World Cadet Chess Championship 2018

[David Sedgwick]

I keep hearing that English adults don't like playing English juniors because the latter are underrated. This is usually attributed to their not playing many FIDE rated games compared with their overseas conterparts.

I also keep hearing that, if English juniors don't do as well in World and European Youth Championships as hoped, it is because their opponents are (even more) underrated.

Something leads me to think that these two hypotheses cannot both be right.

Why not? English adult tournament players have established grades based on more games, and lose points against (young) players with relatively unestablished grades.

English juniors then play in tournaments with a high percentage of players who are yet to have the same opportunity to take Fide points off adult players, and so take them off the English players. That is perfectly logical.

If English players are underrated because they play few rated games, as per Hypothesis 1, then I fail to see how their counterparts from countries where more games are rated will have had fewer opportunities to play adults.

However, I am speculating. I thank those who are doing proper research, or have commissioned it.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I think an important question to ask in this context is "underrated relative to what?". It's entirely possible that juniors of most nations are underrated relative to adults of the same nations.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think an important question to ask in this context is "underrated relative to what?".

I think that's right.

I've heard some people say "everyone is underrated" - clearly that can't be true. Others have said "everyone is underrated compared to the ECF system". I'm not sure that's true; they only think that because if you apply the conversion formula, then it doesn't work as well as it might. In that case, the fault is with the formula, and not the rating system. It's not obvious to me why the success of the formula would be dependent on the number of games put into the system.

I keep hearing that English adults don't like playing English juniors because the latter are underrated. This is usually attributed to their not playing many FIDE rated games compared with their overseas conterparts.

I also keep hearing that, if English juniors don't do as well in World and European Youth Championships as hoped, it is because their opponents are (even more) underrated.

Something leads me to think that these two hypotheses cannot both be right.

Why not? English adult tournament players have established grades based on more games, and lose points against (young) players with relatively unestablished grades.

English juniors then play in tournaments with a high percentage of players who are yet to have the same opportunity to take Fide points off adult players, and so take them off the English players. That is perfectly logical.

If English players are underrated because they play few rated games, as per Hypothesis 1, then I fail to see how their counterparts from countries where more games are rated will have had fewer opportunities to play adults.

However, I am speculating. I thank those who are doing proper research, or have commissioned it.

If I may be permitted to join in with the speculation, I came to the same conclusion as David Sedgwick, which as regular readers of this Forum will know, is not necessarily an everyday occurrence. I do think it is to do with speed of improvement, which is much higher in Eastern Europe than it is in England.

Incidentally, Eastern Europe and India are places normally charged with having juniors with ratings that are lower than they should be. One argument that used to be prevalent in England is that juniors should avoid getting a FIDE-rating and coming on the list at 1001 or near to it, because it's "impossible" for them to then get to 2500+. This doesn't seem to have been an issue in countries like Armenia, where apparently there is less rated chess, but they seem very successful in generating strong players at junior and adult level. Nor does it seem to be an issue in India, which is consistently developing prodigies at the moment.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I've heard some people say "everyone is underrated" - clearly that can't be true.

Well, it can, but in order to say it, you have to explicitly adopt the assumption that the rating system is not just a self-contained thing, but actually corresponds to some external measurement of a player's skill.

[Alex Holowczak]

I've heard some people say "everyone is underrated" - clearly that can't be true.

Well, it can, but in order to say it, you have to explicitly adopt the assumption that the rating system is not just a self-contained thing, but actually corresponds to some external measurement of a player's skill.

Which would be a wrong assumption, because the important thing is the differences between the ratings rather than the magnitude of the ratings. That's the same principle as the ECF system.

[NickFaulks]

Well, it can, but in order to say it, you have to explicitly adopt the assumption that the rating system is not just a self-contained thing, but actually corresponds to some external measurement of a player's skill.

Something which no chess rating system of which I am aware attempts to do.

[Richard Bates]

I wouldn't say that playing juniors these days are necessarily all under-rated. The 40pt k-factor has partly corrected that. I would say that in large part their ratings are basically random, fluctuating wildly around a usually fairly rapidly increasing mean. And best not to play them in the close aftermath of having competed in all junior events. It is quite normal for them to move 200pts one way and back again in very short order.

[NickFaulks]

Yes, notice that it is usually towards you. There is something in your general tone that i find subtly dismissive, superior and often belittling. I hadn't even realised I had been reacting towards you that way. Perhaps my reactions were a little out of proportion, but that is what I was trying to communicate. I will try and hold my rudeness in check

Thanks, let's call a truce. I cannot deny that I am intolerant of opinions which I believe are in conflict with provable facts, and am more than willing to enter an argument on that footing. The problem is that so many myths are propogated about the rating system, in some cases by people in positions where they should know better, and it does become wearing. Having said that, I have already conceded that the ratings of English juniors may well less reliable than most, for reasons which are well enough known.

The problem of the FIDE ratings of English juniors has certainly become tedious and there have been suggestions that we should stop talking about it. But we don't. In my opinion, the underlying issue is that in some English circles the gaming of the FIDE rating system seems to be viewed as a game in itself. Elsewhere, everyone plays lots of games of chess, they are submitted to FIDE and your rating is whatever number drops out. That approach works pretty well.

Got to go now, for a FIDE rated game against a junior ( which I welcome ).

[Alex Holowczak]

Got to go now, for a FIDE rated game against a junior ( which I welcome ).

Is that because your new opponent is significantly weaker than the 24-year old the 4NCL website is showing you as playing this afternoon?

[NickFaulks]

Got to go now, for a FIDE rated game against a junior ( which I welcome ).

Is that because your new opponent is significantly weaker than the 24-year old the 4NCL website is showing you as playing this afternoon?

Good spot, I was under the impression that Sussex Martlets were a team of juniors. Why aren't they called Martles, which would be less confusing to some of us?

[J T Melsom]

except that Martlet is the correct term for the heraldic device on the county coat of arms, and Martle isn't a word at all

[John McKenna]

Martle is a surname - used by Henry James in one of his novels.

Martlesham is a village in Suffolk.

Nick was not too far wide of the mark when he suggested the Martles as a team name, methinks.

[Leonard Barden]

I do think it is to do with speed of improvement, which is much higher in Eastern Europe than it is in England.
in countries like Armenia, where apparently there is less rated chess, ... they seem very successful in generating strong players at junior and adult level. Nor does it seem to be an issue in India, which is consistently developing prodigies at the moment.

You don't have to go East and to different cultures for fast improving juniors and a World Cadet 2018 success story:
https://twitter.com/USChess/status/1063825297475346432
...and that's without Abhimanyu Mishra (b 2009, rating 2213), the highest rated U10 in the world, who didn't compete in Spain.

[David Shepherd]

One thing to remember when evaluating performances is that some countries publish more games of players than other countries. This gives the stronger players preparing the juniors more to work with.

[Alex Holowczak]

Got to go now, for a FIDE rated game against a junior ( which I welcome ).

Is that because your new opponent is significantly weaker than the 24-year old the 4NCL website is showing you as playing this afternoon?

Good spot, I was under the impression that Sussex Martlets were a team of juniors. Why aren't they called Martles, which would be less confusing to some of us?

Sussex Junior Chess does an excellent job of generating large numbers of junior players; it certainly punches above its weight in terms of its population. Eventually they get too old for junior chess, so where do these promising juniors and young adults play? As a detached observer, the answer appears to be the Sussex Martlets 4NCL team.