World Youth Trials 2010

[Alex Holowczak]

Just stumbled upon the trials for U18-10 on the ECF Calendar. The event is "strictly invitation only". Why? Surely there's no harm in it being Open, so long as they meet nationality and age criteria?

[Rob Thompson]

The pproblem with it being open is that a lot of people who are simply not strong enough to play in the tournament, which could quite easily affect the scores of other players in the tournament

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, at least open to people over a certain strength (i.e. grade).

[Rob Thompson]

Maybe once everyone is convinced that Junior grades are accurate this will be a possibility. Until then...

[Alex Holowczak]

Well, surely the selectors could be open to nominations? The selectors probably have limited local knowledge, and just know the same sort of players as last year. This isn't their fault, they can't track the results of every junior in the country.

[Rob Thompson]

They can track every junior who turns up to any major junior event though

[John Upham]

They can track every junior who turns up to any major junior event though

Does the ECF rating database know about every junior?

If a player is added to the database but their DoB is not recorded in the DB then they will not be flagged as a junior even if they are less than 18 years of age. This is my understanding at least. Can anyone confirm or deny my assertion?

[Richard Haddrell]

If a player is added to the database but their DoB is not recorded in the DB then they will not be flagged as a junior even if they are less than 18 years of age. This is my understanding at least. Can anyone confirm or deny my assertion?

There isn’t a “junior” flag, John, if that’s what you’re thinking of. How could there be? A junior has a date of birth recorded or he hasn’t, and if he hasn’t he’s not a junior. The database is only human.

Organisers, even of junior events, can be very lax about reporting juniors’ dates of birth. In an adult event there’s nothing to be done about it, except hope that any missing dates will be reported by someone else sooner or later (once is enough). In a junior event the organisers can be chased for the missing information. This sometimes works. Or the grader may be able to supply the deficiency, sort of, with an estimated birthdate based on the age limit. Such estimates are marked as estimates in case a proper date turns up later; and in the meantime they show that the players are junior.

No one knows how many unrecognised juniors there are in the database. But I think it’s a fair bet most of them are not very active. Once a junior reaches a certain level of activity, it's pretty certain his date of birth will have found its way into the system somewhere along the way.

Richard Haddrell
Grading Administrator, ECF

[Roger de Coverly]

There isn’t a “junior” flag, John, if that’s what you’re thinking of. How could there be? A junior has a date of birth recorded or he hasn’t,

Previous incarnations of the grading system had the concept of a junior of unknown age. To quote the 1988 grading list :-

Junior players are indicated in the List by an entry in the column headed "Jnr". A figure there indicates the junior's age at 1st September 1988. If the age is unknown, it is shown as "99".

[Richard Haddrell]

Previous incarnations of the grading system had the concept of a junior of unknown age. To quote the 1988 grading list :- Junior players are indicated in the List by an entry in the column headed "Jnr". A figure there indicates the junior's age at 1st September 1988. If the age is unknown, it is shown as "99".

I won’t argue with the 1988 grading list. It was before my time. I agree it said this, and I don’t know what it was playing at. All right, I have some kind of idea. I don’t think it made much sense, and I am not the 1988 list’s keeper.

Richard Haddrell
Grading Administrator, ECF

[E Michael White]

Previous incarnations of the grading system had the concept of a junior of unknown age. To quote the 1988 grading list :- Junior players are indicated in the List by an entry in the column headed "Jnr". A figure there indicates the junior's age at 1st September 1988. If the age is unknown, it is shown as "99".

I won’t argue with the 1988 grading list. It was before my time. I agree it said this, and I don’t know what it was playing at. All right, I have some kind of idea. I don’t think it made much sense, and I am not the 1988 list’s keeper.

Also in the 1997/8 lists.

For security reasons players should be discouraged from giving their dates of birth and the graders should stop asking for it. Instead they should work from the ages at 23:59 on the previous 31 Aug or previous 31 Dec if we want to switch to that basis.

[John Upham]

For security reasons players should be discouraged from giving their dates of birth and the graders should stop asking for it. Instead they should work from the ages at 23:59 on the previous 31 Aug or previous 31 Dec if we want to switch to that basis.

For security reasons players should be discouraged from giving their names or any other details which might help identify them. At a tournament one should only be known by ones ECF and / or FIDE code and these codes shall not find their way into the public arena. There is too much at stake otherwise : message from Max to Carla... Remember : Moscow rules for communications.

[E Michael White]

Giving your name and ECF grading ref is ok

[John Upham]

Giving your name and ECF grading ref is ok

Are you sure? Criminals who indulge in security theft regularly trawl the dustbins of chess organisers and rating officers looking for DoB information inorder to synthesize a new identity for themselves having been recently smuggled into the UK. In the world of spooks this is known as a legend. There are a growing number of illegal immigrants who now share names with tournament regulars who have provided DoB information to the ECF.

I think you have raised a very important issue here that needs more considered thought. For the benefit of forum users perhaps you could spell out your "security reasons" in detail for all of our benefit?

[Roger de Coverly]

I won’t argue with the 1988 grading list. It was before my time. I agree it said this, and I don’t know what it was playing at. All right, I have some kind of idea. I don’t think it made much sense, and I am not the 1988 list’s keeper.

Back then, if you played a junior and won, you "scored" their grade + 60 and if you lost, their grade - 40. You can run this system without knowing the age as long as you switch it (the junior flag) off when they reach 18. In practice the age was shown for most of the relevant players. Also the published grades for juniors were treated the same as for everyone else namely their actual performance over the previous season(s).

Investigations considered this plus 10 rule inflationary so it was replaced by an age-related scale - for which you need date of birth or a proxy thereof. ( It's all in the pre-computer SCCU bulletins and BCF Newsflash (I presume)).

For security reasons players should be discouraged from giving their dates of birth and the graders should stop asking for it. Instead they should work from the ages at 23:59 on the previous 31 Aug or previous 31 Dec if we want to switch to that basis.

If the cut-off for ages is always the first of a month, you don't need the full date as month and year of birth would suffice. If the cut-off is 1st January, you only need the year.