Gradings to be published, on the sidebar?

[JustinHorton]

I thought he did already. Leastways I've never heard him say any different.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Or maybe we could colour code the postings according to the grade of the posters. GMs could be all shimmery and gold with a trumpet sound when they post.

FMs could post their entire posts in Navy Blue. Oh wait, that already happens.

[Rob Thompson]

Reading this after midnight gave a new understanding to Colin's post.

[Alex Holowczak]

Earlier today, a match captain from Ealing, trying to manufacture a protest, to try to squeeze out an extra half-point, claimed that he knew very little about the rules of chess, the FIDE rules were wrong, and wanted to engage in long discussion. I looked up his grading, 150, lower than both teams involved, and equal to, or lower than, all other players involved. He had no arbiting understanding either. He wanted a long "chat" with various Harrow players. Can't be bothered. Better perhaps to send the emails to Alex.

I await the e-mails filling my inbox with baited breath...

[Brendan O'Gorman]

-- text omitted --

I await the e-mails filling my inbox with baited breath...

Sounds creepy - try bated

[harrylamb]

Can't be bothered.

Strange. You were bothered enough to write a post criticising the Ealing captain.

[Paolo Casaschi]

In Mamedjarov's two early losses, he was playing at perhaps about 180 strength. Surprise, surprise, a 180 player boldly claimed that Anand was playing absolutely brilliant chess, and has been sticking to his line right through to the end. A quick glance at the sidebar would suggest that his enthusiasm was misplaced.

Since you seem to repeatedly refer to my posts, could you please remind me where I qualified Anand's play as "absolutely brilliant"?

No replies to this one then?

[PeterFarr]

In Mamedjarov's two early losses, he was playing at perhaps about 180 strength. Surprise, surprise, a 180 player boldly claimed that Anand was playing absolutely brilliant chess, and has been sticking to his line right through to the end. A quick glance at the sidebar would suggest that his enthusiasm was misplaced.

Since you seem to repeatedly refer to my posts, could you please remind me where I qualified Anand's play as "absolutely brilliant"?

No replies to this one then?

Well that would be because you never said any such thing.

However you did say:

My prediction is for Kramnik to win the event and for Anand to be the surprise contestant for the win until the last game.

.. which was the closest anyone came to predicting Anand as the winner (Barry Sandercock had a pretty good effort with his prediction of Karjakin).

[Nick Thomas]

What's this all about then?

[Alex Holowczak]

-- text omitted --

I await the e-mails filling my inbox with baited breath...

Sounds creepy - try bated

I suppose I got my just desserts.



(Deliberate)

[Jonathan Rogers]

What's this all about then?

He must be referring to Colm Daly, who else?

[MSoszynski]

Do I really need to try to read a string of 1300 players, in the hope that something sensible will turn up? No, just flick through it, wait until there is someone rated over 2000, or preferably even stronger, and look closely at 2200+ players. It is useful to cut out the junk.

Colin,

1. Grades and ratings are a reflection of a person's playing strength and competitiveness under match conditions. Nothing more.
2. Most of the forum discussions aren't based around chess move analyses anyway. And when they are, computer engines can often provide some of the answers.
3. To judge the validity of an argument by a quality of the poster is logically fallacious.

It seems, Colin, that you are assuming a strong link between chess grades and some non-chess accomplishments. But are mere grades the proper measure of our written contributions?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"1. Grades and ratings are a reflection of a person's playing strength and competitiveness under match conditions. Nothing more."

Grades and ratings are a reflection of a person's results, not ability.

[MSoszynski]

"1. Grades and ratings are a reflection of a person's playing strength and competitiveness under match conditions. Nothing more."

Grades and ratings are a reflection of a person's results, not ability.

Is this a quibble?

[Geoff Chandler]

When I first saw this I thought it was another April Fool gag but the date is wrong and it's too long.

I know when a new poster appears there is a flurry of activity to find the posters grade
to see if he is worthy to make a comment. I remember reading on here once someone asking
a lad who was standing for a local chess office (a league sec?) how many chess books he had?

Who is going to keep updating the grades or are our names linked to the grading list?

Why stop at grades, how about qualifications, sexual persuasion and blood group.

Geoff Chandler, 1999, NM, GCE's, ZBE, VD (and scar), celebate, O-Negative.