THE MYSTERY OF THE BLACKPOOL MINOR

[David Gilbert]

Does anyone know why the outcome of the Blackpool Minor is still to be announced officially? I'm fairly sure I saw something posted immediately after the event but this was quickly pulled and replaced by a 'result pending' notice. Rumours of skulduggery are beginning to circulate. More Enid Blyton than Agatha Christie, so lashings of ginger beer to posters who can solve the mystery.

[Sean Hewitt]

Rumours of skulduggery are beginning to circulate.

Do tell!

[Roger de Coverly]

Does anyone know why the outcome of the Blackpool Minor is still to be announced officially?

One of the clubs local to Blackpool had a report on their players' performances. From the names given, it's possible with the end March update to the ECF grading site to establish that the Blackpool Minor has been graded, so presumably all the results are known.

[Sean Hewitt]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that Steven Melia scored 5/5 in the Minor?

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=17618 ... 1676933033

He is currently ungraded but last held a grade in 2002 of 135 in old money.

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=176182B

That's about 150 after the regarding exercise. Looks a bit too strong to be playing in an U115 event.

[Geoff Chandler]

Well spotted Sean.

Of course the number worshippers will argue nothing is wrong there.
He had a grade of over 2000 but now he has dropped off the grading list
he has forgotten all he ever knew about Chess. The numbers don't lie.

Was there not a bit added to the bottom of the entry form saying the organisers
had the right to refuse entry. They had their chance. If the lad played under his
real name and gave his current grade then give him the money.

[Alan Walton]

The argument would be how many grading points do you assume to be lost with each year of inactivity

Lets say it is 3 points per year for said example, using an approx converted grade of 150, then this player you could assume would be graded approx 110-120 (10 years inactivity), so I would allow him to enter the minor

I think the rule that an ungraded player can only win 50% of any prize received is the best thing to employ, the other 50% distributed among the other main prize winners

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I don't think inactivity will always result in a decrease in grading strength. It would be quite plausible that it would remain the same. I agree with Bob's post above.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Bob.

"If he is no longer that good....."

How does a player player become ungood. He won the thing with 5 out of 5.

Are saying his original grade was false....

....In that case he played where he belonged!

Players lose 3 pts a year if they don't play.

New FIDE Rule:
Players not playing are not allowed to read chess books or play friendly games.
It upsets the numbers.

[Peter Shaw]

I don't see why ungraded players should be allowed to win prize money at all, except in the Open. If such a rule puts off a few sharks then its all good.

I don't understand why the lower sections of tournamnents have such big prize money anyway. I'm graded in the 190's and there is no chnace of me ever getting anywhere near a £600 prize, since any Open with a prize like that is sure to attract a few titled players. Why should I have a lower chance of winning prize money than players graded 80 points below me?

[Alex Holowczak]

I have to disagree with Geoff, there is nothing that spoils tournaments more than players in the wrong section, if a player used to be 135 then that should be his grading. If he is no longer that good then his rating will sooon come down

Whose responsibility is it to check such a thing, though? The organiser or the entrant?

We don't know what happened behind the scenes. For all we know, the player could have contacted the organiser to ask which section to enter, to be told erroneously that he should enter the Minor. Under those circumstances, it would be entirely reasonable that he keeps the prize money he won.

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Peter.

Have you considered the remote possibility that being in the 190's is not where you belong.
To get a sniff at the prize money get yourself ungood. (apparently it happens.)

Sharks?
We don't know the facts.
Perhaps the lad has been ill and bed ridden for the past 10 years.
He may have joined the army, got demobbed and started playing chess again.
He could have been asked to play in that section by one of the organisers to make numbers even.
Any number of reasons come to mind.

[AustinElliott]

I've got a personal interest in this 'playing strength and inactivity' question, as this has been my first season playing any chess at all since late 1979. [Any advance on a 31-year lay-off?]

I'd forgotten my old 1970s teenage gradings but Richard James kindly looked them up for me - the last two were my playing zenith of 179 (as a 16/17 year old in the 1978 list), slipping to 173 in the 1979 list (covering my last playing season).

Anyway, having played a few games in the Manchester League, I now have a provisional-ish (based on less than ten games) 160 in the current list.

I had vaguely wondered what rating would apply if I were to enter, say, a rapid-play tournament. For instance, the recent Manchester Rapidplay had an under-160 section. As I have no rapid-play rating, would that have meant I could legitimately have entered? I think I'd assumed the ECF 160 standard-play would rule me out. And what about an under-170 standard-play, given I was graded higher than that 30 years ago?

I suppose I tend to the view that a current grading is about as realistic as you could get, since it presumably reflects recent results and thus current playing strength. So surely you have to go with that? Though obviously that doesn't solve the problem for a player with NO current (or even vaguely recent) grading.

[Peter Shaw]

Hi Peter.

Have you considered the remote possibility that being in the 190's is not where you belong.
To get a sniff at the prize money get yourself ungood. (apparently it happens.)

Given the way I've played so far in 2012 that possibility isn't so remote!

Let's say I keep it up and my grade drops below 180 in July. Then maybe I suddenly remember how to play like a 200 and start winning a few majors in 2012-13. It's hardly fair that I would get rewarded for six months of playing worse than normal.

[Sebastian Stone]

Considering the availability of internet chess is it really sensible to assume that someone will decline just because they are not playing OTB chess?

[Ian Kingston]

Considering the availability of internet chess is it really sensible to assume that someone will decline just because they are not playing OTB chess?

This is a good point. I kept my hand in during a 10-year absence from serious play by playing on the Internet. I came back to the board with a very similar grade to that which I'd had before.

Going back further in time, I played no OTB chess in the early 1980s, but returned with a grade 20 points higher than before. I'd been playing correspondence chess, which proved to be highly beneficial.