Brian Valentine wrote: ↑Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:35 am
SeanCoffey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2023 7:59 pm
Also from Elo:
"Pressures to revise rating processes, to delay declines and to accelerate rises, are natural and never-ending, often arising in high places, often very well intentioned.
Specific proposals abound, to raise ratings through processes other than improved chess play. Unsophisticated proposals such as bribery are rare, but new regulations, say to base ratings on fewer games, or to inflate the bonus points, without regard for probabilistic considerations, can produce undesirable results. Subordination of the rating system to political purposes is ultimately counter productive, leading to vitiation of the integrity of the system and consequently loss of confidence in it." (2nd edition, section 3.12.)
Hmmmm ...
Sean conveniently leaves out the final paragraph in his extract:" Ratings which do not objectively reflect playing abilities inevitably become ineffective for any other purposes as well".
If a system designed for elite players is adapted fo another purpose, rating for recreational chess, then this quote invites modifications.
I think Ian has advocated returning to a Clarke SCALE. The ECF calculations are at least as difficult as FIDE's (speaking as one who has coded both). Also we should not forget that the ECF felt it had to do a compression exercise long before the FIDE investigation.
The SCALE is certainly the main problem. The old 1A, 1B, 2A are superior in my opinion to the BCF’s 3 digit grades which in turn are superior to the ECF / FIDE’s 4 digit ratings. Some of the problems with 4 figure ratings may even disappear under 1A etc because they are second or third order effects.
(Before someone points it out again there would also have to be a change in LOCATION given the strongest players now are stronger than the strongest players when the 1A etc scale was implemented.)
I accept however that the chance of going back to 1A etc is probably nil.
I quite often convert my grade/rating back to 1A etc. and not surprisingly it is far more stable under this scale than 3 figures or 4 figures, perhaps going up a group if I put a lot of work into my chess or going down one or two groups if I am inactive. The only exceptions to this have been when ECF / FIDE have made well-intentioned but perhaps ill considered changes to the grades / ratings.
It still leaves the question however whether you can have one list for the entire range of players or whether you need one list for national / international players and another list for more local players. Under the old 1A etc scheme I understand that the BCF maintained a list down to 3B and the unions maintained separate lists down to 6B