English Chess Forum

In the under-12 minor, a total outsider leads with 7.5/8 going into the final round. This provoked my curiosity and, on the FIDE website, the girl in question is said to have been born in 2005. That would seem to mean she attained age 12 sometime in 2017. In that case, can someone explain how she comes to be playing in an u-12 event? (I'm not making any accusations - FIDE has been known to be wrong before now - but it's odd).

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:23 pm

In the under-12 minor, a total outsider leads with 7.5/8 going into the final round. This provoked my curiosity and, on the FIDE website, the girl in question is said to have been born in 2005. That would seem to mean she attained age 12 sometime in 2017. In that case, can someone explain how she comes to be playing in an u-12 event? (I'm not making any accusations - FIDE has been known to be wrong before now - but it's odd).

These things depend on the event definition of ages and eligibility. The definition is not bad, defining when ages are calculated but does not state what is meant by U12. Usually these things are arbiter/organiser error as experienced chess players are normally competent readers of entry conditions. However it may be your error - try checking the rating too or FID from chess-results, you may arrive at a year of birth 2007 !

The ECF (and FIDE?) age defining criteria is the age of the child as at August 31st of the most recent August 31st to occur.

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:24 pm

The ECF (and FIDE?) age defining criteria is the age of the child as at August 31st of the most recent August 31st to occur.

FIDE is 1st January as far as I'm aware.

LawrenceCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:27 pm

John Upham wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:24 pm

The ECF (and FIDE?) age defining criteria is the age of the child as at August 31st of the most recent August 31st to occur.

FIDE is 1st January as far as I'm aware.

FIDE has no choice in this matter, since it is believed that juniors cannot legally be compelled to provide their date of birth, just the year. This may be wrong, and evidently the ECF sees no problem, but anyway it is convenient and works.

E Michael White wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:18 pm

These things depend on the event definition of ages and eligibility. The definition is not bad, defining when ages are calculated but does not state what is meant by U12. Usually these things are arbiter/organiser error as experienced chess players are normally competent readers of entry conditions. However it may be your error - try checking the rating too or FID from chess-results, you may arrive at a year of birth 2007 !

Ages for this event, as I understand it, are as 31 August 2018. I'm deriving the birth year 2005 from http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=14194694 but I'm entirely prepared to believe - in fact, I'd be delighted to find my misgivings are ill-founded - that another birth year appears elsewhere.

Perhaps ought to be in the U12 major. Equal 1st in a Moscow event.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:54 pm

Perhaps ought to be in the U12 major. Equal 1st in a Moscow event.

Well, yes, there's a separate question as to why, with (again according to the same FIDE website) a ELO1456 rating, she was allowed into the under-12 minor but not seeded appropriately for Swiss pairing purposes.

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:05 pm

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:54 pm

Perhaps ought to be in the U12 major. Equal 1st in a Moscow event.

Well, yes, there's a separate question as to why, with (again according to the same FIDE website) a ELO1456 rating, she was allowed into the under-12 minor but not seeded appropriately for Swiss pairing purposes.

Hello Roger again

you need to perform your check in 2 moves. Try looking at

http://chess-results.com/tnr400143.aspx ... turdet=YES

and clicking on the player. From there you can index the FIDE ratings file using the FIDE-ID from Chess -results. This shows you may be looking at the wrong player, country and rating. If Chess-results is correct the player was ranked one in the event not a rank outsider. However there are three players likewise named so proceed with caution we don't want an international crisis with Sajid Javid involved as he has his hands full already !

Of course the arbiters may have input incorrect data into chess-results but it looks as if that is not the error. Being miles away from the tournament I cannot verify whether my view is correct or not. Good luck.

E Michael White wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:28 pm

If Chess-results is correct the player was ranked one in the event not a rank outsider.

It doesn't look as if the organisers took into account her FIDE rating, either for eligibility or pairings. Instead, particularly as this was not FIDE rated but just an ECF graded event, they paired her as if she had a grade of 50.

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:39 pm

It doesn't look as if the organisers took into account her FIDE rating, either for eligibility or pairings. Instead, particularly as this was not FIDE rated but just an ECF graded event, they paired her as if she had a grade of 50.

yes I noticed that but felt player identification was more important.

Looking for positives thanks to the other Roger and yourself the organiser/arbiters can regard this as an opportunity to track back and avoid the same mistake again improving the already good standard of administration at the LJ.

The ECF really should stop asking for and sometimes passing full dates of birth to others subjecting members to data risks. I've posted about this on and off since 2012. Modifying age definitions for eligibility as stated by Nick and used by FIDE is a step in the right direction.

Michael is entirely correct as, on checking, I agree there are 3 girls with the same name - and one is indeed born 2007 and clearly appears to be the one who played at LJCC. So I thank him and apologise for raising what now proves to be a false alarm. Of course, it doesn't answer the question of why the organisers totally disregarded her rating for pairing purposes. I'm not so sure, though, about the "already good standard of administration at the LJ" as I've heard several grumbles in recent years.

The girl in question played in the Richmond Blitz on 22 December, scoring 7/11 in an Open tournament, finishing 12th out of 64, after tie-break, an improvement on her expected result given her then FIDE blitz rating of 1613. Her score group consisted of 2 players rated 2000+, 1 of 1900+, 3 of 1800+, herself and one 1500+ player. She is clearly an improving young player.

And yes, she played in the correct age group at the recent LJCC.

The seeding in the ECF graded sections of the LJCC was by ECF grade. The grades of non-graded players were set to 50. How much effort the organisers made to identify outliers by FIDE or other national rating is not known to me, and it is not in my view reasonable to expect them to catch every such instance.

I disagree with the idea that age related tournaments in England should be based on the 1st of January. The school year starts on the 1st of September, and young players should normally play (except in cases of unusual talent) with their class peers. A Year 4 entering his or her first tournament might well find it daunting if they were placed in a section where the majority of players were from Year 5. If there is a privacy issue (and I am not convinced that there is), then that is what should be addressed(*), not the age sections of junior tournaments.

[For Senior Tournaments (Over 60, etc), then obviously school year is not an issue.]

[* If there is considered to be a privacy issue, then a solution to that would be for every player to register directly with the ECF before taking part in the tournament. The player would supply all personal identification solely to the ECF, which would then be solely responsible for maintaining that data securely and adhering to relevant privacy laws and policies. In entering a tournament a player would provide solely their grading id, no club, residence or date of birth identification would need to be passed on to the tournament organiser. A secure interface could be built which would allow an organiser to check that a player was eligible to play in a certain age category by ECF or FIDE regulations, the interface returning simply a flag indicating whether the player was eligible or not for the specified age category.]

Paul McKeown wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:56 pm

The seeding in the ECF graded sections of the LJCC was by ECF grade. The grades of non-graded players were set to 50. How much effort the organisers made to identify outliers by FIDE or other national rating is not known to me, and it is not in my view reasonable to expect them to catch every such instance.

Paul, I've duly apologised for raising the age issue and that's now settled. While I don't disagree with your paragraph which I've reproduced here, it still leaves one loose strand. Qualification for the LJCC u-12 finals is clearly advertised as being by grade or by performance in a qualifying tournament. The junior in question doesn't appear to have played any graded events in the UK - the Richmond event which you mention was, unless I'm much mistaken, a blitz event - so how, if the organisers were unaware of her ELO rating, did she manage to gain entry?

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing here is intended as a criticism of the junior in question. But either the LJCC organisers were aware of her rating or they weren't. If no, why was she permitted to compete? If yes, why wasn't she seeded sensibly?

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 04, 2019 5:05 pm

Paul McKeown wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:56 pm

The seeding in the ECF graded sections of the LJCC was by ECF grade. The grades of non-graded players were set to 50. How much effort the organisers made to identify outliers by FIDE or other national rating is not known to me, and it is not in my view reasonable to expect them to catch every such instance.

Paul, I've duly apologised for raising the age issue and that's now settled. While I don't disagree with your paragraph which I've reproduced here, it still leaves one loose strand. Qualification for the LJCC u-12 finals is clearly advertised as being by grade or by performance in a qualifying tournament. The junior in question doesn't appear to have played any graded events in the UK - the Richmond event which you mention was, unless I'm much mistaken, a blitz event - so how, if the organisers were unaware of her ELO rating, did she manage to gain entry?

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing here is intended as a criticism of the junior in question. But either the LJCC organisers were aware of her rating or they weren't. If no, why was she permitted to compete? If yes, why wasn't she seeded sensibly?

Arnold Lutton would be the best person to ask but I suspect that he does not frequent this place.