REGULATIONS ON REGISTRATION & LICENSING OF PLAYERS

[Alex McFarlane]

[quote=]Sean Hewitt wrote:Sorry to disappoint you, but the ECF didn't wait a fortnight. The ECF contacted organisers of imminent events straight away. Simultaneously, it sought additional information from FIDE which, once received, allowed wider communication to all organisers and licensed arbiters.[/quote]

Sorry to disappoint me - What is that supposed to mean?

The sentence "Simultaneously .... to all organisers and licensed arbiters." is factually inaccurate. I have not been informed. I am an ECF Arbiter and I am licensed with FIDE. The ECF did not inform me. The selective system adopted has therefore failed as it might have done under other circumstances such as an unknown player planning a FIDE rated event.

[Sean Hewitt]

The sentence "Simultaneously .... to all organisers and licensed arbiters." is factually inaccurate. I have not been informed. I am an ECF Arbiter and I am licensed with FIDE. The ECF did not inform me. The selective system adopted has therefore failed as it might have done under other circumstances such as an unknown player planning a FIDE rated event.

You're right. We did not tell every organiser and arbiter in the world and for that I apologise.

However, it was pretty self evident that we were talking about Organisers and Arbiters registered as English with FIDE and clearly, that does not include you.

[Alex McFarlane]

There is nothing in what you said about being 'registered' as English. I do more events in England than many other ECF arbiters. Are you really saying that you didn't tell me because I am not English?!!!

I am an ECF Arbiter. Would you please explain clearly why you feel that the ECF should not inform people who are members and listed as being ECF arbiters of such changes. This seems negligent.

The apology offered in light of your other comment seems very hollow indeed.

[Alex Holowczak]

Would you please explain clearly why you feel that the ECF should not inform people who are members and listed as being ECF arbiters of such changes. This seems negligent.

Only arbiters with a FIDE Licence can arbit at FIDE-rated events.

The issue at hand effects FIDE-rated events, and therefore is something that FIDE Licenced arbiters need to know about. By contrast, it's an irrelevance for ECF Arbiters who are not FIDE Licenced, because they're not going to be involved as an arbiter at an event where the issue is relevant.

Once you've made the decision that you're only going to inform IOs and FIDE Licenced arbiters, it's quite clear that only people that are listed under the ENG flag with FIDE are going to be informed.

I believe there are three ECF Arbiters who are not FIDE Licenced through England: Yourself, Peter Purland and Sainbayar Tserendorj. You already knew via Scotland. Peter will know via Wales. Sainbayar will know through FIDE.

I see from the ECF website that an announcement explaining all of this was made yesterday, which contains the information for everyone, be they members or non-members, arbiters or players, to read.

I'm struggling to see what the problem is.

[MartinCarpenter]

I just checked a decent sample of 4NCL Div 3 North for the FIDE vs converted ECF.

Of the people with FIDE ratings, the average difference from the formula is a little under -40. Stronger players (180+) nearly all somewhat undergraded vs the formula, others much more variable. This might of course be the formula being wrong - probably not juniors up here, only really Oscar. Still its hardly an ideal situation when ~1/4 of the field is running off converted grades!

What won't be down to the formula as such is the standard deviation of the difference being over 100. 19/48 players had a difference of over 100. They're all over the place. This is of course what you'd expect with the game base supporting these grades being far too low to rely on. I'd presume that stuff like e2e4 would make the southern Div 3 a bit better.

They're clearly not worth anything much in a predictive sense though and I really don't know about using them to restrict board order. Still worth doing the rating if it gets more people playing mind

[NickFaulks]

If the problem with elo ratings of people in my rating bracket was that we tend to play too few games, wouldn't there be plenty of guys who were absurdly over-rated based on an unrepresentative small sample? I never meet those guys.

They do exist (although I suspect less common than the other way round). Here's a club colleague of mine - playing strength about 170. He hasn't played rated chess in Britain as far as I'm aware though:

ECF 162

FIDE 2177

This player is not hard to identify, and there's enough evidence to convince me that he's better than a 170 player. Probably he performs better when away from home, doing nothing but playing chess at a leisurely pace.

Of course, the comparison is not helped by the fact that the current "official" ECF / FIDE conversion function is mathematically gibberish.

[Alex McFarlane]

I'm struggling to see what the problem is.

And that in itself is a problem.

The three people you mentioned are ECF arbiters licensed by FIDE. They have paid the same ECF membership fee as everyone else in our category. We are entitled to the same service. That is one problem. The fact that you cannot appreciate that is a far more major concern.

Are you really saying that because we are not English that justifies discrimination? Non-ENG ECF members get an inferior service???

Your logic that Sainbayar should be informed by FIDE surely would apply to everyone.

[Sean Hewitt]

The three people you mentioned are ECF arbiters licensed by FIDE. They have paid the same ECF membership fee as everyone else in our category. We are entitled to the same service.

No, you're not. You did not apply for your licence via the ECF. You did not pay your licence fee via the ECF. You are not registered ENG with FIDE.

The ECF's responsibilities in respect of International Arbiters starts and ends with those registered English with FIDE. Get over it.

[Alex McFarlane]

Sorry Sean,

The ECF's responsibilities lie with its members regardless of affiliation. I didn't pay any registration or licensing fee to FIDE via the ECF but that is an irrelevance. (Indeed Chess Scotland paid it for me.) I contribute a significant amount to the English chess scene.

The fact I didn't pay a licence via the ECF would only be significant if this cost the ECF money.

[Sean Hewitt]

Sorry Sean,

Well that's a first.

I contribute a significant amount to the English chess scene.

Even if you do say so yourself.

[Roger de Coverly]

Of course, the comparison is not helped by the fact that the current "official" ECF / FIDE conversion function is mathematically gibberish.

The "official" conversion is now 8*ECF + 650 = FIDE. There's a case that the 8 could be reduced slightly because of the non-linear nature of the Elo formula. The 650 is the original 600 plus an extra 50 when the ECF graders convinced themselves that all the grades were wrong except for the top players. As they added about 5 or 6 points to players around 175, that can justify 2000 no longer being equivalent to 175. You might be thinking of 5*ECF + 1250 = FIDE which was nonsense as you suggest and caused by someone running amok with a least squares fit on ECF v FIDE. This was dropped in 2009. The recent Sonas graphs published on chessbase showing under performance at the extremities are equivalent to what caused the ECF graders to embark on a revaluation exercise, supposedly to correct for deflation.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Of course, the comparison is not helped by the fact that the current "official" ECF / FIDE conversion function is mathematically gibberish.

The "official" conversion is now 8*ECF + 650 = FIDE. There's a case that the 8 could be reduced slightly because of the non-linear nature of the Elo formula. The 650 is the original 600 plus an extra 50 when the ECF graders convinced themselves that all the grades were wrong except for the top players. As they added about 5 or 6 points to players around 175, that can justify 2000 no longer being equivalent to 175. You might be thinking of 5*ECF + 1250 = FIDE which was nonsense as you suggest and caused by someone running amok with a least squares fit on ECF v FIDE. This was dropped in 2009. The recent Sonas graphs published on chessbase showing under performance at the extremities are equivalent to what caused the ECF graders to embark on a revaluation exercise, supposedly to correct for deflation.

What is the point of such a conversion?
Either the FIDE Elo and the ECF grade are directly comparable or they are something not directly equivalent/comparable.
If they are, what is the point of having a duplicated rating/grading system; obviously one should be scrapped, likely the smaller and less relevant one.
If they are not directly equivalent/comparable, then both have their own relevance but such a simple translation formula is completely meaningless.

[Rob Thompson]

Some national system is necessary because there is a lot of chess played in England that would not be accepted for rating by FIDE.

[Angus French]

Sorry Sean,

Well that's a first.

I contribute a significant amount to the English chess scene.

Even if you do say so yourself.

Pah, Alex has long contributed to chess in England and to chess organised by the BCF/ECF - such as the British Championships. Of course he should be informed of and consulted on how the ECF responds to FIDE's edict.

[IM Jack Rudd]

What is the point of such a conversion?

The primary reason is to prevent certain tournament formats from falling over when confronted with players who have one but not the other. For example, the 4NCL has a rule that players must play in - within a tolerance of 80 points - descending order of strength, where strength is defined in terms of one's FIDE rating. (Thus, for example, with my FIDE rating of 2233, I must play below any of my team-mates who are rated 2314 or higher, and above any rated 2152 or lower.) There are, in any given season, many English players with no FIDE rating who play in the 4NCL. Where in the team should they play? Well, the conversion formula serves as a rough-and-ready guide as to where best to put them.

The same thing applies in reverse to foreigners who show up at English weekend congresses; they're likely to have a FIDE rating but no ECF grade, and the conversion formula can be run backwards to put them in the draw at the appropriate point.