English Chess Forum

is it just me, or does anyone else think that the ECF master Points system is useless?

For instance to get to regional master. you need 180+ for 2 years running, yet many of those players listed have in fact never reached 180 ever. so why are they regional masters? to be a FIDE IM you Need a 2400+ rating, and for GM its 2500+ and you cant take shortcuts with this, so why can you with the ecf master points system?

and a 70 graded player is a chess maestro these days? very funny.

david

Its because they changed the qualification criteria. You used to have to score norms (like you do for GM / IM norrms) to get one of these regional master titles. Now, I guess to make it simpler, its just grading. Either way, I cant see the point of them really.

If you look at a list of the GMs in the world, there are a number who are rated less than 2400 - well short of the requirement to get the title in the first place. Doesnt mean they cease to be a GM!

Sean Hewitt wrote:Its because they changed the qualification criteria. You used to have to score norms (like you do for GM / IM norms) to get one of these regional master titles. Now, I guess to make it simpler, its just grading. Either way, I cant see the point of them really.

If you look at a list of the GMs in the world, there are a number who are rated less than 2400 - well short of the requirement to get the title in the first place. Doesn't mean they cease to be a GM!

From a coaching point of view this is a great idea. To a player in the leagues at the minute it doesn't look like much of an idea.

We keep saying there is nothing to lead players from Junior to Evening League chess, the master system if used right could be used as one of the tools to achieve this. Before the Master System started too high up for Junior players to get to easily, now it starts at 70. With a ladder above it that are small but tricky steps each one set at a level where "understanding milestones" are. As a coach I find Juniors hover at the 60 mark thinking that the next milestones is national average grade at 100-105-ish which is a huge leap for most so they drop out after not being able to do it in 2 years. Having the first step at 70 is a stroke of genius in my mind as 10 grading points is a good goal to push them and the next step is only 30 grading points (or less) away. Coupling that with membership makes the ECF membership an option where you get value because its an ECF Title that is coming with it. Once on the Master System ladder each player is a little bit more likely to pursue their growing titles even after leaving school. This one a no brainer guys, it really is. Its not the complete answer but it is a very good start.

David Haydon wrote:is it just me, or does anyone else think that the ECF master Points system is useless?

As Charles said, it's targeted mainly at juniors, although I must admit I am a bit vain too...

I can see its pointed at juniors. but this seems like tating a back step to me. there is already titles that juniors can achieve if they work hard enough. like FM, IM and GM level. although you may think it will be hard for juniors to get this, as its mainly achievable for players over 190 strength. but the problem we have here is. a Junior will then work a minimal amount just to achieve a small title. like the Chess Maestro title at ecf 70 and they will settle with that and wont get much better.

if the master points system stays as it is, or is not removed. then i think that we will never find Another player like michael Adams or Nigel Short again. we want to find someone who will want to get to Super GM level but this will affect the mindset of british juniors Because they Will settle with an ECF title, because they can, and its an easier route.

I think Juniors need to know from a very young age that getting to a '70' grade does not make them a huge success, and from my point of view. the ECF Master Points System is sending out the completely wrong message.

David

You're absolutely right, David. And those like Charles W Wood are absolutely wrong.

Titles like 'Chess Maestro' for someoine graded 70 are not an inspiration; they're a p*ss-take. Kids aren't stupid. They receive all manner of meaningless 'motivation' awards at school every term. They lose credibility with all but the most stupid after a week or two. Kids know the awards that count are GCSE and 'A' level, not a bucketload of gold stars and a sackful of 'Excellence for Effort' certificates. Same applies in chess, but moreso.

By all means develop a 'master points' system. We've borrowed it from Bridge where it seems to work - after a fashion. But we should strip the system of its vanity titles, maybe having a ladder of Category E to Category A for the mass of players, followed by FM, IM, GM.

At the end of the day, improving one's grade is an enormous motivator; titles are just dross unless they have credibility. Meanwhile, if I had an adult grade under 100 and valued the title 'Chess Maestro/Chess Expert/whatever', I think I'd give the game up and spend my life more usefully.

David
Atticus CC

Can I suggest that the ECF market badges and / or clothing to wear inscribed with the appropriate title?

"I'm an ECF Chess Maestro" is going to be worn with pride by anyone 70 and over surely?

Let's look at an official FIDE title: Candidate Master.

The take-up of this title seems to be very low; at most events, I will see far more players in the 2200-2299 range with no title than I will players in that range with the CM title.

The reason for this? I suspect it's the following:
FIDE does not treat CMs as titled players for the purposes of norm calculations.
Therefore tournament organizers do not go out of their way to invite CMs, or give them any sort of conditions. (You'll notice a lot of international tournaments give cheaper entry fees to FMs, who do count as titled players.)
This means that claiming the title is usually not cost-effective, so players tend not to claim it.

The conclusion? Titles only mean something if they're worth something to the players who have them. The way to get titles like these claimed and used is for organizers to give something to the holders of them.

David Robertson wrote:By all means develop a 'master points' system. We've borrowed it from Bridge where it seems to work - after a fashion. But we should strip the system of its vanity titles, maybe having a ladder of Category E to Category A for the mass of players, followed by FM, IM, GM.

That would be just like the U.S. system then...

David Robertson wrote:At the end of the day, improving one's grade is an enormous motivator; titles are just dross unless they have credibility.

True. However, I think having targets along-the-way to FIDE accredited titles could also be a motivator, especially for kids. They tend to need more immediate and achievable targets to maintain enthusiasm.

If you were to tell a child that "you can start playing now, but you won't achieve any kind of title for at least 10-20 years" they'll look at you like some stupid old fogey and say, "but i'll be as old as you then!!"

David Robertson wrote:Meanwhile, if I had an adult grade under 100 and valued the title 'Chess Maestro/Chess Expert/whatever', I think I'd give the game up and spend my life more usefully.

Coming from someone who is a solid 170 player that just sounds condescending. The vast majority of over 60's are heading down to the under 100 mark and i'm fairly sure that the under 100's represent the majority of players. Sure they may not "value" the title, but for some it's better than nothing. Most just play for the love of the game.

I will however agree that the names should be changed to something more appropriate.
Like Chess Acolyte or Apprentice for example.

The ECF Master system is a ladder under the World system, it stops before you get to FM. So the idea is to have an exciting system a COACH can use to motivate Juniors upwards. If you only leant how to play that year Chess Maestro 70 grade is up. Parents love the idea of little Johnny having a title and having something to show for being an ECF member. How wrong is that, coupling with the chance to pursue it after you leave school means we get evening league players, the proof is in the eating and its working, very well. This is were coaching staff get supported by the ECF, with the raft of kids I have coming through the ranks, titles are a great encouragement (not the total answer as I said, but a start). If your looking at this system as a 150+ player only wanting super players then you will not see the fruits of this scheme for years, but nearly every coach will tell you wider the base of the pyramid the higher the top. The best part about it is, if you don't like it don't use it. I use it and its great and it falls into line with ECM policy so schools open their doors more if you are pushing the system.

As for the title names, I think they are ok for what they are. Chess Maestro is at the bottom of the pile with Team Master sat up next, as pointed out kids aren't thick and thats what the system wants; each child with a higher title can brag to its little heart about being further up the ladder creating a "want" (Basic sales and Marketing 101), also the ones with higher titles will be in the evening league also creating a "want", and as we all know what kids "want" they push for. And after talking to league secretaries/city and county captains about this locally all have said it gives them a nice yard stick for selection and placement purposes, though I do agree a faster grading system would help on that front too, but rapidly developing juniors are always hard to place. Like I said its not the answer but a nice start.

Charles,
How do you see this scheme being promoted at club level?

Let's assume that the club does not have a coach

and

its adults members or children do not visit the ECF web site

and

its adult members get Chess Moves but never take it out of the envelope

and

the childrern do not get The Right Move because they have not been made aware of it yet.

All reasonable assumptions I would suggest.

J.

My hunch is that junior chess players will like these titles, but I don't know any junior chess players whom to ask.

Perhaps those who do could canvass some opinion for the forum?

John Upham wrote:Charles,
How do you see this scheme being promoted at club level?

Let's assume that the club does not have a coach

and

its adults members or children do not visit the ECF web site

and

its adult members get Chess Moves but never take it out of the envelope

and

the children do not get The Right Move because they have not been made aware of it yet.

All reasonable assumptions I would suggest.

J.

All good points John and very important to areas that have these problems. If you had all these problems in one area, that area is in desperate need of a constructive committee meeting with "the future" as main item on the agenda. Me, I don't really care, the Master System is working well here as is junior development. I would happily help anyone who values my opinion or has the strength to pick up the phone, but you can't help the un-helpable.

As for club level I don't know how it will work. I and a few of my fellow league colleagues have (or are about to) applied for ours at the right level, but thats more to do with trying to be roll models for the next generation in my colleagues case. In my case its that and Ego and vanity but more the Ego and vanity than anything else. Maybe thats a start, I don't know. It would mostly depend on the clubs motivation. Its not a scheme I have any input into just one I like.