July 2012 grading list now live

General discussions about grading.
Nicky Chorley
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Nicky Chorley » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:22 pm

Yay, another decrease! Hopefully it'll go up in January :(.

Simon Ansell
Posts: 509
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 10:27 am

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Simon Ansell » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:32 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Roger de Coverly wrote:
The ECF six monthly system is going to be much less stable. My own grade is a case in point. Instead of staying static at around 183, I had 49 * 175 for the first half, but an apparent career high of 40*193 for the second.
Well i was hoping for that for a bit of interest, but no, it's another stunningly dull grading list for me (my run of grades some funny happenings in the mid noughties being 221, 222, 219, 219, 221, 222, 222...). In fact in my case i would have probably been a couple of points higher without the six monthly lists...

Still, at least i've still got a silly rapidplay grade to keep me amused.
You're still Hackney's (regular) #1! Although I seem to be keeping the pressure on. No idea how my grade has managed to go up, given my -3 in the London League. My ECF seems to be inversely correlated to my perception of the season I've had, and also to my FIDE rating (-60 FIDE in one year, ECF up; two lists ago +50 FIDE, ECF down by 4 :?)

User avatar
Peter D Williams
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
Location: Hampshire

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Peter D Williams » Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:16 pm

I was very pleased to see my grade go up by 8 points to 140 and this is before i try out my new ideas for an opening i have been working on in this lovely weather we have had over the last few days.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.

User avatar
Rob Thompson
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Rob Thompson » Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:50 pm

I had a performance over the year of about 181 from a July 2011 grade of 178. Unfortunately, with the 6-monthly grades this gave me a January grade of 185 and a July grade of 176. What this means, if anything, is unclear.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Neill Cooper » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:02 pm

It does seem a bit arbitrary that the grade calculation now cuts off at 30 games, rather than being all games in the year. Is there any reason why this is the case?

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7314
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:20 pm

Neill Cooper wrote:It does seem a bit arbitrary that the grade calculation now cuts off at 30 games, rather than being all games in the year. Is there any reason why this is the case?
Not sure. I think all grades should be calculated back the same *time period* (such as a year), and then only further back if needed. That means that all games played in that time period count, and you don't get some games counting in the latest calculation for one person's grade and not for other people. You will always get that due to the countback, but you can minimise it by having the first cut-off at the whole year (as you say). But then how do you calculate the January grades? Go back to the previous January?

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18102
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:33 pm

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Not sure. I think all grades should be calculated back the same *time period* (such as a year), and then only further back if needed.
This has been discussed previously. The system they've used has been inherited from the rapid-play list although it's been a proposal for fifteen years.

What I think they should do is
(a) run X grades for those playing more than 30 games in six months and accept these grades may be more volatile
(b) for everyone else, calculate on the six month results and average in results from the previous six monthly periods to make up thirty games as necessary. This avoids the problem with the current method that some results will appear in two rating periods, whilst others only in one. The Hastings Masters was the last result of the half year to December 2011, so many of the players will have had their results in that tournament counted both in their January 2012 grade and also their July 2012 one.

mleonard
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:41 pm

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by mleonard » Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:38 pm

Why couldn't you go back to the previous January (when calculating January grades)?
That would give you a rolling "previous 12 months grade", which sounds fine to me.

Nicky Chorley
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Nicky Chorley » Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:19 pm

At least my rapid grade went up. Approximately half-way to my 100 target for January.

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3467
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:22 am

Neill Cooper wrote:It does seem a bit arbitrary that the grade calculation now cuts off at 30 games, rather than being all games in the year. Is there any reason why this is the case?
mleonard wrote:Why couldn't you go back to the previous January (when calculating January grades)?
That would give you a rolling "previous 12 months grade", which sounds fine to me.
Roger de Coverly wrote:This has been discussed previously. The system they've used has been inherited from the rapid-play list although it's been a proposal for fifteen years.
When the ECF Council voted in October 2010 to introduce twice-yearly grades, implementation was deferred to January 2012 (rather than January 2011). The intention was that dummy runs be made in January 2011 and a further report made to Council. This would have allowed anomalies to be properly addressed and considered decisions to be made regarding the sort of issues now being raised.

Also, we would have had two sets of July 2011 grades: the old once a year ones and the ones that would have applied under twice-yearly grading. That too would have been most useful as an indicator of whether things would work satisfactorily.

No such dummy runs were ever done in January 2011 and no follow-up report to Council was ever made. The powers that be considered them unnecessary.

So all the problems and issues which could and should have been sorted out before implementation are only now becoming apparent.

James Byrne
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:08 pm

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by James Byrne » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:01 am

Glad to see I got my first grade in this list; 154 based on 30/31 games since Sept 2011. Wish my first 8 games didn't count though, transition from a casual online blitz player to over the board play wasn't as smooth as I would have liked (5/8 losses). After reviewing all my games I've identified that I'm terrible at endgames, I'm hoping my investment in Jesus de la Villa's "100 endgames you must know" and Dvoretsky's "Endgame Manual" will fix that for next season.

Mike Gunn
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Mike Gunn » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:26 am

I agree with mleonard above. As a grader I have come across some cases where the results are quite sensitive to the "last 30 games" method. A much better system for adults would be to always use the last 12 months of results (and add weighted averages of previous years to bring it up to 30 if necessary). Some constituent organisations need to put down motions to Council to this effect, though, if it is ever to be properly considered.

AustinElliott
Posts: 645
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: North of England
Contact:

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by AustinElliott » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:52 am

Yes, seems fairly clear how a cut-off can have a disproportionate influence, if you have one or two bad results (losing to players graded well below you, in essence) which fall this side of the cut-off.

The same sort of effect is also apparent when the total no of games played is < 30. A single result - such as losing to someone graded 25 points less than you who you would normally expect to beat - can change your calculated grading by quite a lot. But of course such things happen all the time....

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3467
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by David Sedgwick » Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:54 am

Mike Gunn wrote:I agree with mleonard above. As a grader I have come across some cases where the results are quite sensitive to the "last 30 games" method. A much better system for adults would be to always use the last 12 months of results (and add weighted averages of previous years to bring it up to 30 if necessary). Some constituent organisations need to put down motions to Council to this effect, though, if it is ever to be properly considered.
You have completely ignored my post above.

The Board frequently complains about Council going into too much detail and not allowing the Board to do its job. However, your post demonstrates that action at Council is often necessary to try and get the Board to do what it should be doing anyway.

Will someone from the Board now please explain why the year available for considering these issues and testing alternatives was completely wasted?

Paul McKeown
Posts: 3255
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
Location: Hayes (Middx)
Contact:

Re: July 2012 grading list now live

Post by Paul McKeown » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:16 pm

The strange effects caused by the arbitrary cut off at exactly 30 games was already flagged up in an earlier post. The example given was, as Chris Kreuzer surmised at the time not hypothetical. I drew the necessary conclusions at the time and played four otherwise entirely unnecessary games, which I certainly would not have entertained had the 30 game cut-off not been instituted.

Post Reply