English Chess Forum

As posted on the official site

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/Forum/vi ... ?f=4&t=377

Concurrently, work will start on adapting Elo as appropriate for an English domestic grading list.

A director setting out what he wants to do in his election address? It'll never catch on.

That's rather a "Sun" headline. Alex's point is that he wants monthly rating lists and, if that is accepted, the need for an Elo-type system and a streamlined system for reporting results is clear. Personally, I cannot judge whether English chess players are sufficiently bothered about this to support the change, although technically I have no doubt that it would be an improvement.

There does seem a strong argument for adopting more up to the minute grading reporting and also doing away with the anachronism of British players having national three figure grades while the rest of the world has four figure ones. I can see why some people might be a bit hesitant at the thought of such a far reaching change.

Not so much an ECF problem but once embedded the new system will be a `live` grading system similar to the one Yorkshire already have through the Chessnuts software and which I've never been massively keen on. Teams in local leagues are used to ordering themselves in grading order and in my days as manager for my club teams I used to be quite strict about always sticking to that to prevent any squabbling over board order and team selection. The advent of live grades has caused the odd dispute at club level (`why are you putting me on such a high board when my live grade is well below Mr X's`) and also causes ambiguity when dealing with disputes over opposition board order. From a captain's perspective I think a team benefits better from a stable board order.

There are easy solutions to the above of course but it is something more conservative leagues might have to adapt to if they want to evolve.

Can Alex respond on here?

Carl Hibbard wrote:Can Alex respond on here?

Wouldn't that get him burned at the stake?

Carl Hibbard wrote:Can Alex respond on here?

He has been advised not to post on here by the current regime. This is consistent with the "advice" I was given when a director, I was actually told not to post but when I questioned it this was amended to "asked"

I expect that if Alex had wanted to respond "on here" he would have posted "on here" on the first place. As he posted "over there", I suspect if people tried raising their questions "over there" they might well get an answer "over there".

Just a thought.

All a bit silly really, but there you are.

Mike Truran wrote:I expect that if Alex had wanted to respond "on here" he would have posted "on here" on the first place. As he posted "over there", I suspect if people tried raising their questions "over there" they might well get an answer "over there".

Just a thought.

All a bit silly really, but there you are.

Or you could piss in the wind.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: There are easy solutions to the above of course but it is something more conservative leagues might have to adapt to if they want to evolve.

The 4NCL can get away with ratings changing every month as it's only the legality of board orders that it affects. Local leagues have competition rules that highly depend on grade. Twelve grades or ratings a year is thus a nuisance as rules would have to be reviewed and rewritten to define which one actually counted.

The same applies to Congresses, but with FIDE ratings being monthly, the question as to which list determines eligibility already has to be addressed.

Roger de Coverly wrote:Twelve grades or ratings a year is thus a nuisance as rules would have to be reviewed and rewritten to define which one actually counted.

Leagues already have to address it, of course, with half-yearly grading lists around. I suspect most will end up with a rule saying something like "team eligibility is based on ratings at league entry deadline date; board order is based on ratings at the date the match is played".

IM Jack Rudd wrote:[
Leagues already have to address it, of course, with half-yearly grading lists around.

Past attempts to drain the swamp of BCF grading or rating left the BCF knee deep in alligators. The attempt to rebase all the grades consumed resources for little valid purpose. So what is the likely over extension? Is it the attempt to convert to an Elo based system? Or is the attempt to persuade leagues to adopt software, written and perhaps controlled by the ECF?

Roger de Coverly wrote:

IM Jack Rudd wrote:[
Leagues already have to address it, of course, with half-yearly grading lists around.

Past attempts to drain the swamp of BCF grading or rating left the BCF knee deep in alligators. The attempt to rebase all the grades consumed resources for little valid purpose. So what is the likely over extension? Is it the attempt to convert to an Elo based system? Or is the attempt to persuade leagues to adopt software, written and perhaps controlled by the ECF?

The objective is to produce monthly grading lists. In my various discussions with Alex I have not observed such devious reasons that you set out behind this objective. The world seems to be moving towards more regular updates and maybe the ECF should not be left behind for reasons he sets out. If monthly grading lists are the way forward then he sets out the implications - rapid results submission must be made much easier. The change is unlikely to happen if the ECF does not set aside the financial resources.

I don't think it is a forgone conclusion that the Clarke grading system will go, but in a world of monthly lists Elo is the most obvious place to start looking. If I'm mandated to move to monthly lists, I will be looking at the Yorkshire system as well.

Or you could piss in the wind.

Or you could give it a go and see what happens.

Brian Valentine wrote: The objective is to produce monthly grading lists.

It remains to be seen whether leagues actually want monthly lists. Even the six monthly lists have caused problems.


Conversion to Elo is a major project. I think the AGM should be asked to vote in its favour rather than have its consent assumed. You don't actually need League Management Software to convert to Elo. It's a bodge but Elo based systems seem to be able to cope, that you update Congresses monthly and leagues six monthly. Leagues with adjudications and adjournments will continue to present timing problems.