UnRated Players in Rated Competitions?

[John Upham]

Two years ago in an u-180 County match I played an unrated player. From his board position he was allegedly 130 - 140.

His rating next season was 180+. He was not a junior.

In general, how do people feel about unrated players playing in rating limited competitions?

An oxymoron of some kind seems to exist here.

The obvious justification is that the player has been estimated with a rating lower than the limit.

How often are players allocated convenient estimated ratings on the grounds that they could be improving or have a surprisingly successful season?

Opinions are sought

[Dr Andrew Cula]

Short of setting an exam (e.g. 30 tactical puzzles, the score giving a grading estimation) you can do no more than a best guess, and unless you have evidence to the contrary assume it's a genuine mistake.

[Neill Cooper]

Having returned to club chess after many years absence I got an unofficial rapidplay rating of 100 by beating 6 opponents.
My standard play grade was 169 (the realistic figure). If someone wants a false rating there is not much we can do about it - they just deliberately lose games.
For a new player one could ask what is their rating so far this season (and from how many games).
Anyone know what Golf does for handicap events? They must have similar issues.

[John Upham]

OK,
Here is an excellent recent example from a Golders Green RapidPlay from April 12th :

u-100

Pos Player Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts Perf
1 Moussavi, Bobby e142 w28+ b14+ w13+ b10+ w9+ b4+ 6 152
2 Farrell, Joseph B 87 w11+ b4- w14+ b13+ w5+ b6+ 5 116
3 Bedwell, Richard 96 w25+ b10= w18- b28+ w11+ b9+ 4½ 107

One allows someone with an estimated rating of 142 into an u-100 tournament and surprise, surprise, they win it with 6/6 !!

I'm sure Mr. Farrell was delighted !!

See http://www.geocities.com/adamraoof/resu ... _08_04.txt
John

[Dr Andrew Cula]

OK,
Here is an excellent recent example from a Golders Green RapidPlay from April 12th :

u-100

Pos Player Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts Perf
1 Moussavi, Bobby e142 w28+ b14+ w13+ b10+ w9+ b4+ 6 152
2 Farrell, Joseph B 87 w11+ b4- w14+ b13+ w5+ b6+ 5 116
3 Bedwell, Richard 96 w25+ b10= w18- b28+ w11+ b9+ 4½ 107

One allows someone with an estimated rating of 142 into an u-100 tournament and surprise, surprise, they win it with 6/6 !!

I'm sure Mr. Farrell was delighted !!

John

http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getre ... ef=231005D

3 years ago he was BCF 90. I'd imagine the e142 has been applied after his results in this tournament. This situation whilst not idea from Mr Farrell's point of view is not a major problem. It would become a problem if Mr Moussavi attempted to enter another U100 rated competition whist still ungraded.

If you ban these players how will they ever get a grade?

[Dr Andrew Cula]

See http://www.geocities.com/adamraoof/resu ... _08_04.txt

I wonder why Mr Gnatiouk was in the U100. A few odd entries there.

[Greg Breed]

OK,
Here is an excellent recent example from a Golders Green RapidPlay from April 12th :

u-100

Pos Player Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts Perf
1 Moussavi, Bobby e142 w28+ b14+ w13+ b10+ w9+ b4+ 6 152
2 Farrell, Joseph B 87 w11+ b4- w14+ b13+ w5+ b6+ 5 116
3 Bedwell, Richard 96 w25+ b10= w18- b28+ w11+ b9+ 4½ 107

One allows someone with an estimated rating of 142 into an u-100 tournament and surprise, surprise, they win it with 6/6 !!

I'm sure Mr. Farrell was delighted !!

John

John, his estimated grade was worked out retrospectively. If you look at other performance ratings you'll notice that everyone who finishes in the top three to five places has a performance rating higher than their actual rating and almost always higher than the grading limit.. Here's the complete U130 section results for March:-

Code: Select all

U130

Pos  Player                   Grade       1       2       3       4       5       6     Pts   Perf   
 1   Payne, Matthew J           110     w8+     b7+    w13=     b5+     b9+     w6+      5½    154   
 2   Rohrer, Finlo              120    w28+     b6-    w30+    b18=    w12+     w9+      4½    123   
 3   McNish, David              107     w7-    b30+    w27+    b24+    w13+     b5=      4½    129   
 4   Breed, Greg                115    bye=    b20+     b9-    w19+    b18+    w10+      4½    142   
 5   Aaron, Augustine           121    b23+    w24+     b6+     w1-    b10=     w3=      4     121   
 6   Andreev, Peter              93    b21+     w2+     w5-     b7+    w11+     b1-      4     130   
 7   Landau, Jonathan           124     b3+     w1-    b21+     w6-    b24+    b12+      4     119   
 8   Desai, Amit                 88     b1-    w29+    w18-    b20+    b25+    w15+      4     110   
 9   Mutale, Michael M          125    w16=    b19+     w4+    b11+     w1-     b2-      3½    116   
10  Smith, Lucy K              121    w19=    b16+    w14=    b26+     w5=     b4-      3½    111   
11  Rook, Ian R                 99    b29+    w27+    b12=     w9-     b6-    w22+      3½    102   
12  Byrne, Des                 101    b15+    w25+    w11=    b13=     b2-     w7-      3     108   
13  Dwek, Ilan G               124    bye+    w14+     b1=    w12=     b3-              3     104   
14  Gregory, Alex               96    w30+    b13-    b10=    w21=    b15-    w18+      3     104   
15  Pattni, Kishan             105    w12-    b17+    w26-    b28+    w14+     b8-      3      95   
16  Senior, Thomas              98     b9=    w10-    b22-    w23+    b21=    w25+      3     103   
17  Sabin, Frank               114    b24-    w15-    b23=    w22=    b28+    w19+      3      95   
18  Bynnersley, Anthony G      107    b27-    w22+     b8+     w2=     w4-    b14-      2½     92   
19  Rixon, Tom J               102    b10=     w9-    w20+     b4-    w26+    b17-      2½    102   
20  Blackwell, Paul            105    b22+     w4-    b19-     w8-    b29+    w21=      2½     86   
21  Riley, Adrian K            108     w6-    b28+     w7-    b14=    w16=    b20=      2½     92   
22  Brooke, Ian R               88    w20-    b18-    w16+    b17=    w27+    b11-      2½     94   
23  Desai, Anup                 97     w5-    b26-    w17=    b16-    w30+    b29+      2½     81   
24  Upham, John E               95    w17+     b5-    b25+     w3-     w7-              2      99   
25  Smith, Gary P              e77    w26+    b12-    w24-    b27+     w8-    b16-      2      77   
26  Pyper, Ramsay               84    b25-    w23+    b15+    w10-    b19-    w28-      2      81   
27  Levene, Joseph              93    w18+    b11-     b3-    w25-    b22-    bye+      2      66   
28  Wasielewski, Sebastian     e84     b2-    w21-    b29+    w15-    w17-    b26+      2      81   
29  Walker, Nicholas F         e56    w11-     b8-    w28-    b30+    w20-    w23-      1      53   
30  Mavinkurve, Ajay            60    b14-     w3-     b2-    w29-    b23-    bye+      1      40   

Three out of the top six got performance ratings that were higher than the grade limit for that section.
Half of the top 24 performed higher than their grade.

Naturally, in order to win (or even do well) at an event where there is a grading limit you have to perform above your grade. Only open events can be won by under performing. I know that mathematically this statement is untrue but in reality it is.

Say for example Mark Hebden (248 RP) won a 6 round Open event where all his opponents were rated 208 or less. He wins 5 and loses 1. His performance would be 241 thus:

Round 1...2....3....4...5....6
......258 258 258 258 258 158
Total 1448/6=241.333

Also you'll notice that I got a performance rating of 142 for 4½ points whereas the others were in the 120's. That's simply because I had a ½ point bye in round 1 and therefore my performance is divided by 5 not 6. In April I performed lower and got 3 out of 6 yet my performance was still one point higher than my grade.

With regards to Bobby Moussavi, yes he was too strong for that section and next time he plays he will go into the U160. Also if he enters any other tournaments then the controllers will be able to find him on Adam Raoof's website just by doing a Google search on the name. They will then see his performance rating. He may get stomped on in the U160 but eventually his grade will settle down.

[Greg Breed]

See http://www.geocities.com/adamraoof/resu ... _08_04.txt

I wonder why Mr Gnatiouk was in the U100. A few odd entries there.

I can answer that
http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getpl ... ayers=gnat

He's got two names!


If I had to pick one it would be this one
http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getre ... ef=260823G
Which is under 100...
I know Dima is short for Dimitriy in Russian.

[Greg Breed]

http://grading.bcfservices.org.uk/getre ... ef=231005D

3 years ago he was BCF 90. I'd imagine the e142 has been applied after his results in this tournament. This situation whilst not idea from Mr Farrell's point of view is not a major problem. It would become a problem if Mr Moussavi attempted to enter another U100 rated competition whist still ungraded.

If you ban these players how will they ever get a grade?

I don't think John was suggesting a ban, rather a more appropriate section. I believe Bobby had a very good tournament and maybe improved whilst at college or something. He still won't be allowed into an Under 100 until he starts to perform under 100.

[Dr Andrew Cula]

He still won't be allowed into an Under 100 until he starts to perform under 100.

http://www.geocities.com/adamraoof/resu ... _08_02.txt
Rating 106

http://www.geocities.com/adamraoof/resu ... _08_03.txt
Rating 102

Nothing personal against Mr Moussavi, Just using him as an example. In Feb and March he played in the U100 section both times getting a > 100 Estimated rating. I'd say technically he probably shouldn't have been in the U100 in March, and definitely not in April.

[John Upham]

Whilst a person is unrated (or unknown to the organisers) I would suggest that the organisers err on the side of caution.

I mean by this that the player is required to enter a higher rated section than they initially request.

If you believe in the ECF rating system then that person will achieve some kind of rating whatever section they enter!

It is better that they get 2/6 in the open and only dissappoint themselves rather than get 6/6 in the u-100 section and annoy those with genuine ratings (whatever that means).

This might be the best way to deal with those determined to pull the wool over the eyes of organisers who are merely trying their best to keep as many people as happy as possible.

John

[Howard Grist]

I don't believe that there is currently a big problem with players being unrated. Almost all congress entrants have either played afew games and have a published grade on the ECF system at siome time or other, or have a FIDE rating. The player that John originally complains about - if I have identified him correctly - was already on the ECF master list with an unpublished grade of 184 when John played him. In ths case it is down to the event organiser to speak to his grader to get this information before allowing him to play.

As compiler of the cross tables referred to, I can confirm that Bobby Moussavi's 'grade' of 142 is indeed an estimate based on his six games played in this event. Also thanks for pointing out the two Gnatiouk, Dmitri. Combining the two records gives him a rapidplay grade of exactly 100.

Howard
--------
Golders Green Rapidplay Grader & ECF central grading system programmer

[Mick Norris]

... In this case it is down to the event organiser to speak to his grader to get this information before allowing him to play...

Howard
--------
Golders Green Rapidplay Grader & ECF central grading system programmer

Howard

What do you do with the player who walks through the door to enter on the day of the event?

Mick

[Howard Grist]

Mick,

I would ask the player how strong he thought he was. Whilst playing the first round, I would look him up on the ECF master list, FIDE rating list and ECF grading database which I just so happen to have on my laptop. If this information suggests that he should not be in the section that he is currently playing in, I would transfer him for round 2.

OK, I appreciate that I am probably better placed than just about anyone else with the amount of data I have access to, but it shouldn't be beyond an organiser's abilities to have access to a master list at an event.

Howard

[Greg Breed]

it shouldn't be beyond an organiser's abilities to have access to a master list at an event.

I would consider that a pre-requisite!