English Chess Forum

Below I enclose details of the twice-yearly longplay grading proposals, which I received recently.. What are your thoughts...good or bad.
Who benefits..? Are there any drawbacks for players, leagues, graders, club secretaries/other officals.
What will the effects of this be for players and for gradings....and for club league teams.
I`ve heard mutterings of discontent and surprise from certain quarters in high places.....
Yes, it sounds great to think that we might get more `uptodate` grades...
But will this have more fundamental effects...certainly it will change actual grades (possibly quite significantly), not just speed things up, if my understanding is correct, as a result of using `second half grades` in the latter part of the season....this effect may be cumulative.

Are there better ways of targetting specific categories of players who might merit being rerated mid season, without involving the whole chess community. ie, juniors, Congress players, ungraded players, and those graded 200+ ...others.?

Have you been consulted over this..or has your league, county, grading body, or other chess organisation been consulted, prior to last years ECF AGM decision.. .
Has your local chess body held any detailed discussions about these rules (either prior to or since the ruling took effect at last years ECF AGM. and the likely impacts, benefits, or drawbacks.


HERE IS THE NEW RULING.......

From: Webmaster [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 17 May 2011 09:51
To: Webmaster
Subject: ECF GRADING 2011-12: INTRODUCTION OF JANUARY STANDARDPLAY GRADES

From Chris Majer, ECF Manager of Grading and Rating
[email protected]

To all Leagues and Counties

ECF GRADING 2011-12: INTRODUCTION OF JANUARY STANDARDPLAY GRADES

As you know, the ECF AGM in October 2010 decided to switch to twice-yearly Standardplay grading lists, starting next season. This will mirror the twice-yearly Rapidplay lists which were introduced in 2006-7.

There will therefore be two grading lists in 2011-12: the usual July list, with a revision at the end of August timed for the start of the league season; and a fresh list in January based on the first half of the season. This has two important implications for leagues.

(1)
If the January list is to be accurate, leagues will need to submit results for grading twice a year instead of once. The graders know this. It is hoped that all leagues will be able to comply. If a league cannot do so and continues to send all its results at the end of the season, its games will still be graded but they will all go into the second halfyear, causing inaccurate grades in January and possibly July as well.

(2)
Leagues will need to decide whether the January grades are to count for purposes of eligibility (and perhaps board order). The ECF, for its own season-long competitions including the County Championships, will not use January grades for eligibility. It will use the start-of-season (end-August) grades throughout, so that a player who was eligible at the start of the season will remain eligible till the end. But other leagues are not bound to follow ECF practice; each will need to form its own decision.

If you need more information, please contact the ECF Manager of Grading – [email protected]

David Pardoe wrote:Has your local chess body held any detailed discussions about these rules (either prior to or since the ruling took effect at last years ECF AGM. and the likely impacts, benefits, or drawbacks.

We had a brief discussion at the local county AGM. The league secretary was asked to express a view on some issues
(1) Where eligibility by grade was needed, this would be based on the position at the previous September. In other words, if you start the competition, you can finish it
(2) Board order could be changed to reflect new grades, the rules and conventions covering fielding players in order of strength being enough to cover this
(3) There seemed no immediate need for rule changes.

More worrying is that the detail of how the new grades will be calculated, particularly for juniors, has yet to be published. In particular there is a possibly dangerous element of double counting to be introduced.

Roger de Coverly wrote:More worrying is that the detail of how the new grades will be calculated, particularly for juniors, has yet to be published.

The grading team are in the process of making this and other decisions. The only decision made so far that I know as a grader is that the grading cutoffs will be shunted back a month from May 31/November 30 to June 30/December 31.

The principle is undoubtedly good. I can't comment on the detail as I have not seen it yet (and according to Alex, some decisions are yet to be made). But assuming they get it right (big assumption?) this can only be a long overdue positive step forward.

Sean,
You`ve put your finger on the key point...and it shows a potentially basic flaw in how these schemes are introduced, I believe.
I believe that the ECF voted to introduce twice yearly gradings mainly to try to speed things up, which as you suggested, may be no bad thing.
But, as you`ve said, the devil is in the detail, so I think they need another checkpoint, where actual detailed proposals are presented, and time allowed for proper consultation and consideration, and to review any alternative options.
Once you`ve had chance to discuss detailed proposals, if you still have agreement, you can then consider a sensible timetable and methodology for implimentation.
By adopting this more rigorous analytical approach, you might reduce the potential for half baked schemes being rushed through, creating more problems and further denting the ECFs image, and the credibility of chess. There are plenty of examples of this in chess.
I can see at least 4 areas of concern regarding this scheme in its current `outline` state.
1. It not only speeds things up, it also fundamentallty alters the grading calculations, if I read it correctly. I`ve raised questions about this elsewhere. The rolling grades approach will produce quite different grading results to the traditional time line approach, depending on how it is implemented. One effect of this is that various grading systems could become more difficult to compare & cross relate.
2. It risks destroying the credability of current eligability and board order rules for county & league competitions.
3. It may create strange looking board orders, which players might find confusing, and might even effect there play, as might any revised mid season grades. Chess grades are regarded by many players as a form of `street cred`, which they like to have some confidence in. eg, you could have the simple situation of a player being faced by an opponent graded signifcantly higher, whilst on higher boards team mates might be facing opponents who, in some cases, are graded much lower, after a mid season regrade.
4. It could create extra work & problems for clubs, secretaries, league secretaries, & team captains, particularly where larger clubs with several teams might be forced to rejig teams & playing orders, if leagues choose to use new grades...mid season. If they dont, you`re then creating a sort of fantacy two tier system that pretends that the new grades dont exist. Players can be effected by such things....and matches won & lost. If you start switching teams around in mid season, it risks upturning previous form, and teams might suddenly start shooting up or down the league, as new players appear on teams in different playing orders, which might also upset some players/opponents, who might feel they have been pushed around the board order. It might effect transport if certain players become ineligable for teams.....maybe even captaincy issues.
5. How are they going to treat newly graded players, ie those given an initial mid season grade, having been classed as `ungraded` previously. I saw a case last year where a player started with a E140+ rating and suddenly played to 180+ standard.
There are other questions, which may have not been considered by local/county/league & other chess bodies. Most, I suspect will have simply taken the superficial view that having more frequently published grades is desirable. Certainly, there has been no detailed consultations in our North West area to my knowledge.
For these reasons, I believe a detailed proposal which specify precisely what will happen & when (including how calculations of gradings will work for various categories of players, at each point in the season), needs to be presented for consultation, discussion and approval by the ECF & Unions/Counties, with an agreed timetable set out. One would hope that such proposals would come, together with considered opinion and analysis of any alternatives. The `obvious` alternative in this case is to go for a well targetted regrading of selective groups of players, and targetted `fast mover` individuals, ...I`d suggest no more than 5 - 10%, who might be given indicative suffixes at mid season, which could be used for guidance by leagues, congresses, etc, when deciding eligability. In effect you`d give indicative grades to no more than about 300 - 400 players. eg, 150a, perhaps indicating that a player was playing 10 points above grade.
I dont claim any great expertese in the grading area, so if others see better solutions and options which cover these issues, fire away.....

David Pardoe wrote:I dont claim any great expertese in the grading area, so if others see better solutions and options which cover these issues, fire away.....

Well, I'm copied in on the e-mails, and after reading them thoroughly, neither can I! In which case...

David Pardoe wrote:But, as you`ve said, the devil is in the detail, so I think they need another checkpoint, where actual detailed proposals are presented, and time allowed for proper consultation and consideration, and to review any alternative options.

...What's the point of doing this? The grading team know what they're talking about, and by and large, Council won't have the faintest idea what they're talking about and voting on.

At the Council meeting, Council voted almost unanimously - I can't think of anyone at all who was against it off the top of my head - to move to two grading lists per year. The proposal was such that by voting for it, Council would mandate the grading team to come up with the best way to do it.

Suggestions here are read and noted - I think the idea of shunting the grading cutoffs came from here - so anything that's feasible will be implemented. It's only right that the people who know what they're talking about determine whether or not things are feasible, rather than Council, who won't have done any analysis on the scale that the grading team have done.

David Pardoe wrote: 4. It could create extra work & problems for clubs, secretaries, league secretaries, & team captains, particularly where larger clubs with several teams might be forced to rejig teams & playing orders, if leagues choose to use new grades...mid season. If they dont, you`re then creating a sort of fantacy two tier system that pretends that the new grades dont exist. Players can be effected by such things....and matches won & lost. If you start switching teams around in mid season, it risks upturning previous form, and teams might suddenly start shooting up or down the league, as new players appear on teams in different playing orders, which might also upset some players/opponents, who might feel they have been pushed around the board order. It might effect transport if certain players become ineligable for teams.....maybe even captaincy issues.

The logical and sensible approach would be that you establish eligibility for teams based on the list published in July/August. Within teams, you can change the board order based on the new grades. It's not unknown for match captains to want to push players up the board order if they are perceived to be having a good season or to drop them down if they're having a bad one. A six-monthly grade provides evidence to support these options.

Alex Holowczak wrote:What's the point of doing this? The grading team know what they're talking about

Who are the grading team in this connection ?

E Michael White wrote:Who are the grading team in this connection ?

I've checked http://www.englishchess.org.uk/?page_id=79 and found no mention apart from

Manager of Grading & Rating – Chris Majer
[email protected]

So I would speculate that the team is :

Chris, Howard Grist, David Thomas and Richard Haddrell.

unless, you know different?

Lets not lie here....ECF grades are not really worth that much.

What's the point of doing this? The grading team know what they're talking about, and by and large, Council won't have the faintest idea what they're talking about and voting on.

Alex, I think the point is that there are some people on council well qualified to review the changes. Possibly more important is agreeing the objectives of the changes and here a wider group are capable of contributing. For instance is 6 month grading a step towards, say, 2 monthly lists (It would help Adam with his Golders Green ungradeds issue)? If so then amendments to the calculating routine might look different from those just tweaking the annual list.

We do want to avoid Ben's vilification being fully justified.

Ben Purton wrote:Lets not lie here....ECF grades are not really worth that much.

Speaking personally as a middling amateur player, the ECF grades are of value because they provide a reasonable indicator of chess strength in an easy-to-calculate way. I can track my performance during the season or at a particular event without resorting to the Elo methodology, which is more complicated to operate.

I realise that there is a difference in view as you move towards the stronger end of the spectrum, when FIDE ratings are the common currency, but that is not where the large majority of players operate.

E Michael White wrote:Who are the grading team in this connection?

Chris Majer is the Manager of Grading & Rating, having volunteered for the role after Dave Thomas stepped down last October. Richard Haddrell is Grading Administrator. (Howard Grist covers the FIDE Rating side of things.) The development, updating and operation of the invaluable Online Grading Database is courtesy of the splendid work of some chap called Carl.


I'm sorry if the introduction of six-monthly lists is causing concern to some, but I don't really understand why. England has been one of the very few nations still to have only annual updates of its chess grades/ratings, and it surely must be a good thing to have a more up-to-date grade where possible, mustn't it? In practice, any issues to do with eligibility for season-long competitions can be handled easily via a rules amendment if necessary. If a more up-to-date grade means that a team captain has the option of revising his or her board order to reflect new information, this strikes me as a good thing rather than a problem.

The ECF has consistently made it clear that league graders may submit results annually if it would cause a problem to submit twice a year (although we hope that most will send results six-monthly).

It is true that six-monthly grading lists effectively lead to a doubling of the number of congresses which exist in that transitional period when entry forms may be issued while one list is in force but the event itself happens after a new list is published. All this means is that organisers need to spell out which grading list will apply for determining eligibility for grade-restricted sections. This already happens.

When this was discussed by the ECF Council, the response was overwhelmingly positive. My impression was that most people thought it was a natural and welcome development.

Brian Valentine wrote:Alex, I think the point is that there are some people on council well qualified to review the changes.

Then they should volunteer to join the grading team. I don't believe it's a closed shop.

Andrew Farthing wrote:I'm sorry if the introduction of six-monthly lists is causing concern to some, but I don't really understand why.

Lack of clarity over how it's going to be implemented and the concern that those doing it might do something that is flawed - think back, for example, to the formula the ECF used to use to convert between ECF grades and FIDE ratings that was obviously mathematically flawed, and gave seriously inaccurate results for players with low FIDE ratings.

Ian Thompson wrote:

Andrew Farthing wrote:I'm sorry if the introduction of six-monthly lists is causing concern to some, but I don't really understand why.

Lack of clarity over how it's going to be implemented and the concern that those doing it might do something that is flawed - think back, for example, to the formula the ECF used to use to convert between ECF grades and FIDE ratings that was obviously mathematically flawed, and gave seriously inaccurate results for players with low FIDE ratings.

There's surely a difference between devising something from scratch (such as a conversion formula) and taking an existing annual process and undertaking it twice a year instead of once?