rule. It was also noticeable that his results against 180+ players in e2e4 events in 2012 had not been that great.

So the opening choice was a deliberate attempt to treat the grade as misleading as to strength and exploit the inexperience, basing this on previous poor results against 180 plus players.

As a general rule of thumb preparing for juniors and assessing the standard of player you might be meeting, the FIDE rating is likely to be too low and the ECF grade too high. But it's necessary to see where the ECF grade is coming from. If they have played in top level events with decent results against adult 160 plus opposition, high grades can be regarded as reasonably reliable. Whether you regard a draw as a acceptable result, can affect the choice of opening moves and also whether to accept offers or acquiesce in a repetition.

[Roger de Coverly]

becasue I don't understand your conclusion.

What has happened subsequently isn't relevant. If you look at the grades for January 2013 and July 2012, you see a long list of Stockport League games, nearly all of which were wins. A number of these were against players graded 40 points below 177 (or even 40 points below 167) so a number of the wins were boosted by the 40 point rule.

In the Stockport league, the 13 games played as part of the July 2012 grade had an impressive won 11 drawn 1 lost 1 tally.

Without the effect of a 40 point rule
138 143 169 139 143 100 146 114 106 137 127 144 165
giving a 175 performance for that league

With the 40 point rule assuming 137 as the cut off
138 143 169 139 143 137 146 137 137 137 137 144 165 giving a 182 performance.

If 127 is the cut then
138 143 169 139 143 127 146 127 127 137 127 144 165 giving 179.

It's well known that the 40 point rule protects the grades of players much higher graded than their opponents and that is its purpose. Treating Juniors as new players now enables them to benefit as well if they can run up a high score so as to trigger a high relative grade in the estimation process. Improving adults, by contrast, can be held back as they always have been.

[Richard Bates]

Re: FIDE rating weekenders. It depends if a tournament aspires to attract "strong" players. Because many will simply steer clear of FIDE rated weekenders unless there are serious compensating factors. They are generally rating killers, both because of the seriously under-rated nature of much of the opposition, as well as the necessary rapid time controls and lack of preparation time which are inevitable 'levellers'.

Sean acknowledges this by offering a minimum of free entry to IMs, and conditions to GMs. Many weekenders i imagine would not be prepared to do this (as well as pay the extra fees and change the playing conditions etc to meet FIDE requirements).

[Sean Hewitt]

Re: FIDE rating weekenders. It depends if a tournament aspires to attract "strong" players. Because many will simply steer clear of FIDE rated weekenders unless there are serious compensating factors. They are generally rating killers, both because of the seriously under-rated nature of much of the opposition, as well as the necessary rapid time controls and lack of preparation time which are inevitable 'levellers'.

Sean acknowledges this by offering a minimum of free entry to IMs, and conditions to GMs. Many weekenders i imagine would not be prepared to do this (as well as pay the extra fees and change the playing conditions etc to meet FIDE requirements).

I've always thought that e2e4 weekenders are stronger than the average weekender because they are FIDE rated, rather than despite it. Am I wrong?

[Richard Bates]

Re: FIDE rating weekenders. It depends if a tournament aspires to attract "strong" players. Because many will simply steer clear of FIDE rated weekenders unless there are serious compensating factors. They are generally rating killers, both because of the seriously under-rated nature of much of the opposition, as well as the necessary rapid time controls and lack of preparation time which are inevitable 'levellers'.

Sean acknowledges this by offering a minimum of free entry to IMs, and conditions to GMs. Many weekenders i imagine would not be prepared to do this (as well as pay the extra fees and change the playing conditions etc to meet FIDE requirements).

I've always thought that e2e4 weekenders are stronger than the average weekender because they are FIDE rated, rather than despite it. Am I wrong?

I would suspect so, but i could be wrong. From a personal perspective it is certainly the main reason i hardly play in any of them, although i do have a bit of an extremist view on what games should be FIDE rated (I don't like the time control one bit). Of course players will have different motives, but, anecdotally, i haven't personally heard any of your regular titled players cite FIDE rating as an advantage. And several ruefully describe them as "rating killers". I would think that the main reason you get GMs to play is because you offer them financial conditions. The playing conditions and professional nature of the organisation will also be a significant factor. For the next levels of strength the attraction will be the presence of the GMs (and by extension IMs), and the playing conditions. Of course the negatives of FIDE rating for the stronger, and especially professional, players will turn into positives as you move down the field. Naturally for anyone who is seriously under-rated and looking to move up (one of the main themes of this thread) will find the FIDE rating a major attraction.

One only has to look at the success of some of the Irish weekenders, which combine financial and good playing conditions with non-FIDE rating to see that strong weekenders do not have to be synonymous with FIDE rating, indeed can thrive in its absence.

[Peter D Williams]

Sean acknowledges this by offering a minimum of free entry to IMs, and conditions to GMs. Many weekenders i imagine would not be prepared to do this (as well as pay the extra fees and change the playing conditions etc to meet FIDE requirements).

Would free entry really encourage an IM to enter a chess event? Its not likely to break the bank to enter a chess event.I would have thought offers of accommodation or help with this is more likely to get an IM to enter.

I must look up your grade and see what progress you made.

[Roger de Coverly]

Would free entry really encourage an IM to enter a chess event?

There are various levels of incentive offered to titled players.

The lowest of these is free entry.
Next is free entry plus a payment towards accommodation costs
Then Free entry plus paid for accommodation, then free entry plus accommodation plus meals plus fee etc.

Different events will have differing balances between benefits in kind, usually referred to as conditions, and prize money.

[Peter D Williams]

Would free entry really encourage an IM to enter a chess event?

There are various levels of incentive offered to titled players.

The lowest of these is free entry.
Next is free entry plus a payment towards accommodation costs
Then Free entry plus paid for accommodation, then free entry plus accommodation plus meals plus fee etc.

Different events will have differing balances between benefits in kind, usually referred to as conditions, and prize money.

Thanks for answer. So IM could get offer of help towards accommodation which in my view is more likely to get them to enter.Just free entry to an event would not be enough unless IM could travel to it

[Roger de Coverly]

.Just free entry to an event would not be enough unless IM could travel to it

If they are one of the top seeds, they've got a better shot at the prize money than non-titled players.

For week-enders with no Norms at stake, there's no actual chess reason for not treating all players equally, but there's a valid argument that it enhances the status of the tournament to have a few top players taking part.

[Adam Raoof]

Sean acknowledges this by offering a minimum of free entry to IMs, and conditions to GMs. Many weekenders i imagine would not be prepared to do this (as well as pay the extra fees and change the playing conditions etc to meet FIDE requirements).

Would free entry really encourage an IM to enter a chess event? Its not likely to break the bank to enter a chess event.I would have thought offers of accommodation or help with this is more likely to get an IM to enter.

I must look up your grade and see what progress you made.

The Kings Place chess festival rapidplay on June 15th (£1000 top prize in the Open) is free to IMs and GMs... plenty of interest there

http://www.kingsplace.co.uk/chess

[Alex McFarlane]

My experience is that there is a difference between rapidplay events and weekend congresses in terms of what attracts players.

Two Scottish Congresses tried FIDE rating their top event and dropped the idea quite quickly due to player resistance. Put simply, the better players were not willing to risk rating points, especially when Olympiad selection could be influenced by it. Only Edinburgh continues to be FIDE rated.

A few years ago Scarborough did a survey of those playing in the Open. There was a significant vote against moving to FIDE rating.

Players don't seem to take Rapidplay or Blitz ratings as seriously and are therefore more willing to participate in what are regarded more as fun events.

[Paul Sanders]

Put simply, the better players were not willing to risk rating points, especially when Olympiad selection could be influenced by it.

Over the short term one can understand and sympathise with this viewpoint. Over the long term it is a disincentive to improve for challengers, and is likely to lock in mediocrity as improving players will take much longer to prove their superiority over incumbents.

I would really question whether organisers should protect their own short term interests by not rating tournaments or sections. It seems to me that more opportunities to challenge would encourage greater participation over the medium to long term, and thus benefit organisers.

[Richard Bates]

Sean acknowledges this by offering a minimum of free entry to IMs, and conditions to GMs. Many weekenders i imagine would not be prepared to do this (as well as pay the extra fees and change the playing conditions etc to meet FIDE requirements).

Would free entry really encourage an IM to enter a chess event? Its not likely to break the bank to enter a chess event.I would have thought offers of accommodation or help with this is more likely to get an IM to enter.

Actually free entry is an encouragement. It's not the monetary value involved but the recognition from the organiser that he values your participation (and that of stronger players in general). People like it when they are accorded a status. Although i did accidentally pay the entry fee for the only e2e4 tournament i've played in...!

I must look up your grade and see what progress you made.

Going up at the moment Taking advantage of the inflation unleashed into the system by all the recent changes