English Chess Forum

As there is an ECF Board meeting on Saturday the 16th of January to coincide with the 4NCL weekend, is there any topic that Forum readers would like raised? Apart from the obvious one, of course - that's high on my list

Making adjourned or adjudicated games ineligible for grading.

Alex - I totally agree. Any game decided by adjudication in particular has, in my opinion, invokes "help" from an outside source (I think we all know adjournement does as well in a different way). All of us patzers know that we will lose our winning positions and win our losing positions ( ) so there is no way they should be graded. And maybe a change in the rules would get us away from the outdated and unnecessary functions as people have to then give them up if they want graded games. Until we have mandatory quickplay finishes, there will always be people arguing against them but aside of a small number, I honestly believe that everyone will simply adapt to them. I advocated an idea by Mike Gunn a few years ago (which was designed to tread a middle path between adjudication, adjournment and quick play) and was absolutely lambasted for it by several people after it was voted in, but despite the efforts of a few and a year's worth of people slinging mud at me, it was shown to work perfectly - and everything I said about the changes I was proved right on (I am relieved to say!).

A few years back in a league I had to play in, I won all 3 adjudication claims I made. One was a genuine one - I was winning and would have won. Another I was 2 pawns up in but every next move that I would have considered playing at the time would have lost for me; I won because of one really warped but guaranteed winning move that the adjudicator found that I would never have found in a million years! The final one, I had been thrust into a game at Wimbledon on board 1 for a team when another player hadn't turned up. Iwas graded around 80 and was playing a 152. When we adjudicated, I was losing but as a team we had played so well, my captain said to the 4 of us who had not yet finished that we should just put all our games in and see what happens. The opposing captain forgot to send their claims in and we won the match 4.5-3.5. Totally wrong really!

I use those cases to show that my view is not one developed out of sour grapes; adjudication has generally been kind to me. But I think the one and only time I would have supported adjudication as a valid was of deciding a result would have been after 85 minutes of the 1999 European Cup Final as on the balance of play and score at the time, Bayern Munich would have been European Champions!

I haven't been following - what is the "obvious" one to which Adam refers?

My pay rise Or seriously, the ECF re-connecting with the Forum.

Should add that the ECF owes a big thank-you to the 4ncl for arranging the venue at Hinkley Island for the meeting.

Adam Raoof wrote:As there is an ECF Board meeting on Saturday the 16th of January to coincide with the 4NCL weekend, is there any topic that Forum readers would like raised?

The Board might wish to consider whether the practice of treating junior players as ungraded is either desirable or sensible. In the longer term , it might consider whether it should have a strategic ambition of switching to a domestic Elo based system and the ground rules that such a system would have to satisfy.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Adam Raoof wrote:As there is an ECF Board meeting on Saturday the 16th of January to coincide with the 4NCL weekend, is there any topic that Forum readers would like raised?

The Board might wish to consider whether the practice of treating junior players as ungraded is either desirable or sensible. In the longer term , it might consider whether it should have a strategic ambition of switching to a domestic Elo based system and the ground rules that such a system would have to satisfy.

And while on the subject of grading, releasing more information to the online grading database, i.e. game results.

Alex Holowczak wrote: And while on the subject of grading, releasing more information to the online grading database, i.e. game results.

That would be very good. They could even make that a service available only to ECF members in order to promote membership.

That service is indeed planned!

Adam Raoof wrote:That service is indeed planned!

However we do need to clarify this further as "my" plan on this one still seems to be the best!

Of course, no decision has been made yet.

The Board will consider four options, including your preferred option, at the meeting at Hinckley Island and make a decision about what strategic direction we should take in order to make our grading and other services as attractive as possible, and in a way which enhances the Direct Membership Scheme for the benefit of all members.

Roger de Coverly wrote:The Board might wish to consider whether the practice of treating junior players as ungraded is either desirable or sensible.

The Board could look at a real example when considering this - my January 2010 rapidplay grade. I scored 2.5/4 against juniors with an average grade of 214.5 in August 2009 and an average grade of 209 in January 2010, but the ECF grading system says my performance for these 4 games was 207. How do justify a system which says your performance is less than the average of your opponents' grades when you have scored more than 50% against them?

Ian Thompson wrote:How do justify a system which says your performance is less than the average of your opponents' grades when you have scored more than 50% against them?

Ian, there is no justification for this.

It's why I've advocated that when the ECF selects it's decision makers it does so on the basis of selecting only those from the highest pedigree in business and commerce (for each respective discipline).

I have lost count of the amount of people who have intimated to me the grading system is a joke.

Peter Rhodes wrote:

Ian Thompson wrote: How do justify a system which says your performance is less than the average of your opponents' grades when you have scored more than 50% against them?

Ian, there is no justification for this.

It's why I've advocated that when the ECF selects it's decision makers it does so on the basis of selecting only those from the highest pedigree in business and commerce (for each respective discipline).

I can think of many businesses and commercial organisations (with whom I have direct dealings) whose approach to the issue would be to cut costs and maximise profits by delivering the most rudimentary grading system which the consumer would accept. Does that accord with your vision of how the ECF should be?