Hello Brian,On another thread Brian Valentine wrote:I don't think anyone would want another layer of arbitration on top of those that have already been seen in this case!
Graders grade games submitted by organisers (with some responsibility to check for administrative error). Organisers should record results as agreed by the players or as ruled by the arbiter if they don't. Players should have no recourse to change the result for grading purposes.
In these cases I think you need to take a different view and not initially use scorelines set by arbiters for grading. Since the new basis for new starters and juniors (about 2009) the alteration of one result will affect the grade of all juniors and adult new starters and potentially thousands of other players. You may remember an alteration to junior results about 2 years ago when -
The effects are more than Sean suggested; when 1 junior grade is altered it is quite likely that every junior grade and every grade of any player, who played any junior, will be altered. In addition grades of many adult new starters would also change and thus grades of adults and juniors who played those adults etc. In many cases the revisions would be lost in rounding, being too small to change the published grade. All this of course assuming the system still works the way I think it does.Sean Hewitt wrote:Two things have happened. Firstly, Cumbria have submitted their league results for grading and these have now been included resulting in changed grades for most Cumbrians. But far and away the biggest impact was the discovery that one junior player had a rogue grade allocated to her in the grading system. This affected her grade, that of every player she played, and every player who played someone she had played, and so on and so on. Ultimately, 2000 grades were affected; most, I'm told, by 1 point.Daniel Young wrote:A revision of the January 2013 list has gone up today (4th Feb) "following the discovery of numerous incorrect grades." And indeed, a glance at the amended grades section reveals no less than 2,099 (!) grades have changed. A very large proportion of these are junior players, which leads me to wonder if there was a slip-up with the junior calculation process somewhere?
Richard's anecdotal notes from earlier than 2009 would not contribute positively to calculations performed on the new junior basis. If the 1.5 scoreline was used in 2014 then many pairs of juniors could potentially have had grades shown in the reverse order.Roger Lancaster wrote:It's not relevant to the main issue but the game at the heart of this dispute was graded as a win for one player and a draw for the other. On discovering this, I queried it with Richard Haddrell who told me it was an occasional occurrence - you could count the number of occasions this (ie. a total award of 1.5 points) had happened over the past 10 years, he suggested, on the digits of one hand.
Scorelines of ½-1 etc should be viewed as a basic result which totals 1 plus an arbiter bonus/penalty to ensure the event positions/prizes reflect what the arbiter considered fair. I guess what needed to happen in the case of the 2014 scoreline of ½-1 would be to use the nearest compatible basic result, perform the grading for all players and then adjust the 2 grades for the arbiter bonus or penalty without altering the remaining grades. This is what I was getting at in the Aber 2014 thread. Using a basic 0-0 has some merit as neither competitor wished to continue and the position could not be agreed and ½-½ has some merit as the competitors could have agreed a draw had they known the alternative would be 0-0.