Grading Lists: Twice a Year?

[Roger de Coverly]

There are various ways of looking at this..
Lets say you were to grade twice a year..the second set appearing in late Jan.
Its only really relevant to players who play a good number of games, Id have thought...and then mainly to tournament players, Juniors, and those aspiring to higher gradings. That might well represent less than 10% of players.

Congresses you might suppose would use the most recent gradings for seeded pairings but would give a lead time for eligibility. So an end-Jan list might be first applied to eligibilities in Easter events. Grading prizes might present a problem if you use one set of grades for seeded pairings and a different set for prizes.

Leagues would presumably stick with team eligibility being based on the list at the start of the event but allow board orders to change with the most recent grade. This might have potential for disruption for players moving from one team to another.

If you are going to publish a player's recent performances (as done by Fide amongst others), then you may as well accelerate the frequency with which you take a new cut of the baseline published grade for calculations not least because it helps remove the hacks and fudges you otherwise need to cope with players whose current form is way different from their previous published grade. There will be issues for leagues and congresses to resolve of course.

[Adam Raoof]

Attached is the guide Richard Haddrell supplies graders, which details the format of the Excel spreadsheet that he requires. I am also attaching the Excel template.

I have volunteered to grade our internal events at Hendon Chess Club, so that I actually know what's involved in the grading process and can have a more informed opinion.

There's a load of extraneous data being asked for - which must make the submission process more complex. For example for an established player you should only need the event PIN and the ECF grading code - date of birth, club etc. will already be known. Event pin isn't really necessary as long as every player has a grading code.

I doubt if there's appetite for tampering with a (presumably) working system - but some streamlining would be desirable for faster submission.

Having been through the cycle once now, most of this is optional. If it isn't, you can paste it easily. I do agree that things could be streamlined, and possibly automated, but this seems simple enough - for a small event.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I would however like to see more junior players graded, and maybe have a separate list for such players.

I agree absolutely. I remember when I was (for a few years) a junior, that internal grading lists were something that juniors could follow and track their progress with. The national grading lists were something I wasn't really aware of. Certainly waiting 18 months for a grade to be published must put some people (and juniors) off the game. It might seem pointless to just have provisional lists for new players, but if it keeps them playing the game, that is a good thing. Maybe that is more the role of chess clubs and junior chess clubs though. Encourage them to have internal rating lists that new or returning players can use to track their progress.

[Adam Raoof]

Generally leagues have rules governing/restricting who can play in which teams. For example in the two leagues that I play in the Surrey League uses a nomination system and the Surrey Border League has grading limited divisions. I think it is less than ideal to have to update the nominations for a team or throw players out of a team (perhaps) several times in a season whenever grades are changed.

I guarantee that this would never happen, as Leagues would determine that the grading list extant at the beginning of a season would remain in force throughout the season. However, whenever new grades are published (not changed) and a previously ungraded player's strength is known, then it seems common sense to use that grade to determine eligibility.

[Alex Holowczak]

Generally leagues have rules governing/restricting who can play in which teams. For example in the two leagues that I play in the Surrey League uses a nomination system and the Surrey Border League has grading limited divisions. I think it is less than ideal to have to update the nominations for a team or throw players out of a team (perhaps) several times in a season whenever grades are changed.

I guarantee that this would never happen, as Leagues would determine that the grading list extant at the beginning of a season would remain in force throughout the season. However, whenever new grades are published (not changed) and a previously ungraded player's strength is known, then it seems common sense to use that grade to determine eligibility.

The main argument though is that the Leagues have the freedom to choose. They could either:
a) Ignore it and use the start of season grades
b) Realign their teams accordingly for the new grades (which may be preferential with ungraded players)

The choice is yours!

The people/things that really benefit from this are the more regular chess players; e.g. those who play in Congresses. They can use the January list for events after Christmas. The other people who benefit are juniors who might otherwise wait 18 months or more for a grade. That must put a few people off...

You get an additional service for the same cost. Where's the downside?