July 2012 grading list now live
-
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
Yay, another decrease! Hopefully it'll go up in January .
-
- Posts: 509
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 10:27 am
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
You're still Hackney's (regular) #1! Although I seem to be keeping the pressure on. No idea how my grade has managed to go up, given my -3 in the London League. My ECF seems to be inversely correlated to my perception of the season I've had, and also to my FIDE rating (-60 FIDE in one year, ECF up; two lists ago +50 FIDE, ECF down by 4 )Richard Bates wrote:Well i was hoping for that for a bit of interest, but no, it's another stunningly dull grading list for me (my run of grades some funny happenings in the mid noughties being 221, 222, 219, 219, 221, 222, 222...). In fact in my case i would have probably been a couple of points higher without the six monthly lists...Roger de Coverly wrote:
The ECF six monthly system is going to be much less stable. My own grade is a case in point. Instead of staying static at around 183, I had 49 * 175 for the first half, but an apparent career high of 40*193 for the second.
Still, at least i've still got a silly rapidplay grade to keep me amused.
-
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 2:15 pm
- Location: Hampshire
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
I was very pleased to see my grade go up by 8 points to 140 and this is before i try out my new ideas for an opening i have been working on in this lovely weather we have had over the last few days.
when you are successful many losers bark at you.
-
- Posts: 757
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 12:03 pm
- Location: Behind you
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
I had a performance over the year of about 181 from a July 2011 grade of 178. Unfortunately, with the 6-monthly grades this gave me a January grade of 185 and a July grade of 176. What this means, if anything, is unclear.
True glory lies in doing what deserves to be written; in writing what deserves to be read.
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Cumbria
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
It does seem a bit arbitrary that the grade calculation now cuts off at 30 games, rather than being all games in the year. Is there any reason why this is the case?
-
- Posts: 8806
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
- Location: London
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
Not sure. I think all grades should be calculated back the same *time period* (such as a year), and then only further back if needed. That means that all games played in that time period count, and you don't get some games counting in the latest calculation for one person's grade and not for other people. You will always get that due to the countback, but you can minimise it by having the first cut-off at the whole year (as you say). But then how do you calculate the January grades? Go back to the previous January?Neill Cooper wrote:It does seem a bit arbitrary that the grade calculation now cuts off at 30 games, rather than being all games in the year. Is there any reason why this is the case?
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
This has been discussed previously. The system they've used has been inherited from the rapid-play list although it's been a proposal for fifteen years.Christopher Kreuzer wrote: Not sure. I think all grades should be calculated back the same *time period* (such as a year), and then only further back if needed.
What I think they should do is
(a) run X grades for those playing more than 30 games in six months and accept these grades may be more volatile
(b) for everyone else, calculate on the six month results and average in results from the previous six monthly periods to make up thirty games as necessary. This avoids the problem with the current method that some results will appear in two rating periods, whilst others only in one. The Hastings Masters was the last result of the half year to December 2011, so many of the players will have had their results in that tournament counted both in their January 2012 grade and also their July 2012 one.
-
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 8:41 pm
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
Why couldn't you go back to the previous January (when calculating January grades)?
That would give you a rolling "previous 12 months grade", which sounds fine to me.
That would give you a rolling "previous 12 months grade", which sounds fine to me.
-
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
At least my rapid grade went up. Approximately half-way to my 100 target for January.
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
Neill Cooper wrote:It does seem a bit arbitrary that the grade calculation now cuts off at 30 games, rather than being all games in the year. Is there any reason why this is the case?
mleonard wrote:Why couldn't you go back to the previous January (when calculating January grades)?
That would give you a rolling "previous 12 months grade", which sounds fine to me.
When the ECF Council voted in October 2010 to introduce twice-yearly grades, implementation was deferred to January 2012 (rather than January 2011). The intention was that dummy runs be made in January 2011 and a further report made to Council. This would have allowed anomalies to be properly addressed and considered decisions to be made regarding the sort of issues now being raised.Roger de Coverly wrote:This has been discussed previously. The system they've used has been inherited from the rapid-play list although it's been a proposal for fifteen years.
Also, we would have had two sets of July 2011 grades: the old once a year ones and the ones that would have applied under twice-yearly grading. That too would have been most useful as an indicator of whether things would work satisfactorily.
No such dummy runs were ever done in January 2011 and no follow-up report to Council was ever made. The powers that be considered them unnecessary.
So all the problems and issues which could and should have been sorted out before implementation are only now becoming apparent.
-
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:08 pm
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
...
Last edited by James Byrne on Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1022
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 4:45 pm
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
I agree with mleonard above. As a grader I have come across some cases where the results are quite sensitive to the "last 30 games" method. A much better system for adults would be to always use the last 12 months of results (and add weighted averages of previous years to bring it up to 30 if necessary). Some constituent organisations need to put down motions to Council to this effect, though, if it is ever to be properly considered.
-
- Posts: 662
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:01 pm
- Location: North of England
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
Yes, seems fairly clear how a cut-off can have a disproportionate influence, if you have one or two bad results (losing to players graded well below you, in essence) which fall this side of the cut-off.
The same sort of effect is also apparent when the total no of games played is < 30. A single result - such as losing to someone graded 25 points less than you who you would normally expect to beat - can change your calculated grading by quite a lot. But of course such things happen all the time....
The same sort of effect is also apparent when the total no of games played is < 30. A single result - such as losing to someone graded 25 points less than you who you would normally expect to beat - can change your calculated grading by quite a lot. But of course such things happen all the time....
-
- Posts: 5249
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
- Location: Croydon
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
You have completely ignored my post above.Mike Gunn wrote:I agree with mleonard above. As a grader I have come across some cases where the results are quite sensitive to the "last 30 games" method. A much better system for adults would be to always use the last 12 months of results (and add weighted averages of previous years to bring it up to 30 if necessary). Some constituent organisations need to put down motions to Council to this effect, though, if it is ever to be properly considered.
The Board frequently complains about Council going into too much detail and not allowing the Board to do its job. However, your post demonstrates that action at Council is often necessary to try and get the Board to do what it should be doing anyway.
Will someone from the Board now please explain why the year available for considering these issues and testing alternatives was completely wasted?
-
- Posts: 3732
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:01 pm
- Location: Hayes (Middx)
Re: July 2012 grading list now live
The strange effects caused by the arbitrary cut off at exactly 30 games was already flagged up in an earlier post. The example given was, as Chris Kreuzer surmised at the time not hypothetical. I drew the necessary conclusions at the time and played four otherwise entirely unnecessary games, which I certainly would not have entertained had the 30 game cut-off not been instituted.