The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://www.ecforum.org.uk/
Brian V, thank you for the explanation.Brian Valentine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:12 pmHi David,
I was there to applaud his achievement! I'm sure at the least, photographs will appear in due course. I suspect that the criteria for board 5 awards included something lower than seven games.
Not sure I agree with that scoring. I'd go for England Seniors 6, ECF Chief Executive 0, David Sedgwick -1David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:09 pmBrian V, thank you for the explanation.Brian Valentine wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:12 pmHi David,
I was there to applaud his achievement! I'm sure at the least, photographs will appear in due course. I suspect that the criteria for board 5 awards included something lower than seven games.
Congratulations and apologies to Brian H.
Revised score: England Seniors 6 - ECF Chief Executive 0
David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:09 pm
Revised score: England Seniors 6 - ECF Chief Executive 0
I know that ECF Board members find bizarre ways of sticking together, but that one really does take the proverbial biscuit.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:11 pm
Not sure I agree with that scoring. I'd go for England Seniors 6, ECF Chief Executive 0, David Sedgwick -1
-1 since you were trying to take a medal off us, whereas Mike didn't think we'd win any.
I'd disqualify both of you for misquoting because it seems clear to me that the ECF Chief Executive's comment was referring to the chances of the over 50 team finishing in the top three.David Sedgwick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:20 pmDavid Sedgwick wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:09 pm
Revised score: England Seniors 6 - ECF Chief Executive 0I know that ECF Board members find bizarre ways of sticking together, but that one really does take the proverbial biscuit.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:11 pm
Not sure I agree with that scoring. I'd go for England Seniors 6, ECF Chief Executive 0, David Sedgwick -1
-1 since you were trying to take a medal off us, whereas Mike didn't think we'd win any.
We see these stories all the time, and it takes a bit of work to investigate them, but occasionally I decide to make the effort.Keith Arkell wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:51 pmWe knew before the match that our Greek opponents were vastly under-rated just by looking at their games. Someone gave the typical explanation that there are lots of ludicrously under-rated kids in Athens stealing all their points!
But not this analysis. He might only have lost a few points due to losses against juniors, but how do you know that many of his opponents hadn't lost significant numbers of points to juniors, meaning he was playing under-rated adults, with his rating suffering accordingly?NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:24 amThese include a total of two games in which he lost to a Greek junior rated below himself.
As is generally the case, the claims of the Greek players collapse when subjected to actual analysis.
Yes, you can always go round in circles like that, eventually concluding that everyone in the world must be underrated.Ian Thompson wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:35 amBut not this analysis. He might only have lost a few points due to losses against juniors, but how do you know that many of his opponents hadn't lost significant numbers of points to juniors, meaning he was playing under-rated adults, with his rating suffering accordingly?
That's the conclusion that we always seem to reach, yes. Or, perhaps less circularly, that the playing standard indicated by any given FIDE rating tends to rise over time.NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:25 pmYes, you can always go round in circles like that, eventually concluding that everyone in the world must be underrated.
Indeed, the English juniors - who I'm told are always "underrated" and that their ECF grade is a better idea of how good they are - shed 487.6 points between 17 of them who were rated at the World Schools: http://chess-results.com/tnr427500.aspx ... NG&flag=30NickFaulks wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 12:25 pmIf the Greek population were generally underrated, then you would expect them to outperform when playing abroad, of which there is no evidence. In particular, Keith's opponent lost 74 of his points against foreigners, with an almost identical performance to that against Greeks
Grim reading. In former and better times the England groups were smaller and the criteria for selection were more stringent.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:18 pm
Indeed, the English juniors - who I'm told are always "underrated" and that their ECF grade is a better idea of how good they are - shed 487.6 points between 17 of them who were rated at the World Schools: http://chess-results.com/tnr427500.aspx ... NG&flag=30
This isn't the first time this happened. There's no evidence at all that English juniors are "underrated" compared to their foreign counterparts, based on the evidence of this tournament and other similar junior tournaments.
My selection criteria were more stringent; there are legacy qualifications via the Academy where the rating thresholds to qualify were lower for Academy members than non-Academy members. They can be sorted in time for 2020.Leonard Barden wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:34 pmGrim reading. In former and better times the England groups were smaller and the criteria for selection were more stringent.Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:18 pm
Indeed, the English juniors - who I'm told are always "underrated" and that their ECF grade is a better idea of how good they are - shed 487.6 points between 17 of them who were rated at the World Schools: http://chess-results.com/tnr427500.aspx ... NG&flag=30
This isn't the first time this happened. There's no evidence at all that English juniors are "underrated" compared to their foreign counterparts, based on the evidence of this tournament and other similar junior tournaments.