Grading Cheat or Patzer?

[JustinHorton]

There's a massive difference between someone sitting at home costing them nothing to watch their computer win a game for them compared to traveling around the country, possibly taking time off work, paying to enter, travel, accommodation etc

No, not really, that's just making it about money again. But it's not about money. When we say things aren't about money, we don't mean they're about profits equalling losses, we mean we're not really thinking about money at all. If chess is your hobby, it might cost you a lot of money. And if cheating at chess is your hobby, so might that.

[Jonathan Bryant]

I’m still young enough that I want to improve as much as possible, but I guess when you get into the 45-50+ age area, most know their game isn’t going to get a lot better and just want to stay where they are and enjoy Chess.

My feeling is that you’re right on the money here. We get to the point where we’re not going to improve much if at all. We might or might not admit that to ourselves but deep down we know it. Do we want to spend the rest of our lives at the bottom of one section or the top of the next? Some of us will make a choice that the easy more pleasant life is what they’re after.

[Roger de Coverly]

Do we want to spend the rest of our lives at the bottom of one section or the top of the next?

Grading limits in English tournaments aren't standardised, so it is possible to mix and match.

Tournament organisers have measures in place to restrict the winnings of ungraded players and the ECF would refuse to grade a self selected event. The question now raised is as to whether tournament organisers should strengthen eligibility rules to not just look at current grades, but historic ones as well. If so the ECF could publish an official limit, so there was ease of access to it. You could get elements of rough justice though. In a first season, someone gets a grade of E151, which then settles to A129. should you let them in an under 130, or insist they aren't even eligible for the U150 and must play in the U170?

[J T Melsom]

Yes the grading limits in congresses are variable. But for some players straddling that boundary, the choice of local tournaments would look more/less attractive from one year to the next. And the same goes for county chess. For many resident in a Chiltern League county a 149 grade would allow you 12 games a year, 151 only 6. It wouldn't tempt me to manipulate my grade, but a couple of grading points difference would impact the amount of chess played.

[Ian Kingston]

A development:

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/grand-pr ... er-update/

[Mick Norris]

Did anyone keep a copy of the original, rather than edited, posting of the announcement (or am I hallucinating?)

[Christopher Kreuzer]

You are not hallucinating, I saw the longer version as well. Don't have a copy of it.

[Ian Kingston]

I saw the long version too. Wishing I'd kept the tab open now.

[JustinHorton]

Me too

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Well, if you saw it Justin, then it doesn't really matter if no-one else did... (*)
Here's hoping that all ends well.

(For everyone involved, obviously!)

(*) - Though on reflection, you might have been wishing someone else kept a tab open or that you kept it open. Could be read either way. And on even further reflection, I've probably now said too much!

[Mick Norris]

Pity someone at the ECF posted it in the first place, but top marks to whoever realised it needed editing and got it done quickly

Thank you to the kind person who has now sent me a copy of the original posting

[Nick Burrows]

Me, me!!

[Mick Norris]

The ECF website now links to the full statement from Mr Crockett for those interested

You should also read his comment on the S&B blog if you haven't already seen it (assuming that's from the real Mr Crockett)

[Nick Grey]

Excellent S&B blog. Good that the ECF website shows a link.
Must admit in looking through the Grand Prix came across The Best Performance Grand Prix prizes. Something that our clubs/leagues/Counties have not advertised.

On my own grading collapse I'm clear that I am playing a lot wider range of opponents, more volatile in moves within a game, more unpredictable, & more enjoyable even though I lose far more games than previously. Illness maybe, more stress at work or in travelling before a game yes. More senior moments yes.

I'd rather be called a patzer than a cheat (grading or otherwise).

[Martin Regan]

I am quite amused that the resignation of a chess volunteer, hounded out of his role by a tidal wave of innuendo, nudge-nudge suggestions and the plain accusation of cheating should lead the members of this board only to speak about the "the two letters" Who cares?

This was a textbook example of social media bullying. The FACTS of the matter were that Mr Crockett's chess results were unusual. The FACTS of the matter are that Mr Horton sought to prove that they were deliberatly designed to give Mr Crockett an advantage. This link is crucial. All the rest is wind and bluster.

The author had, it appears, decided on the guilt and then went out of his way to prove it. He didn't. Far from it. All he proved was that the results were unusual. But we knew that anyway.

Calculating probabilty is based on the assumption that the improbable can happen. Someone wins the lottery, week in week out, and woud continue to do so even if triple the number of people entered. Someone gets struck by lightning. Mr Crockett's results were unusual. The point being?

In the scale of things it is hardly important. But for one man, now, it is.