Rapid events with over rated players.

[Peter Ackley]

I'm not sure there is a "right" answer here as each answer solves one problem but causes another. Using myself as an example most of my FIDE rated chess is in tournaments and, statistically, I tend to play worse than I do at single game evening league events. I see Lee's point about both ratings but from my point of view my FIDE hasn't been over 2000 in years yet I end up in open tournaments because my ECF rating is above 2000.

Then again I see the problem with my own suggestion as Yorkshire had a player 2100 FIDE but 2450 ECF where, in county matches where players had to be in rating order at the national stages, I had a bloke on board 12 who had beaten all of boards 1-11 in the last season or so! Clearly what works for me doesn't work for him!

I wonder, as with anything in chess, whether the best option is to publish a rule (probably what Lee has said since many ECF and FIDE tournaments use the "highest of ECF and FIDE") but make it clearer that anomalous players have the right to appeal. Although then again this could end up so complex that it would never work.

Maybe the whole issue is the existence of the ECF and FIDE rating systems and the fact that they don't work in pure tandem, although then again as we've debated a lot of times before, English chess would need many changes for all of the games to be FIDE rated.

[NickFaulks]

in county matches where players had to be in rating order at the national stages

Elephant in the room.

[Mick Norris]

in county matches where players had to be in rating order at the national stages

Elephant in the room.

Well, they don't do they? If enough people wanted to change it, we could get it changed

Board order is very contentious, I find it causes the most problems in the Manchester League, and most of the rules we have create other problems

[Ian Thompson]

I wonder, as with anything in chess, whether the best option is to publish a rule (probably what Lee has said since many ECF and FIDE tournaments use the "highest of ECF and FIDE") but make it clearer that anomalous players have the right to appeal.

It would be very sensible to have a rule that says board order rules can be overridden if the club/team captain provides evidence to the league that the rating that would apply to a player under the rules is significantly inaccurate. That should apply both ways - the league should also have the right to pre-emptively change a player's rating and opposing teams should have the right to request a change, with supporting evidence, as well.

Changes should be allowed to both increase and decrease ratings. Obvious examples of valid decreases would be someone who hasn't played for decades and has an old FIDE rating far higher than their current playing strength or someone who has experienced a life-changing event that has significantly changed their playing strength - I've played someone where that had happened to them after a near-fatal car crash.

[Peter Ackley]

It's yet another one of those things in chess where every league has a different set of rules and clubs need to keep an eye on them:
-what (if any) number of grading points can players be out of sequence
-what to do if you wish to play a player out of sequence beyond that permitted in the rules
-which rating list to use
-which types of rating can be used and which cannot
-who makes the claim for an out-of-sequence player

Last week in the Notts League University lost to Mansfield despite winning 3-2 on the night due to a board order issue. Mansfield wasn't even aware of it and didn't care (we were told we had won the match) but rules are rules. Season before last Chesterfield had a similar issue with a player who averaged 1-2 games a year (and under 10 in the last 10 years) having a rating far higher than anything he had ever had before; this year we have a 2200 who has been inactive for years where one league considered we were playing him too high and another considered we were playing him too low!

Given that all leagues in the country use the same rating lists and the same rules around rating I wonder if rating, and players out of sequence, could be something which could be standardised between leagues. That and mobile phone rules. We might never agree on such things as time limits, start times, default times etc but maybe somethings at least could be simplified!

[Roger de Coverly]

Given that all leagues in the country use the same rating lists and the same rules around rating I wonder if rating, and players out of sequence, could be something which could be standardised between leagues.

I would regard the 4NCL rules as a standard in this respect which allow out of order by up to 100 points. You also have the problem as to which rating list to use. It's not just FIDE v ECF but also ECF red v ECF blue and whether you alter monthly as new lists are published.

You can also relax the rules as is also done in the 4NCL for Norm chances where both match captains agree to the board orders. That could also cover the situation in a local league where a board order against the rules is allowed to stand because the opposition raise no objections.

Another method if perhaps impractical in a club with new players during the season is to nominate a board order at the start of the season. That in effect is the FIDE approach where in Olympiads and other team competitions, it is quite permissable to play totally out of order with the only high rated player down on board 3 or 4.