English Chess Forum

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:57 am

This would then make the ranking of lower rated players be based on alphabetic order.

Or, I would really hope, based on some random allocation. Otherwise there is a huge and very unfair inbuilt bias.

I refuse to believe it's really that difficult. Just announce it in the entry form and then continue as normal. At the end of the event check the W-We scores and if it's won by a player above 2050 then nothing has to be done.

If a player (or two) below 2050 has a better W-We then do the individual calculation, taking about 10 minutes per player. The only downside is players can't see exactly who is winning during the event but they'll still have a pretty good idea, and they can do the calculation themselves if they really need to.

Thomas Rendle wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:56 am

I refuse to believe it's really that difficult.

Of course it isn't. The fact that such a feeble argument is even wheeled out tells you all you need to know.

I think the point is simply that it seems wrong to people that players who are paying possibly £350 to enter are excluded from a grading prize of £250 when they outperform a higher rated person. It can be argued that the organisers are trying to discourage those people from entering. However in reality the player that achieves this is likely to be a junior who has the potential to end up as a IM or GM, is that really the type of player that it is good to discourage?

I have found that results.com gives incorrect data for unrated players. If I remember correctly, they are counted as 0 or 1000, not as no information.

Then you have the matter of a 2050 playing against a 2500. For his W-We, should the opponent be counted as 2450 or 2500? Similarly if he is 1600. When dealing with such matters, I included the stricture, 'As shown in the computerised Tournament Chart'

Alex >two players make the same score against the same average opposition<

Why would you do that. Each game is calculated separately. Averaging ratings does not make sense for a non-linear Elo Rating.

"However in reality the player that achieves this is likely to be a junior who has the potential to end up as a IM or GM, is that really the type of player that it is good to discourage?"

I don't want to discourage anyone.Do you want to make grading prizes winnable by juniors only?

Kevin, no not all - I would argue that all the players at that rating are paying a higher entry fee and so deserve a shot at a grading prize.

Congratulations on qualifying and best wishes for the tournament.

David Shepherd wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:33 pm

Kevin, no not all - I would argue that all the players at that rating are paying a higher entry fee and so deserve a shot at a grading prize.

but the people that are below that don't have any chance of winning and I'm asked the ECF to either change the grading prize to include 2050 and under or do a prize for u2050 and under for like £250

Congratulations on qualifying and best wishes for the tournament.

John Reyes wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:31 pm

David Shepherd wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:33 pm

Kevin, no not all - I would argue that all the players at that rating are paying a higher entry fee and so deserve a shot at a grading prize.

but the people that are below that don't have any chance of winning and I'm asked the ECF to either change the grading prize to include 2050 and under or do a prize for u2050 and under for like £250

Congratulations on qualifying and best wishes for the tournament.

No I didn't - I only wrote the first and last sentence

I've now edited John's post to fix the quote tags.

Jon Tait said on the Director of women's chess thread,

"Actually, thinking about it, the lower rating limit in the British Championship is not really positive discrimination at all. It's more a practical solution to increase eligibility from a smaller playing pool, given that the Women's Championship is nowadays incorporated into the main event."

A separate championship would solve that "problem", if you think it's a problem. It's interesting that one moment lower-rated players are not wanted as they mess up norm chances, then they're welcome as long as they're not adult males.

Last time I looked, all the female entrants were higher-rated than me, so I'm not saying they're not good players.

I hope that will ward off any self-righteous indignation...

Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:23 am

Jon Tait said on the Director of women's chess thread,

"Actually, thinking about it, the lower rating limit in the British Championship is not really positive discrimination at all. It's more a practical solution to increase eligibility from a smaller playing pool, given that the Women's Championship is nowadays incorporated into the main event."

A separate championship would solve that "problem", if you think it's a problem. It's interesting that one moment lower-rated players are not wanted as they mess up norm chances, then they're welcome as long as they're not adult males.

Last time I looked, all the female entrants were higher-rated than me, so I'm not saying they're not good players.

I hope that will ward off any self-righteous indignation...

Being titled also makes them useful for increasing norm chances.

There was considerable discussion whether the rating limit should be lowered for women for entry into the British. Peter Shaw, President at the time, used his casting vote at the Board Meeting to include them. I was in charge in 1984 and it was suggested 6 women should be invited. I said this was impractical as Commonwealth women were eligible. So I made it women over 190 grade.

The whole debate led to a piece on TV about the matter. So, part of the mission was accomplished immediately. Sheila Jackson played Ray Keene in Torquay and their game, with adjournments, lasted over 90 moves and 3 days. Ray eventually won.

Eventually, having leading women in the British, led to the death of the separate British Ladies Championship. I bolstered it up for some years, inviting foreign WIMs in order to make a title norm possible.

The whole debate goes back even further. Sheila Jackson and Susan Caldwell wanted to play against strong opposition. So they entered the British Boys U16 Championship. They were told that was impossible. The following year, the titles were changed to British U21, U16, U14 etc. We are pioneers in this field worldwide.

Stewart Reuben wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:31 pm

We are pioneers in this field worldwide.

I had not previously appreciated this, but when you bring our attention to your own groundbreaking work it becomes much easily to understand

It started long before my involvement.
Vera Menchik sparked things off when she moved here.
I played 6 times in the London Boys' Championship, giving no thought to the fact that girls were offered nothing.
Sheila and Susan were the ground-breakers. It was before my admin time.
I did not start the grading sections at the British. The sections were effectively A, B, C... and the players assigned by the committee according to the perceived strength of the players. That must have been difficult before Sir Richard Clarke started the grading system.