World Youth Trial 5th-6th March 2011

[Alex Holowczak]

I think having a minimum rating as a qualification threshold is a very good idea. You could set it at the mark which is roughly the mean rating of the previous year's competition. So anyone qualifying by rating would probably score about 50%. By saying to a young player that your rating must be above x to qualify, it might motivate them to play more FIDE-rated chess, and give them a target to reach in terms of overall development. At the moment, there's scope for the strongest player in each section - particularly amongst the girls where there are so few of them - to rest on their laurels as the best player, and still qualify for things.

[Peter Turner]

The extra cost for the additional player for the World seems to be:-

+70€ FIDE fee and 770€ accommodation

Presumably plus travel which for somewhere like Brazil will not be cheap.

Morning Sean

I was not trying to get too complicated with my posting. The figures I quoted were the extra the additional player would pay compared with the 'free' place. For example I could add that say 3 additional players went then an additional coach could be needed, that coach, I assume from figures quoted, would cost something in the region of £3,000!! divided by 3 the additional players could be asked for another £1,000 each to cover the coahing cost!!

Peter T

[LozCooper]

I think having a minimum rating as a qualification threshold is a very good idea. You could set it at the mark which is roughly the mean rating of the previous year's competition. So anyone qualifying by rating would probably score about 50%. By saying to a young player that your rating must be above x to qualify, it might motivate them to play more FIDE-rated chess, and give them a target to reach in terms of overall development. At the moment, there's scope for the strongest player in each section - particularly amongst the girls where there are so few of them - to rest on their laurels as the best player, and still qualify for things.

I agree with this principle. However, it seems to penalise those who get a rating at a very young age and have to work their way up as opposed to someone who takes up rated chess at a later age when they are stronger and therefore will come on the list higher.

It may be better to concentrate on tournament performance ratings which will give a guide to how they have performed over the last 3, 6 or 12 months, whichever period you are looking at. It is certainly beneficial for players to be getting experience of playing in internationally rated tournaments and getting used to playing with increment and over a number of days etc Peter Williams, Sam Franklin, Isaac Sanders, Amy Hoare are all good examples of this and there are many more.

[Sean Hewitt]

I agree with this principle. However, it seems to penalise those who get a rating at a very young age and have to work their way up as opposed to someone who takes up rated chess at a later age when they are stronger and therefore will come on the list higher.

Is there any evidence of this? In my experience, the issue tends to be one of how much FIDE rated chess the player plays rather that what age they get their rating. If a junior plays a reasonable amount of rated games then their rating will be reasonably accurate regardless of when they got their first rating. But if they play a very limited amount then their rating will be more likely to be inaccurate.

[Peter Turner]

Agree with Sean, any FIDE rating where a player still has 25 K factor (less than 30 rated games I think) is interesting rather than accurate - similar to a youngsters not having an 'A' grading code. Always been a bit of a problem, because there are exceptions such as exam year, that youngsters playing less than 30 long play games in a year are perhaps not quite ready for intternational chess!!??

[Alex Holowczak]

I think either having a rating over a threshold, or a tournament performance rating over a (slightly higher) threshold makes a degree of sense. For the very young juniors (i.e. U10, U8), "rating" might need to be substituted with the word "grade".

[Sean Hewitt]

I think the only thing I would add is that the rating threshold achieved anytime in a period. We don't want players to stop playing to 'protect their rating' once they've achieved the qualifying standard.

[LozCooper]

I agree with this principle. However, it seems to penalise those who get a rating at a very young age and have to work their way up as opposed to someone who takes up rated chess at a later age when they are stronger and therefore will come on the list higher.

Is there any evidence of this? In my experience, the issue tends to be one of how much FIDE rated chess the player plays rather that what age they get their rating. If a junior plays a reasonable amount of rated games then their rating will be reasonably accurate regardless of when they got their first rating. But if they play a very limited amount then their rating will be more likely to be inaccurate.

I was basing this on the several parents who have told me that they won't enter their son/daughter into rated tournaments until they are strong enough to get a "decent" rating and will not have to play catch up as many of their peers are doing. This is robbing them of several years experience which they can't get back. Obviously, I advise them to play as much as possible and not worry about rating.

I agree that eventually your rating will correct itself but if you come on the list at 1200 it is seen as demoralising and I know of some players who have more or less stopped playing because they are embarressed about their initial rating or even waited for part ratings to expire before playing another international event. I try and encourage by saying at least it means you will be gaining points for the foreseeable future

It may be more perception than reality but it does exist. To those playing in the Grand Prix and qualifying events there is also less time on the calendar to play rated events

[LozCooper]

I think the only thing I would add is that the rating threshold achieved anytime in a period. We don't want players to stop playing to 'protect their rating' once they've achieved the qualifying standard.

Agreed. That's why I think also looking at performance is important.

[David Shepherd]

At the moment, there's scope for the strongest player in each section - particularly amongst the girls where there are so few of them - to rest on their laurels as the best player, and still qualify for things.

If you look at all sections of the European grand prix there is at least one girl in the top five players of all the age groups including Anna who is leading the U12's, so I guess the boys had better be careful in case the best girls stop resting on their laurels , I just don't think it happens, they are all very competitive that is partly why they are the best - I think both the top boys and girls just view themselves as players in mainly mixed competitions.

[Sean Hewitt]

I was basing this on the several parents who have told me that they won't enter their son/daughter into rated tournaments until they are strong enough to get a "decent" rating and will not have to play catch up as many of their peers are doing.

It may be more perception than reality but it does exist.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's nothing to do with reality at all. I think that those youngsters who miss out on the experience of playing these events are at a disadvantage.

[LozCooper]

I was basing this on the several parents who have told me that they won't enter their son/daughter into rated tournaments until they are strong enough to get a "decent" rating and will not have to play catch up as many of their peers are doing.

It may be more perception than reality but it does exist.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's nothing to do with reality at all. I think that those youngsters who miss out on the experience of playing these events are at a disadvantage.

I 100% agree. A wide variety of experience of all kinds of tournaments is highly desirable. To play in an 11 round world tournament with primarily a game a day without playing anything other than 1 and 2 day events is a big shock to the system, even more so if you've never played with increment. But even if you aren't aiming for the Euroopean and World events I think events such as yours with the options of 3 or 5 day schedule are a good way of building up to 9 and 11 day events such as Hastings, British etc

[E Michael White]

I agree with this principle. However, it seems to penalise those who get a rating at a very young age and have to work their way up as opposed to someone who takes up rated chess at a later age when they are stronger and therefore will come on the list higher.

It may be better to concentrate on tournament performance ratings which will give a guide to how they have performed over the last 3, 6 or 12 months

You are absolutely right on this as regards the maths behind the FIDE rating system. FIDE, like ECF grades, does not work very well on grading juniors or rapidly improving players.

[Sean Hewitt]

I agree with this principle. However, it seems to penalise those who get a rating at a very young age and have to work their way up as opposed to someone who takes up rated chess at a later age when they are stronger and therefore will come on the list higher.

It may be better to concentrate on tournament performance ratings which will give a guide to how they have performed over the last 3, 6 or 12 months

You are absolutely right on this as regards the maths behind the FIDE rating system. FIDE, like ECF grades, does not work very well on grading juniors or rapidly improving players.

Michael : surely it is the number of games played which determines the accuracy of a rating, rather than the players age?

[E Michael White]

Both.

The first grade can cause an over or under bias which takes ages to clear. A larger number of games can clear it quicker. Even if the first grade is accurate the next grade will lag the true strength of the improved player at the next review.

It used to be possible to flood the grade by playing lots of games, when a player was stronger than their grade, before the next list came out, but following the more frequent grade calculations this is much less likely.

I think the best way to get to say 2300 at age 16 would be to :-

a) do not join the ECF as a member
b) play in International tournaments abroad, say Spain, where parents might think it doubles as a holiday. As far as I know players can play when not registered with the ECF. These will not be graded and forgotten by the system but the player gets the experience.
c) join the ECF at about age 14/15
d) play one or two FIDE events
e) in the periods just before the cut off dates play as many games as possible with the most in the last period before selection.