Can't see that somehow. Most players realise, anecdotally, that grades have been going down for a number of years. I've explained to the two leagues for which I am ECF delegate what’s happening and they have been more than happy. Indeed they see it as a positive - for once the ECF are doing something proactive.Tim Spanton wrote: A lot of players will be annoyed at what many will see as artificial, unjustified meddling with grades.
New grades (split from Editorial thread)
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
It does seem only reasonable that if you want to know whats in a magazine, you may have to buy a copy!Gavin Strachan wrote:Hmm, this posting is quite frustrating as I would like to know more about the June 2008 edition of "chess" article. Since the the original posting I have been waiting with baited breath to find out some more detail about it. Looks like buying the magazine is the only option in finding out what is about as no-one seems to be able to say a great deal about the content here (due to legal reasons or it just being deleted through censorship). Buying the magazine is a challenge for me unless I travel to a congress/London to find a copy.
You can buy online at http://www.chess.co.uk/
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:07 pm
- Location: South London
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
Thanks! I think . . . I'll leave a follow-up question on that thread where presumably it belongs.Roger de Coverly wrote:What forthcoming grading corrections?
If you've got the patience, start here.
http://forum.bcfservices.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=22
By warned that this thread wanders off into irrelevance pretty quickly.
The plan is to publish both a normal grade and a "corrected/meddled" grade this July. I suppose if the outcry is loud enough against the "corrected" grade, then perhaps it will be dropped. The current ongoing plan is to continue with the "corrected" grade.
The ECF year book contains a more detailed article.
-
- Posts: 1717
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
Oh, you poor, poor thing... but I have some good news - both mags are available to buy online.Gavin Strachan wrote:Looks like buying the magazine is the only option in finding out what is about ... Buying the magazine is a challenge for me unless I travel to a congress/London to find a copy.
If you want to read what BCM has to say on the matter, navigate to here...
http://www.bcmchess.co.uk/bcmmag.html - and click on the June 2008 mag button
Or if you want to read what Malcolm Pein has to say, navigate to here...
http://www.ukgamesshop.com/Merchant2/me ... de=chmache - and click on the latest mag button
... and in either case it will cost you a lot less than a train ticket to London.
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
-
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
My experience has been quite the opposite. Most people I've discussed it with have been very suspicious and/or cynical about the motives behind inflating grades.Sean Hewitt wrote:Can't see that somehow. Most players realise, anecdotally, that grades have been going down for a number of years. I've explained to the two leagues for which I am ECF delegate what’s happening and they have been more than happy. Indeed they see it as a positive - for once the ECF are doing something proactive.Tim Spanton wrote: A lot of players will be annoyed at what many will see as artificial, unjustified meddling with grades.
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
Do elaborate! What on earth is there to be suspicious about? If the ECF were charging you £1 per grading point there may be grounds, but they're not!! There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the ECF. Identifying and fixing a problem with the grading system certainly is not one of them!!Tim Spanton wrote:My experience has been quite the opposite. Most people I've discussed it with have been very suspicious and/or cynical about the motives behind inflating grades.
-
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
The suspicion is that this is a gimmick to raise grades for no reason other than stroking the fragile egos of people who can't stand seeing their grades going down (and aren't prepared to put in the hard work necessary to reverse such a process).Sean Hewitt wrote:Do elaborate! What on earth is there to be suspicious about? If the ECF were charging you £1 per grading point there may be grounds, but they're not!! There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the ECF. Identifying and fixing a problem with the grading system certainly is not one of them!!Tim Spanton wrote:My experience has been quite the opposite. Most people I've discussed it with have been very suspicious and/or cynical about the motives behind inflating grades.
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
That's totally unfounded. I am not an ECF officer (never have been) and have certainly been critical of the ECF on more than one occasion. I would have nothing to gain by being complicit in such an endeavour. I do though have a statistics degree, and I was asked by then grading manager Dave Welch to look at the integrity of the grading system. I published the results - they are there in the public domain, and are open to scrutiny. They show a clear linear deflation.Tim Spanton wrote:The suspicion is that this is a gimmick to raise grades for no reason other than stroking the fragile egos of people who can't stand seeing their grades going down (and aren't prepared to put in the hard work necessary to reverse such a process).
The ECF (via certain officers [not Dave Welch]) didnt believe my findings, and did not want to do anything about it. They were apparently concerned about player confidence in the system.
However, the evidence won the day eventually and, I have to say, the proposed fix is far superior to the one suggested by me - because it is tailored to each individual.
Given those facts I fail to see how any person could asset that the ECF are engaged in a "gimmick...stroking the fragile ego [of players whose] grades [are] going down."
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
and rightly so.They were apparently concerned about player confidence in the system.
Can you demonstrate deflation by reference to Tim's grading history - or mine for that matter?
Tim correctly points out that you have to do the "CPD" to even maintain a constant grade - after all chess knowledge is continuously expanding so even to retain a 10% -20% chance against IMs requires some study and new ideas every so often.
Turning career 130 players into 150's or 175's into 190's is overnight inflation to my mind. What's likely to happen is that the top of the food chain ( the Hebden's of this world) will gain points as they restore their historic differences to lesser beings. Equally the newly created 150's will be fed off by the fake 190's.
Has any work been done to say make the hypothetical changes back in 2003 and then run them against the actual results to see if they give a "better" outcome than the actuals?
-
- Posts: 3600
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 11:54 am
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
Folks, it's all irrelevant - people's grades are going to change by two or three points. Chessplayers will take the view why on earth has the ECF wasted so much time on this, perhaps they would have been better off organising some chess.
-
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
If this is true, then what on earth is the point in doing it when for many people all that will happen is to bring the system into disrepute?Matthew Turner wrote:Folks, it's all irrelevant - people's grades are going to change by two or three points.
-
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:07 pm
- Location: South London
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
You can do little tests for this sort of thing yourself if you keep records of your games.Roger de Coverly wrote: Can you demonstrate deflation by reference to Tim's grading history - or mine for that matter?
For instance, calculate yourself two average grades, one from your games against opponents lower rated than you, one for your games against opponents higher rated than you. If the latter is higher than the former, then your grading history will tend to confirm what the ECF have found in their analysis.
(In my case there is a 22 point difference between the two averages described above, the latter indeed higher than the former. So my personal experience strongly agrees with what the ECF have found.)
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
Isn't the change much larger?Tim Spanton wrote:If this is true, then what on earth is the point in doing it when for many people all that will happen is to bring the system into disrepute?Matthew Turner wrote:Folks, it's all irrelevant - people's grades are going to change by two or three points.
The grades compress so that the difference between any 2 players is reduced by 20% (anchored at some level 250ish). Meaning players < 100 will need 30 points+ adding.
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
That's not what Howard Grist is saying in the grading thread.Folks, it's all irrelevant - people's grades are going to change by two or three points.
That's not many points at Matthew's level of course - but rather more lower down.A rough conversion guide for the corrected grade is old grade x 0.8 + 50
20 point or more overnight rating changes will totally change the current landscape of rated restricted competitions. I don't know how many tournament organisers are yet aware of the upheavals that will await them from August 2009.
The overall effect of the changes is to squash players more closely together - so a 100 player gains about 30, a 175 player about 15 and a 250 player nothing. That's actually a decision to introduce inflation because you would get the same effect by leaving 100 players alone, taking 15 points off the 175's and 30 off the 250.
-
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 11:35 am
Re: Editorial in June 2008 edition of "Chess"
I see all this but why does this prove deflation? Surely it might just as well be used as evidence of inflation?TomChivers wrote:You can do little tests for this sort of thing yourself if you keep records of your games.Roger de Coverly wrote: Can you demonstrate deflation by reference to Tim's grading history - or mine for that matter?
For instance, calculate yourself two average grades, one from your games against opponents lower rated than you, one for your games against opponents higher rated than you. If the latter is higher than the former, then your grading history will tend to confirm what the ECF have found in their analysis.
(In my case there is a 22 point difference between the two averages described above, the latter indeed higher than the former. So my personal experience strongly agrees with what the ECF have found.)
I return to what I believe is the key point - if the average of all grades is remaining roughly the same, how can there possibly be deflation or inflation?