English Chess Forum

Watch this space ....

Neville served us well. He gave his time and talent generously as Junior Ratings Officer. He knows juniors very well—many socially, and nearly all by their tournament performances. His analysis was refreshing in many ways, but particularly by knowledge of individual matches (e.g., the significance of player X versus player Y, based on X’s and Y’s history). His analysis will be missed…but maybe, if we are fortunate, he will join the new Junior Director’s team.

In his resignation letter to the Board, which I understand he will soon publish here, Neville is right to point out that one of our persistent policy differences involves the use of grades. I share his assessment that describing inherently ambiguous statistics as ‘objective’ criteria in the Junior Selection Policy is statistically suspect. Someone recently pointed out that Professor Elo himself regarded 20 points as insignificant; yet the Junior Selection Policy adheres to a single digit ‘line in the sand’ as a qualification standard for the World Youth or European Youth. The policy also buys into the statistical fiction that FIDE ratings and ECF grades can be converted. They do correlate but not very well with the published formula. These inherent statistical flaws, however, miss the point.

Grades and ratings motivate. Their use also highlights two of the ECF’s principal products—grades and access to FIDE events. Other federations use national or FIDE ratings to measure relative strength; they are found in other federations’ selection policies. Grades and lists of grading performances propelled past generations of British juniors; they are in our cultural blood. If we did not rely on grades and tournament performances expressed as grades as routes into the most coveted, no-nonsense selections, we would either rely too heavily on a committee’s judgment or command performance tournaments. Those ways are possible, but standards based on grades offer greater openness for tournament organisers and transparency for players aspiring to represent England in the World Youth and European Youth Championships. Developmental tournaments are a different matter altogether.

Setting that aside, Neville’s support is already missed. Fortunately, friendships transcend policy differences. His loyal service was honourable. He earned my respect.

Hi Phil

Thanks for the kind words. In Westminster, if a minister resigns, then his or her resignation statement and the party leader's response are both in the public domain within 24 hours. But no-one has ever said that ECF politics matches Westminster politics.

In various phone conversations over the last two weeks discussing various matters, I have said an email acknowledgment of my resignation would be appreciated. It was only when that was not forthcoming, and your report as junior director started a review of selection policy without mentioning any of my key points, that I felt obliged to act by publishing my resignation statement now.

Anyway here it is for others to see, and comment as they see fit.

Neville Belinfante on September 22nd wrote:To Phil Ehr - ECF Junior Director
cc - ECF Board
cc - John Philpott, ECF Company Secretary

Dear Phil

Thank you for your time in talking with me about various issues on Friday about 1:45pm. I am writing now to formally tender my resignation as Junior Ratings Officer.

There are a few reasons for this.
I have not found time in two years to fulfil the main purpose of the position; namely produce charts or lists of the top juniors in a suitable format for the website. I am not going to find any more time before the Council AGM.
It leaves the way clear for your successor - regardless of who it is - to decide whether they want my services in this or another capacity
I wish to pursue other interests -some outside chess.

We have disagreed about many things over the last two years. I am deeply disappointed with some of the recent board decisions, and its disfunctional nature. The selection policy places too much emphasis on a statistically unsound data and conversions. There are too many inexperienced children allowed to enter development tournaments. The North/South divide needs bridging.

Despite all that, I know the ECF will be in a much stronger position with you as CEO, and your successor will continue your good work in the junior directorate.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

Sorry to hear that Neville - who I regard as a diligent official - has resigned but the pressure on many in the ECF must be immense.

Neville Belinfante >The North/South divide needs bridging.<

You'd think that our American cousins would understand a rift like this due to their history. Let's hope that if we end up with an American administration they find a better way than a civil war to resolve matters here. Team US (they will deny there is one) seem to have the Midlands on their side but Yorkshire seems indifferent to almost everything to do with the ECF - will they remain neutral or throw their weight in some particular direction? I am largely content to wait for the battle royal to be decided at the AGM but as in any potential civil war factions are already declaring and support is being marshalled. Keep your limbs inside the vehicle at all times as it could be a rough ride.

Hi John

Thanks for your comments. The easiest way to see the North South Divide wrt Junior Selections is to take a look at the Meet the Team pages on the ECF Junior website, where you will see considerably more Southern than Northern children. Comparison with results at the British Championships and other National Competitions demonstrate that Northern children are under-represented.

I fail to see the Team US connections. The big issues for Council are does the ECF take a revolutionary or evolutionary approach to change?; Should membership decisions be made dogmatically or pragmatically?; What should we do about an over-complex membership system? Everyone standing for election has a difference perspective on this.

Regards

Neville Belinfante

This is indeed most regrettable.

What steps were taken by ECF officials to ameliorate Neville's concerns and prevent this course of action?

Neville Belinfante wrote: The easiest way to see the North South Divide wrt Junior Selections is to take a look at the Meet the Team pages on the ECF Junior website, where you will see considerably more Southern than Northern children. Comparison with results at the British Championships and other National Competitions demonstrate that Northern children are under-represented.

Yes, I had noticed that, but it isn't new - just look at how it was when Stephen Gordon was a junior, or the London bias in earlier years

It would be interesting to compare the North-South ratio at the 2013 Terafinal.

I've assumed it was 1:1 since the Gigafinals define the qualification places.

Anyone (I don't think MJB comes to this place) know the answer?

J.

John Upham wrote:It would be interesting to compare the North-South ratio at the 2013 Terafinal.

I've assumed it was 1:1 since the Gigafinals define the qualification places.

Anyone (I don't think MJB comes to this place) know the answer?

J.

The north extends a long way south in UKCC terms: Gloucestershire and Suffolk qualify for the Northern Gigafinal, for example. This balances the numbers in the Gigafinals but makes it difficult to draw any conclusions about a North/South divide in this context, other than that there are more junior chess players in the south than in the north. I've no idea whether this matches the overall population distribution.

Wow, having Suffolk in the North really is impressive geography (In a good cause this time at least.).

Total population might actually be pretty balanced if you do that and remove Scotland - going by Wiki greater London is a very similar size to all of GManchester, Birmingham, Leeds/Bradford, Tyneside, Liverpool, Nottingham and Sheffield combined. Juniors tricky of course as they tend to cluster where you get organisation. 3C's for instance......

Phil Ehr wrote: Other federations use national or FIDE ratings to measure relative strength; they are found in other federations’ selection policies. Grades and lists of grading performances propelled past generations of British juniors; they are in our cultural blood.

I would have thought round numbers would suffice.

So if it's based on International ratings, it could become (for Open events)
Under 18 2200 - in other words CM title standard
Under 16 2100
Under 14 1950
Under 12 1800
Under 10 1650
Under 8 1500

ECF equivalents would need to be set a bit higher than the nominal conversions, given the ease with which younger players get high grades these days and the lags in the FIDE process.

For girl's events, WCM at Under 18 might be a starting point, but Under 8 is probably the same as for Open.

As far as performance norms are concerned, add 100 or 150 to the rating standard.

As ratings are both cumulative and monthly, it would be enough to achieve the minimum standard in any list prior to a cut off date. Copying FIDE and allowing a rating to be reached during a tournament might also be sensible.

The traditional Barden/Wade measure was that if you aspired to be 230 (IM/GM) at age 23, you did it by adding 10 points a year from 100 at age 10. With many players in the world now reaching at least IM standard in their late teens, that scale has to go a bit faster.

I would just wish to add my thanks to Neville for all the hard work he has done on behalf of chess over many years and is certainly not one of the officials who could ever have been accused of trying to boost his own ego.

A very sad loss to the game. A pity.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Phil Ehr wrote: Other federations use national or FIDE ratings to measure relative strength; they are found in other federations’ selection policies. Grades and lists of grading performances propelled past generations of British juniors; they are in our cultural blood.

I would have thought round numbers would suffice.

So if it's based on International ratings, it could become (for Open events)
Under 18 2200 - in other words CM title standard
Under 16 2100
Under 14 1950
Under 12 1800
Under 10 1650
Under 8 1500

This might be better under Phil's thread on selection policy, but for an easy international comparison the 100th best U16 in the world has a rating of 2256. Setting 2100 as an aspiration looks a bit timid.

Here he is: http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=24103195

He looks a bit of a part-timer - not playing nearly enough rated games to really excel.

Paul Sanders wrote: Setting 2100 as an aspiration looks a bit timid.

I took the values from Phil's document. As I interpreted them, they were the minimum standard required to aim for a 50% score in one of these International events. Obviously if you want to win them, you now have to be IM or GM standard at U16 or U18. That is now the benchmark and I wouldn't personally consider "elite" junior development to be a success until we again have players of that standard at those ages.

John McKenna wrote:
Neville Belinfante >The North/South divide needs bridging.<

Yorkshire seems indifferent to almost everything to do with the ECF - will they remain neutral or throw their weight in some particular direction?

I think the North/South question does need some attention paying to it. Obviously John McKenna's post was about the apathy of the YCA towards the elections, a point I've made myself, but I'd be interested to get a bit more detail about attitudes to the ECF at junior level. Is it a case of the information not being filtered down to the right people?