Page 7 of 7

Re: Grading timetable (June/July 2013)

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 1:34 pm
by Roger de Coverly
MartinCarpenter wrote:
It is vanishingly rare for people to play >30 games in half a year,
669 out of just over 10,000 standard play graded players are X rated, so around 6.5%. It's easy enough to accumulate a total of at least 30 in a half year, say a league or county game a week, a Congress once a month and you are past 30 in no time. The art is perhaps to retire for the rest of the season after 30 games if you have achieved a personal best. If you are evil you stop playing when your grade is where you want it to be for winning restricted sections.

Re: Grading timetable (June/July 2013)

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 2:44 pm
by MartinCarpenter
Dedicated people! It can get even funnier with the Yorkshire live grades - if I'd won the first 4/5 games at the start of this season I'd have crept the spot grade on those up to 200. That'd have almost made it tempting to retire ;)

On sober reflection I suspect I'm talking nonsense about raising the absolute level of randomness. You can cluster a bad/nice set of results on the edge of your grading window whenever that falls :) The real question is whether the countback justifies itself against a weighted average from the previous season. Also the strict upper limit of 30 games for people who have played more than that in the last two grading sessions/season.

Those things must both add a little volatility but might just be more accurate somehow.

Re: Grading timetable (June/July 2013)

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 3:55 pm
by MikeTasker
MartinCarpenter wrote:
On sober reflection I suspect I'm talking nonsense about raising the absolute level of randomness. You can cluster a bad/nice set of results on the edge of your grading window whenever that falls :)
You can use this effect to lock in a high grade. If you notice say your last 10 games from the previous 6month period were good,play
20 games in the current period if the results are decent don't play any more games, high grade guaranteed.

Re: Grading timetable (June/July 2013)

Posted: Mon Jul 29, 2013 7:47 pm
by MartinCarpenter
I'd hope that would be a minority pursuit :)

Another amusing sort of affect that I've just thought of. I had/have a bad tendency to lose motivation once there's 'nothing' to play for, so in several years I've thrown in a couple of awful losses towards the end the year. At the same time I was playing ~20-25 ECF graded games/year, so in July I'd get two of these periods counting but only one in January.

The built in depression of grades for people who do this (and I doubt I can be alone) is annoying but likely mild and survivable. The amusing bit is that it'd happen on the 'wrong' grading list :) (July down not January.).

Re: Grading timetable (June/July 2013)

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 5:13 pm
by Paul Dargan
On the frequency of lists/updates for continental Europe ... I think one of the reasons for updating ECF grades no more often than every 6 months is that we run Open / Major/ Intermediate/ Minor type weekend events - whereas on the continent the large open with rating prizes (or even prizes for 20th, 40th, 60th, etc) are much more common.

No-one wants to find out that last month's success means they can't play in nect month's minor (though the other competitors might?!)

Paul

Re: Grading timetable (June/July 2013)

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 6:02 pm
by Christopher Kreuzer
MikeTasker wrote:
MartinCarpenter wrote:
On sober reflection I suspect I'm talking nonsense about raising the absolute level of randomness. You can cluster a bad/nice set of results on the edge of your grading window whenever that falls :)
You can use this effect to lock in a high grade. If you notice say your last 10 games from the previous 6month period were good,play
20 games in the current period if the results are decent don't play any more games, high grade guaranteed.
I've just been looking at my last 30 results in the previous grading list, and I think if my calculations are right, then those 30 results average out at a grade of 163 (current grade of 170). This 163 would, I think, be the grade I'd get if I had played no games between now and the next list in January (I think you only have to play one game somewhere in a 12-month period to stay on the grading list?). As it turns out, I played 10 games in Torquay, so I have to factor those in and drop the oldest 10 games from the previous 30, which I think works out as... hmm. A lower figure! :D It will get worse as the last 10 games I played at the end of the previous grading period were almost as bad as the ones last week. I will have to play enough games to make sure these previous results aren't included! I'm not so sure being able to calculate this now (with the games all dated and sortable) is entirely a good thing...