English Chess Forum

There are essentially two objections to the move to monthly grades - potential additional burden on volunteers and concerns about the method of calculation. [How we treat the new information for competition purposes is conceivably a third] .The calculation issue may be a greater issue, but I'd still test it in the context of rapid-play. The additional demands of regular reporting will probably be felt most keenly in the other formats of the game such as club slow-play leagues. None of this is anything to do with Div 4 South, nor are we actually discussing anything not previously expressed elsewhere on this forum.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:48 pm

Only because the great majority of games played in England go unreported.

I think you should reconsider the "only". The Elo method used by FIDE, unlike most national implementations, only has the hit or miss K=40 for dealing with players whose playing strength now differs considerably from what it was when the rating was first established.

When the minimum rating was 1800 or 2000, it didn't matter unduly as only a minority of new players are able to press on from an 1800 or 2000 standard up to 2200 or 2400. In fact the FIDE ratings tended to run ahead of the BCF or ECF ones because they only reflected a player's better performances.

I think you should reconsider the "only".

Good luck with that one - Nick won't even re-consider his absurd criticism of me, and acknowledge the possibility of a misunderstanding. I won't be wasting my time on engaging him in future, his on-line persona is unacceptable.

J T Melsom wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:50 pm

None of this is anything to do with Div 4 South, nor are we actually discussing anything not previously expressed elsewhere on this forum.

This Forum has a long tradition of threads going wildly off topic and of posters making the same point in several threads.

'This Forum has a long tradition of threads going wildly off topic and of posters making the same point in several threads.'

Its not necessarily a good tradition though is it? More informal yes, but often quite tiresome, or am I conflating posts and posters? still well done on finding another tradition to defend

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:57 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:49 pm

What other arguments are there?

You need to check that everyone has a FIN, or if they don't that they are content to be ENG.

You're right, I'd forgotten that. It's hardly a show-stopper.

NickFaulks wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:48 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 2:38 pm

We've seen with FIDE ratings just how random rankings can become for players rated below 2000.

Only because the great majority of games played in England go unreported. Whatever the details of the new ECF system, I'm hoping that is not intended to be a feature.

Your argument for this in the past has been because of the ECF membership structure, and thus the cost. I hope you now appreciate that even when that argument isn't the case as in Rapidplay, the claim voiced in this thread is that it's still all too difficult for English organisers. It isn't clear to me why English organisers should be thought inferior to our tournament organising cousins around the world who manage to do it perfectly satisfactorily.

Let's get back to this good division. I may be playing Neil Graham?
There will be a number of forumites playing too.
Enjoy our chess this weekend.
And thank those that make it special too.

Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress includes a character called Feeble Mind - one hopes the chess is not afflicted in this way.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:49 pm

There's no Gold membership argument. What other arguments are there?

Really? So, if I organise a FIDE rated rapid then silver membership is enough? The ECF website seems to be lacking when it comes to information regarding what level of membership is required for the different flavours of competition. All reinforcing the feeling of an anti-FIDE sentiment - "Don't mention FIDE! I did once but I think I got away with it" (with apologies to John Cleese)

Back to the subject-line, two teams withdrew overnight.

The ECF website seems to be lacking when it comes to information regarding what level of membership is required for the different flavours of competition. All reinforcing the feeling of an anti-FIDE sentiment

https://www.englishchess.org.uk/members ... ed-events/

Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:42 am

Back to the subject-line, two teams withdrew overnight.

Brian Towers wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:03 am

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 11, 2019 12:49 pm

There's no Gold membership argument. What other arguments are there?

Really? So, if I organise a FIDE rated rapid then silver membership is enough? The ECF website seems to be lacking when it comes to information regarding what level of membership is required for the different flavours of competition. All reinforcing the feeling of an anti-FIDE sentiment - "Don't mention FIDE! I did once but I think I got away with it" (with apologies to John Cleese)

I can't comment on the current situation - I haven't really the time to look with a 4NCL round starting in 20 minutes! - but there was certainly material on the website to that effect back when the system was introduced.

Yes, if you organise a FIDE-rated Rapidplay, then silver membership is enough. You are charged as if it were an ECF-graded Rapidplay. The justification for this is that FIDE don't charge for Rapidplay rating, but they do for Standardplay rating.

Mike, Alex, many thanks.

There isn't yet a link from the main 4NCL site, but these appear to be the pairings for round 5.

http://www.4nclresults.co.uk/2018-19/4ncl/5/4s/export/

1 Ashfield 1 - - - Watford 1
42 Crowthorne 1 - - - Warwickshire Select 2
43 West is Best 3 - - - Check Innmates 2
44 Oxford 3 - - - Wessex B
45 Celtic Tigers 2 - - - Sussex Martlets 3
46 Poisoned Pawns - Next Generation - - - Wood Green Youth
47 Shropshire 2 - - - Throw in the Tal
48 The Full Ponty - - - Shropshire 3
49 Banbury Bulldogs - - - MK Phoenix 2
50 Fischer's Catch - - - Ashfield 2
51 Crowthorne 2 - - - All Anands on Deck
52 West is Best 4 - - - The Pitstop
53 Iceni 3 - - - Barnet Knights 2
54 Wessex C - - - Rook & Roll
55 Barnet Knights 3 - - - Oxford 4
56 Cambridge University 3 - - - Watford 2

32 teams, so missing

20 CSC 3
32 Check Innmates 3
34 Barnet Knights 4
35 Barnet Knights 5
36 Camberley Juniors
37 Chesstivus