English Chess Forum

Or a section just for people from Surrey so they can argue with themselves and spare the rest of us

I think I will concentrate on a response to our board on ECF fees because there must be a must be a hidden cost pressure here. Those that play the most ought to pay for it. Some horrendous cliff edges in all systems. And young people in this country have nowhere near the mathematical skills of the far east. I am not expecting all their parents to either.

Or a section for stopping others from abusing Surrey members?

Nick Grey - relax it was a joke! And besides the reputation of Surrey club and county officers for disputes has been acknowledged for decades, and has been referred to in this place by Surrey members. Its hardly abuse. On the other hand I've been called 'morally dubious' by yourself, a 'troll' by John Foley and had my views on juniors wilfully misrepresented by Nick Faulks. I'm not without fault, but I'm still catching up/dropping down to the standards of others. But as I'd rather not drag this thread off the important issue of grading, I'll stop now.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:35 am

And besides the reputation of Surrey club and county officers for disputes has been acknowledged for decades, and has been referred to in this place by Surrey members.

That is an exaggeration. It is very much a problem of the last twenty years.

That is more than long enough, of course.

However, things are calmer nowadays. I doubt whether disputes in Surrey are currently any more common or any worse than in many other counties or leagues.

I too will leave it there.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:35 am

and had my views on juniors wilfully misrepresented by Nick Faulks.

What??

I'll stop now.

Please do, you're being very boring.

Nick Faulks- the reference to your conduct is 100% accurate and I asked you to correct your post at the time. I received private messages in support and confirming that you have a similar unpleasant way of doing business with others. If you continue to treat people in this way, they may bite back.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:54 pm

If you continue to treat people in this way, they may bite back.

I'm sure that I'm terrified of your anonymous friends, whoever they may be. I don't even know who you are.

We met once at a Council meeting or in the pub afterwards. I've no real interest in you either, but I do expect to be treated courteously and not to have my words twisted. The anonymous friends simply confirmed that what I was experiencing wasn't atypical behaviour. I have a frank exchange of views with other posters but there is always room for an apology if there is a clear misunderstanding. That's all.

And given the number of posts you've clocked up I have a long way to go before I can qualify as 'boring'

Do I really need to be here?

Not unless you wish to be. Nick Faulks is continuing to treat other posters with disdain and I'm simply standing up for myself. I'll stop when he does. But as he doesn't see anything that merits apology and he's somewhat more prolific in his posts, I'll probably stop earlier than him to preserve my equanimity.

Angus French wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 3:11 pm

Can I suggest to the Mods that this topic is combined with this one: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=9988?

Topic was merged.

Yorkshire chess is very metropolitan! The sheep up in the Dales and the grouse on the NYM don't play much
(Its very much Sheffield, Leeds, Bradford, York, Hull and the various smaller towns in those areas.).

Brian Valentine wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:34 am

I share Richard Bates concerns about acceptance of a radical change to Elo. However the ECF current approach to new entrants/juniors tends to breakdown with the smaller samples generated by monthly lists. The approach can be very volatile and explaining the inner working is far harder than Elo. There is also the technical issue more likely to arise of "islands" of results with no (or few) rated player benchmarks.

Maybe I am missing something but aren't the smaller samples generated by monthly lists a problem for an Elo system as well?

If you insist on calculating ratings on only 5 results they are going to be volatile and / or have a large degree of uncertainty to them.

Ian Jamieson wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:04 pm

Maybe I am missing something but aren't the smaller samples generated by monthly lists a problem for an Elo system as well?

The problem had been one of its own making once the ECF started treating juniors as restarting each season as new players. Presuming it doesn't do under Elo rules, then in, say, a 32 player junior tournament it only has the small sample size problem for the new players, rather than all of them.