English Chess Forum

Does anyone know if the move to half-yearly grading lists has actually had a significant impact on the time it takes new players to get a grade? I'm asking because I'm aware of at least one case where someone who played a fair amount of league chess didn't actually get a new standardplay grade (only 7 games got graded, it helps that these are visible in the grading database, but it wasn't enough for a new grade). In his case it doesn't matter (he is not new to chess, just new to the country), but for some it might be discouraging to not end up with a new grade when they thought they might be.

The most obvious route to a new grade in the January lists if you start playing at the start of a chess season appears to be to play congresses. Leagues may not provide enough opportunity, though they will likely provide the chance to get a July grade. So is it easier to get a new grade in the July or January lists if you start out in league chess, and if it is difficult to get a new grade in a January list, should the threshold of 10 games (I think that is the minimum) be reconsidered? Or is there a good reason for that threshold?

The minimum number of games needed to get a grade is 9. (For a long time it was 10 but some years ago the grading team reduced it to 9, probably for consistency with the FIDE system.)

Basically, the more games you play the more accurate the grade is. There is a number of games below which it isn't sensible to publish a grade. There is some statistical theory which gives the probable error in a quantity (here chess strength) based on the number of measurements of that quantity.

You are right that there is obviously a discouraging effect due to the time lag between someone starting to play competitive chess and their acquisition of a grade.

Not quite a new player, but given her FIDE rating of 2025, it is pleasing to see her get an ECF grade so quickly, and without any league chess
http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=121303K