FIDE Rated In January NOT in March.

[Roger de Coverly]

Extract from November 2010 rating list

421111 Porter, Sam J ENG 1808 9 1992

Where did these 9 games come from then ?

Does anybody know.....

I'm not sure I know, but conjecture that they came from the 2010 Surrey Major and the 2010 Jessie Gilbert B. There's nothing else in the ECF record that would have gone into the FIDE rating. If you have players in a FIDE submission that you thought had ratings and then found they didn't, you could get this backdating effect.

The Jessie Gilbert B
http://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=48043
shows 4 rated players
as does the Surrey Major
http://ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=49921
(one of them is Martin Page)

So where did the ninth come from?

[Paul Dupré]

Jack,

I'm not allowed to talk about what I know - but understand this.
One day I will and all hell will break loose.

Paul

[Paul Dupré]

So, what we have is this.
Martin Page is no longer rated because 1 of his 9 games was against Sam Porter, who unfortunately is not now rated when they played. However, one of his 9 games that completed his rating was against Martin Page who somebody thought was rated, but wasn't. Now, where is the evidence of his rating.

These have both been corrected!!!
Published May 2011 - 418382 Page, Martin C ENG 1865 9 1941 <= includes 1 game against Sam Porter shown as 1808 (ECF 157)
Published Nov 2010 - 421111 Porter, Sam J ENG 1808 9 1992 <= includes 1 games against Martin Page shown as 1856 (ECF 152)

Chicken and egg comes to mind - this reminds me of the dead butterfly from some time machine book. The knock on effect will never stop.
Can someone confirm that Martin Page - July 2010 definately does not count as a part rating as he scored 0/3 against rated opponents.

[Alex McFarlane]

Paul,

Players who score 0/3 after already having a partial would have that count. A first 'partial' with 0 would not count.

Martin C Page (FIDE Code 418382) had a partial in July 2009 so subsequent scores of 0 would still count.

However the player you quote has a FIDE code of 406376. In FIDE terms these are therefore two different players.

Assuming these are indeed the same player then the ECF International Rating Officer should be contacted and FIDE informed so that the two records can be combined. In the absence of an IRO Chris Majer should be contacted.

[Susan Lalic]

I'm worried that if the ECF don't appoint an IRO soon then Paul may spontaneously combust

I think Paul would make a great IRO.
In my experience of working with Paul, he is not happy unless the grading results are out within a few hours of a chess event finishing.

[Sean Hewitt]

I think I have sussed it, or at least found another problem!

Martin Page appears to have played three rated events.

Surrey Major in April 2009 where he scored 3/4 against rated opposition under his correct FIDE code of 418382.

He then played in the Surrey Major of April 2010 and scored 0/3. This was rated as Martin Page 406376. However, this is an error as this FIDE code related to Adrian Archer-Lock. http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=406376. The ECF grading database tells us that it was Page who actually played http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=11661 ... 1512505633

Finally, he played the Surrey Major in April 2011 where he scored 1.5/4 against rated opposition under the correct FIDE code.

So, the wrong code was been used at Surrey Major 2010 which is why these 3 games do not show against Page's record. As Adrian Archer Lock hasd a FIDE rating in April 2010 games against Page at Surrey in April 2010 were incorrectly rated as if they had been played against Archer-Lock. I suspect that it is this that has been corrected as these games should have been unrated. This will have a knock on effect on anyone who played Page at the 2010 event.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that the 1st part rating achieved in April 2009 is now more than 2 years old and so therefore is now discarded.

However this happened, it's difficult to see how any of this could be Coulsdon's fault.

Archer-Lock lost 30 rating points at Surrey in an event he didn't play in and this will have had a knock effect in all the tournaments that he has played subsequently.

[Paul Dupré]

Paul,
Players who score 0/3 after already having a partial would have that count. A first 'partial' with 0 would not count.

That's exactly what I thought. Thanks for spotting the different codes.

I seem to remember the wrong code being shown somewhere - can not remember why I didn't do anything at the time.

[David Sedgwick]

My thanks to Sean, Alex McF and Roger for their help in attempting to sort this out. I'm about to add my two pennyworth, but will do so off board.

[Paul Dupré]

Yes thanks very much - I have now calculated what he should be: 1803

page.png

Does anyone disagree with my calculations?

[Sean Hewitt]

Yes thanks very much - I have now calculated what he should be: 1803

page.png

Does anyone disagree with my calculations?

I'm afriad I think I do. Part ratings do not last forever and the April 2009 part rating expired before he satisfied the rating requirements. As the player had not played enough games to get a rating by the time the part rating expired, those results from 2009 get discounted. Then, the 2010 event becomes his first event and, as he got 0/3 that is also discounted. So I think the player has one part rating where he scored 1.5/4 in the April 2011 event.

[Roger de Coverly]

So I think the player has one part rating where he scored 1.5/4 in the April 2011 event.

Which is, as quoted on the FIDE site, a four game part rating.
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=418382

Do we know what policy the FIDE rating office follows on how far it will trace data corrections? So you have an error where the input file for an event had the wrong code for one of the players. This is corrected for the player himself and is used to reverse the part ratings of new players, but they haven't, or don't seem to have, amended the ratings of established players.

[Paul Dupré]

I'm afriad I don't think I do. Part ratings do not last forever and the April 2009 part rating expired before he satisfied the rating requirements. As the player had not played enough games to get a rating by the time the part rating expired, those results from 2009 get discounted. Then, the 2010 event becomes his first event and, as he got 0/3 that is also discounted. So I think the player has one part rating where he scored 1.5/4 in the April 2011 event.

All three events were in a 24 month publication period - July 2009 to May 2011. And surely there is no limit now anyway.

[Alex McFarlane]

I once was arbiter at a 10 player APA.

This was designed to get players FIDE ratings. One of the competitors was Sam Collins of Scotland.
However, despite the correct info being sent to FIDE, the Irish Sam Collins was included in the event instead!
This resulted in players getting inflated ratings except for Sam Collins who either suffered a huge drop or remained unrated (depending on which one). Only the ratings of both Sam Collins were amended, the other 9 remained as they were.

Therefore I'm not surprised to hear that established players have not been altered.

[Paul Dupré]

All three events were in a 24 month publication period - July 2009 to May 2011. And surely there is no limit now anyway.

Actually, having read the FIDE rules

7.14c
The condition of a minimum of 9 games need not be met in one tournament: results from other events, played within rating periods of not more than two years, are pooled to obtain the initial rating.

I believe the periods covered are 01.05.2009 to 31.05.2011, which is 25 months - so possibly not with the period stated above.

[Neil Graham]

Chicken and egg comes to mind - this reminds me of the dead butterfly from some time machine book. The knock on effect will never stop.
Can someone confirm that Martin Page - July 2010 definately does not count as a part rating as he scored 0/3 against rated opponents.

A Sound of Thunder- Ray Bradbury

http://www.lasalle.edu/~didio/courses/h ... hunder.htm