Updating ECF rating data.

[Brian Valentine]

The general situation is that players remain active until we are informed of their death.

What about duplicate identities? Does it make sense to merge when known for certain? That's where someone played as a junior, later re-emerging as an adult with a new code.

Players remain active, duplicate records when identified don't.

[Matt Mackenzie]

That said there is a chance that a player who last played a rated game in 2010 may re-enter the land of the active next weekend.

Its far from impossible that someone who last did so in 1995 might.

[Andrew Zigmond]

That said there is a chance that a player who last played a rated game in 2010 may re-enter the land of the active next weekend.

Its far from impossible that someone who last did so in 1995 might.

Just to clarify that this is a real life example (the player has got back in touch with the club and I'm waiting on a response as to whether they are available for a match next Saturday) but I agree that there are far longer inactive players who might potentially return.

[Neil Graham]

The general situation is that players remain active until we are informed of their death.

What about duplicate identities? Does it make sense to merge when known for certain? That's where someone played as a junior, later re-emerging as an adult with a new code.

Players remain active, duplicate records when identified don't.

Can I enlarge on the "Active" v "InActive" debate? The records go back to 1994 and the individual results to 2002. The players with no current rating exceed those with current ratings by a huge margin. For example there are 133 players called "Graham" on the rating list of which just 22 are rated; the remaining 111 are unrated.

The sole criteria for being removed from the "Active" list is death. It would make much sense to say that if no games are recorded for a player in, say, five years they are shown as inactive - which clearly they are. I would not be surprised to find that there are several centenarians marked as "active" simply because their death has gone unnoticed after they ceased playing. As we have already seen from this thread several players who are known to be deceased are still shown as active simply because no-one has advised the ratings officer - there must be dozens who have simply passed on forgotten to the chess community but still "active" on the ratings list.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

At the risk of overloading this thread, can I offer my grading card as an example? I am actually (finally) going to be active again on the grading list as I am scheduled to play a (slowplay) graded event in November, my first graded games since (I think) March or February 2020. That is between 3-4 years.

https://www.ecfrating.org.uk/v2/new/pla ... de=155285F

Can some kind soul explain:

(1) Whether those doing the pairings have the discretion to use my last known grading to do pairings, or if I should count as ungraded?

(2) What does my last listed slowplay grading mean in terms of the category and so on?

(3) Why has a rapidplay grading appeared for me in recent lists? And should this grading be used ahead of my last known slowplay grading?

[I think my rapidplay grading is because I played in an event that I hadn't realised might be graded and only a few of the players had grades, hence all the dummy things - what eventually happens there?]

(4) It may only be 5 slowplay games. Is that enough these days to get a new grading and is the calculation done from scratch or does the calculation include any of the past grading data? Might the same 'dummy' thing happen if the same issues of ungraded opponents arises?

Thank you!

[IM Jack Rudd]

You can use any numbers you like to do pairings. I think the recommendation is that you do use the player's last known rating.

[Neil Graham]

To emphasise my point a couple of postings ago, I have had a quick look at the Deaths/Obituaries section and found a number of players from there still marked as "Active". Harry Ratner, who passed away in 2013, is still shown as Active - he would have been 104 now if that was the case.

[Andrew Zigmond]

To emphasise my point a couple of postings ago, I have had a quick look at the Deaths/Obituaries section and found a number of players from there still marked as "Active". Harry Ratner, who passed away in 2013, is still shown as Active - he would have been 104 now if that was the case.

As per earlier in the thread it is for club officers to trawl their lists and send the rating team a list of deceased or likely deceased players. I did that and received a gracious email from Brian saying it would be acted upon. Obviously the rating team have many other demands on their time.

Perhaps one solution might be to give club officers the ability to mark players deceased via the LMS.

[Neil Graham]

To emphasise my point a couple of postings ago, I have had a quick look at the Deaths/Obituaries section and found a number of players from there still marked as "Active". Harry Ratner, who passed away in 2013, is still shown as Active - he would have been 104 now if that was the case.

As per earlier in the thread it is for club officers to trawl their lists and send the rating team a list of deceased or likely deceased players. I did that and received a gracious email from Brian saying it would be acted upon. Obviously the rating team have many other demands on their time.

Perhaps one solution might be to give club officers the ability to mark players deceased via the LMS.

I agree with everything you say Andrew - possibly not about marking LMS - I am endeavouring to sort out any players from my area. The main problem as I see it is not with locating known players who have died but dealing with the myriad hordes of so-called "active" players - some of whom have not, apparently, played since 1994. There are, for example, over 1000 players called "Smith" on the database who are marked as "active" yet are unrated. The vast majority of these have never been members and their details are in many cases sketchy. There are, for example, three "J.Smith" rating cards for "Club Unknown" - the chances of ever determining who these are, much less finding out if they are deceased. is minuscule.

[Ian Thompson]

The main problem as I see it is not with locating known players who have died but dealing with the myriad hordes of so-called "active" players - some of whom have not, apparently, played since 1994. There are, for example, over 1000 players called "Smith" on the database who are marked as "active" yet are unrated.

What do the statuses of Active and Inactive mean? The help doesn't say.

[Neil Graham]

The main problem as I see it is not with locating known players who have died but dealing with the myriad hordes of so-called "active" players - some of whom have not, apparently, played since 1994. There are, for example, over 1000 players called "Smith" on the database who are marked as "active" yet are unrated.

What do the statuses of Active and Inactive mean? The help doesn't say.

Brian quoted earlier in the thread The general situation is that players remain active until we are informed of their death..

[Andrew Zigmond]

I'm inclined to say that players who have no rating history or recorded games (or who have never been an ECF member) should be deleted from the list - even if they did subsequently take up chess again it wouldn't make any difference if a new entry was created. In the case of the Harrogate list this would thin the unrated list down considerably. It might also be useful if club officers could set approximate dates of birth for historic players so when they hit a certain age (such as 95) they default to deceased unless still obviously active in play or the rating team are advised otherwise.

I'm personally happy to sort out my own club's list as I know who might potentially return to chess and who played once as a 12 year old in 1998.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Careful, there are nonagenarians who post here! Albeit the most famous one I think last featured on a grading list many moons ago.

[Andrew Zigmond]

Careful, there are nonagenarians who post here! Albeit the most famous one I think last featured on a grading list many moons ago.

Fair enough, maybe the threshold could be set higher. Incidentally the oldest "active" player on the Harrogate list would be 116 now (he died in 2000 and was one of the names I flagged to the rating team).

[Dragoljub Sudar]

I've spotted two players from the same Nottinghamshire club in the 85 years + top players who are very much alive and nowhere near 85 years old.