English Chess Forum

An announcement of the rules for the new season now appears. Was this one of many announcements delayed by the AGM?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competit ... rand-prix/

Roger de Coverly wrote:An announcement of the rules for the new season now appears. Was this one of many announcements delayed by the AGM?

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/competit ... rand-prix/

At the AGM in response to a questioning why the Tradewise Grand Prix page was password protected and, therefore, unavailable it was disclosed that the rules had yet to be finalised. It appears that obstacle has now been overcome.

And a pity that NOA is now in charge of our relationship with this key sponsor.

Oh well, failing that there's always the CEO.....

I, for one, would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to Bob Kane (and Dominic Lawson) for driving this deal forwards and securing the rewards for member players of the ECF.

I hope that at least some will remember this during the Tradewise season (and beyond).

Well yes, it was Dominic Lawson (or Ray Keene, as some would have us believe) who secured this, wasn't it? - much as Martin wishes to suggest that everything will collapse without the departed officers.

Jonathan Rogers wrote:....... suggest that everything will collapse without the departed officers.

The original deal was announced back in the summer. Given the Grand Prix season starts with the new grading season, it's taken three and a half months to get the rule set agreed and announced. Speculation naturally, was it the CEO, Commercial Director and Home Director being unable to agree what the rules should say?

Roger de Coverly wrote: Speculation naturally, was it the CEO, Commercial Director and Home Director being unable to agree what the rules should say?

What makes you think the Home Director's views would have been considered important, even when he wasn't suspended?

NickFaulks wrote: What makes you think the Home Director's views would have been considered important, even when he wasn't suspended?

The Grand Prix is driven by the grading system, which is ultimately the Home Director's responsibility. At the very least if they came up with a complex formula or method of calculation, he's the one who would have to support the grading team techies if they said "cannot be done". For that matter as, I think, a Maths Graduate, he might have had some insight into the weighting formula which seems to involve twice the arithmetic mean of the game count over yearly grading periods being divided by the square of the geometric mean.

Actually unless responsibilities have been realigned, isn't the Grand Prix part of "Home" anyway?

Roger de Coverly wrote:Speculation naturally, was it the CEO, Commercial Director and Home Director being unable to agree what the rules should say?

Or possibly even another director who might have been hoping to run it.

Roger de Coverly wrote: The Grand Prix is driven by the grading system, which is ultimately the Home Director's responsibility. At the very least if they came up with a complex formula or method of calculation, he's the one who would have to support the grading team techies if they said "cannot be done". For that matter as, I think, a Maths Graduate, he might have had some insight into the weighting formula which seems to involve twice the arithmetic mean of the game count over yearly grading periods being divided by the square of the geometric mean.

Prompted by the earlier discussion on congress grading performance I tried to understand the rules of the Tradewise Grand Prix.
They do seem unduly complicated and the effect of the multiplier, M, does seem to be very significant.

Perhaps, someone might be able to propose a sample calculation to clarify how the calculation is performed?

For instance, in the 2014-2015 Grand Prix how would the players in the highest rated competition have performed according to the new system? How would last year's winner have performed in comparison with his closest rivals?

Michael Flatt wrote: For instance, in the 2014-2015 Grand Prix how would the players in the highest rated competition have performed according to the new system? How would last year's winner have performed in comparison with his closest rivals?

If I understood the intent correctly, it was that there would be two competitions. The first being the same as currently, the winners of each grading group being those who scored the most points after weightings and adjustments in tournaments. The new competition is intended to give League players a look in, being based on grading improvement. That's restricted to under 180 and subdivided between adults and juniors and it's there that the multiplier function will kick in. But I agree, the table of "who would have won if the competition took place last year" would be interesting to see.