English Chess Forum

As SCCU Junior Organiser I needed to think about the new grade limits for the U14/U90 event for next season. So I looked at the new database for all 10 to 14 year olds with rapidplay grades between 50 and 90 and found that of the 285 players only 8 had a rapidplay grade of over 130, so that might be suitable as a new grade limit. Out of curiousity I did the same for adult players in that grade range and found their new grades to be very similar (about 2 less on average, but only a couple over 130).

Then I thought of all our Surrey Juniors who play for U100 (adult) county team. (Obviously I will not be deciding these new grade limits!) So I looked at players with long play grades between 70 and 100. The 229 adults have an average grade of 115 and only a few have new grades greater than 130 so that would seem like a sensible replacement for the Under 100 event. But of the 107 juniors (any age under 18) with existing grades between 70 and 100 half have a new grade over 130, on and on average are 15 points higher than the adults.

So on this first look the relationship between adults and juniors (long play) grades will be radically altered from next season. This will affect both team and individual events. This will make it much harder for Juniors to win grading prizes in tournaments, and they will have to play tougher opposition in inter-county and inter-club matches. Some adults will say 'about time to' (and perhaps it is), but we do need to realise that some juniors (particularly those playing now and transferring to the new grading system) will find this is dispiriting change and will be less likely to play chess with adults.

Could we apply the formula / algorithm to the rating limits as has been applied to the ratings themselves?

I suppose not since players (even of the same age) have not had the same change to their rating.

I am confident that HG has already anticipated this particular question and has an answer prepared.

Over to you HG...

I switched this around as requested although it may have looked confusing at the time

I've not seen this discussed in detail so I'll pop the question here...

For the the 2009 - 10 season it is proposed /assumed that the deflation busting ratings be promoted and the "normal" ones deprecated.
Let us assume that this will happen

I assume that organisers of rating limited competitions will be advised to alter their limits accordingly.

What will the details of this advice be?

For example, should an under-125 competition have its' limit raised to that of a typically elevated adult or of a typically elevated junior or something in between?

I'm confident that the rating team have fully considered this and similar questions and have well worked out answers.

Can we know what these answers are at this stage or is a period of waiting appropriate

Well, according to the explanation in the grading section the average change is as follows.

Standard
Adult New Grade = 0.79 x Old Grade + 45
Junior New Grade = 0.76 x Old Grade + 64

Rapid
Adult New Grade = 0.76 x Old Grade + 49
Junior New Grade = 0.93 x Old Grade + 40

So using this, you get "old 125" = "new 143.75".

Presumably the new restriction would be 145 and all the previously undergraded juniors, who presumably hogged all the prices , will be turfed into the group above.

Carsten

I've looked at this for my own tournaments. I currently minded as follows

U100 - U125

U125 - U145

U150 - U165

But nothing is yet cast in stone for me!

Sean,

Will the new rating limit have an age dependency i.e. Under-145 (Over 18) and Under-165 (Under 18) for the same tournament section?

If not, some sections previously dominated in numbers by juniors may have sparse entries as the juniors have been booted into the section above relative to the adults that would have been in the same section.

This will have the benefit of moving both the juniors who are and those that are not improving from that tournament section.

The ones who are not improving won't know what has hit them when they get crushed in the lowest section that they can enter.

No more tournaments for them I suppose!

Carl Hibbard wrote:I switched this around as requested although it may have looked confusing at the time

A quick merge of two topics now been as they are about the same thing

John Upham wrote: Will the new rating limit have an age dependency i.e. Under-145 (Over 18) and Under-165 (Under 18) for the same tournament section?

If not, some sections previously dominated in numbers by juniors may have sparse entries as the juniors have been booted into the section above relative to the adults that would have been in the same section

No age dependency for me John. I think that juniors in general have been undergraded and in my experience they win a far larger percentage of prizes than their ratio of entries suggests that they should if they were graded correctly. We will hopefully now be in a situation where they will simply have to play in the section that is appropiate for their strength. This seems a good idea to me!

Sean,
What about the juniors who are not under rated and for whom the new ones are totally inappropriate?

Will they be forced to play opponents much stronger themselves or would you advise them to take up football?

John

John Upham wrote:Sean,
What about the juniors who are not under rated and for whom the new ones are totally inappropriate?

Will they be forced to play opponents much stronger themselves

YES
It will do them no harm, quite the opposite in fact. It should help them to improve even more rapidly!! They will just win less tournaments along the way...

or would you advise them to take up football?

YES
Taking up a physical sport should also be a necessity for kids.

Healthy Body... Healthy Mind...

I've looked at this for my own tournaments. I currently minded as follows

U100 - U125

U125 - U145

U150 - U165

But nothing is yet cast in stone for me!

Sean, I have to pick you up on this one! If the grades have deflated like you say then how can you re-adjust tournament sections to suit? If these limits have always been the same why should they be adjusted?

Have you examples from the 1960's that show that tournament sections used to be u125 u145 and u165??

I think tournament sections have always been roughly Minor, Major and Open. Is there any evidence to show these adjusting over the years to compensate for falling grades?

I cant answer your question Paul but I know from experience that the biggest sections in tournaments are always the U100's followed by the U125's then the U150's etc...

Paul Stimpson wrote: Sean, I have to pick you up on this one! If the grades have deflated like you say then how can you re-adjust tournament sections to suit? If these limits have always been the same why should they be adjusted?

Have you examples from the 1960's that show that tournament sections used to be u125 u145 and u165?

But that's just the point - the tournament limits have not always been the same. In the 1980's the lowest section (the minor) was usually an U120 or U125 event. These days it is U100 or less. I can't speak as to the sections in the 1960's. I wasnt even born then, although I understand that weekend events in this country didnt really take off until the 1970's in any event.

the tournament limits have not always been the same.

I need to get more examples but a quick look at Chess Magazine 1988 Remploy Congress

Minor - u110
Major - u160

Looking at Huddersfield Congress - 2008

Minor - u100
Major - u160

Ilford Congress - 2007

Minor - u120
Major - u160

This doesn't exactly back up your claim I'm afraid.