When is the new grading list coming out?

[E Michael White]

Ok - I didnt know the U16 was FIDE rated this time.

Using uptodate FIDE ratings for those who have them with out of date ECF ratings for others would be a bit silly. Might be best to do the draw on last years ECF making the broad assumption that the order of grades would be closer than using a combination of some updated FIDE and old ECFs. I dont think the ECF grade for a FIDE unrated player is used in calculating new or changes to other FIDE ratings but I could be mistaken.

[Rob Thompson]

It's not used at all for fide purposes, but it will just screw up the draw

[Roger de Coverly]

It's not used at all for fide purposes, but it will just screw up the draw

I suspect what they will do is to rank players firstly in order of the Fide ratings and then secondly in some ECF or other national rating order. Thus the lowest internationally rated player would be above the highest non-rated. As to what ECF order will be used, it might be the 2008 normal grades, the 2008 red grades or something for 2009 leaked from the grading team. About half the field are Fide rated, so the first round would be a rated v unrated clash. So you might get the number one seed playing the number 5 seed (in terms of strength) . But are there any strong under 16s without international ratings these days?

[Alex Holowczak]

But are there any strong under 16s without international ratings these days?

Well, according to the list of entries, Rob isn't internationally rated, and he's certainly no worse a player than I am judging by 0.5/2 record (and lower rating) against him online. Also looking at the entries and from experience, Richard Weaving isn't exactly weak either. Both players must be graded 140 or so, and therefore have a FIDE rating of about 1950 using the table.

[Roger de Coverly]

Both players must be graded 140 or so, and therefore have a FIDE rating of about 1950 using the table.

In my book, "strong" is 175 plus ,a player capable of scoring at least 50% in a typical open.

A quick check on the top seeds in the U-16 shows them as 170 ish players in the 2008 list. So if the top seeds have gained 10 points in strength, then round 1 is going to be 180 v 140, the 9 to 1 round one slaughter that seeded swiss systems typically produce.

The under 16 may be a bad example because half the field will have consistent (FIDE) ratings. It's the other tournaments where seeding principles are going to struggle against randomness.

[John Upham]

In my book, "strong" is 175 plus

Roger,

How does that figure compare with your own rating?

[Mike Gunn]

Although all Swiss tournaments I have seen use seeded pairings, it is quite possible to use a lottery pairing system (this is taught to all trainee Arbiters, I believe). The seeded pairing system has the (possible) advantage that the strongest players don't play each other until later in the tournament, but (arguably) suffers from other disadvantages. No pairing system is perfect!

[Roger de Coverly]

Roger,

How does that figure compare with your own rating?

As you well know it's 17something and has been for most of the last 40 years.

My point was that if you play in the Open at the average weekender in the south at least and score 50%, then you probably meet a field of 175 ish. There are a number of juniors around of this standard and better. These days, they almost all have international ratings through the 4NCL and other rated events. So it's unlikely that an unrated (FIDE) young player would be of 175 standard. It's more of a problem in the Seniors - at Great Yarmouth they did a rated v unrated pairing for the first round. This resulted in the top seed playing about the sixth seed if you used lifetime or even ECF ratings.

[Ben Purton]

Id like to say that I view strong as 200+ at adult ranks. So I am below strong standard, Sarah my partner is easily around strong now, not offically on ECF ratings. But theres not many 180's who are now favs V her even with white.

[Paul McKeown]

Id like to say that I view strong as 200+ at adult ranks. So I am below strong standard, Sarah my partner is easily around strong now, not offically on ECF ratings. But theres not many 180's who are now favs V her even with white.

Ben, first you say that a grading above 200 should be viewed as strong, then you say that Sarah is strong, implying that she consistently plays as having a grade better than 200, then you say that few players with a grade of 180 are better than her, implying that she's about 180. Which is it, then?

[Carl Hibbard]

I was tempted to change the online database to make Ben the first ever 199½ player

[Rob Thompson]

On the 50% in opens, that's pretty well what I aim for when i enter them, despite having a grade of 141 this year (so I'm playing up). I am capable of scoring anything up to about 70% in an open on my day, which easily satisfies one of Roger's definitions for strongI would say that Richard Weaving is of a pretty similar standard to me, maybe slightly stronger but not much. His grade is also about 140. Also, it the first round last year I played James Adair, then 175 (so strong according to Roger, and he won Surrey Open this year, not merely 50%) and, although i lost, it couldn't have been described as slaughter by anyone's standards. Also, most juniors who have fide ratings are massively under-rated, so they could hardly be described as consistent.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Also, it the first round last year I played James Adair, then 175 (so strong according to Roger, and he won Surrey Open this year, not merely 50%) and, although i lost, it couldn't have been described as slaughter by anyone's standards.

I think the "slaughter" to which Roger referred was not the one-sidedness of individual games; it was the one-sidedness of the resulting total scorelines.

Also, most juniors who have fide ratings are massively under-rated, so they could hardly be described as consistent.

They're consistent with each other, which is the relevant factor for the purposes of this discussion. The crucial factor for whether a tournament's seeding system works is whether the seedings of its competitors are right relative to each other, rather than to the general population.

[Matthew Lunn]

I believe that Dani Malik is the country's strongest unrated junior - graded ECF 175 and IM Colin Crouch had to grovel for a draw against him in last seasons 4ncl. Then there's his brother and a couple of others above 140 (Rob included) - Roger's point is valid.

As 'wonderful' as it would be to have my new grade come out on my birthday I still believe the ECF should do their best to remedy the release date and produce a provisional list before the British (basically repeating what I said before I know!) - presuming the amendments wouldn't be TOO drastic. I appreciate the difficulties they are having (I wouldn't like to cast aspersions in that direction) but not having a new list prior to the British would prove incredibly inconvenient.

I suppose one could argue that the scale of a junior player's improvement over so many years in relation to the infrequency of FIDE rated games they may play after they recieve their first rating (until recently most Opens remained unrated) is the principle reason why they remain underrated. Nowadays keen juniors will get their first rating at the age of 11 and spend several years trying to achieve a similar 'strength' to their equivalent ECF. Case and point - Victor Jones got his first rating 2 and a half years ago and it has taken him that long to rise from 1789 - 2076 (still underrated in my belief). Not necessarily a problem you understand - but I believe this is a likely explanation.

[Ben Purton]

Id like to say that I view strong as 200+ at adult ranks. So I am below strong standard, Sarah my partner is easily around strong now, not offically on ECF ratings. But theres not many 180's who are now favs V her even with white.

Well if she plays like she did at Richmond Rapidplay every week , shell be WIM+ in no time. I don't know many 180's who play better than her. Is all I'm saying.