Ungraded Players at Golders Green Rapidplays

[Adam Raoof]

I have noticed that we have had a couple of ungraded winners at Golders Green recently. Ungraded players can only win a proportion of the prize fund, and the balance goes to graded players.

Should we be concerned? If so, what should we do about it?

We can stop ungraded players getting prizes, but they still take points off other players.
We can force them to play in a higher section, but sometimes ungraded players are genuinely just starting out!
We could give them provisional grades after one tournament, but that would be less reliable than a genuine ECF or FIDE rating.

I can't think of a perfect solution, but I would be happy to hear suggestions for a solution that would be fair to everyone who plays.

[Alex Holowczak]

If they've played 0 games, then you can't do anything about it.

If they've played some games in other competitions, then consult the master list. You'll see their provisional grade based on their games. Use that to determine section availability.

If they've only played in leagues - which haven't yet been graded - ask them about which leagues they've played in. Then look on the league websites, and if they provide them, note down the player's results. Work out a performance grade based on these games.

[Adam Raoof]

If they've played 0 games, then you can't do anything about it.

If they've played some games in other competitions, then consult the master list. You'll see their provisional grade based on their games. Use that to determine section availability.

If they've only played in leagues - which haven't yet been graded - ask them about which leagues they've played in. Then look on the league websites, and if they provide them, note down the player's results. Work out a performance grade based on these games.

Assume that there is an experienced player, who has not had an ECF graded game before, and whose experience is abroad, possibly a number of years ago. What then? There are an increasing number of players who fall into this category, not all of them sharks!

[Alex Holowczak]

Then you just have to trust their judgement. It's something they can only do once, so it probably doesn't make that much difference.

[Adam Raoof]

Then you just have to trust their judgement. It's something they can only do once, so it probably doesn't make that much difference.

No, it is possible for one player to pull the same trick at many tournaments - at least at until they are rumbled!

[Paul Sanders]

More/higher grading prizes?

Perhaps this is a side effect of the fact that there is no floor on the grading limit for any of the sections, just a ceiling. Have you considered trying two overlapping sections with one above, say, 160, and one below 180, and shuffling the prizes around so that the same people as usual are in with a chance of winning them so nobody gets too upset?

[Alex Holowczak]

Then you just have to trust their judgement. It's something they can only do once, so it probably doesn't make that much difference.

No, it is possible for one player to pull the same trick at many tournaments - at least at until they are rumbled!

How? If they enter the lowest section and get 6/6, then they pick up the prize.

If they enter future Golders Green events, you can promote them up to a higher section.

If they enter other people's events, they will (should?) consult the Master List, and see the grade based on their play in the Golders Green event.

[Adam Raoof]

More/higher grading prizes?

Perhaps this is a side effect of the fact that there is no floor on the grading limit for any of the sections, just a ceiling. Have you considered trying two overlapping sections with one above, say, 160, and one below 180, and shuffling the prizes around so that the same people as usual are in with a chance of winning them so nobody gets too upset?

Higher grading prizes don't deal with the situation where an ungraded player takes points off graded players, and therefore affects the outcome of the tournament.

Ideally what you need is a way of dissuading ungraded players from entering tournaments that they shouldn't be playing in. However I am supportive of the principle that ambitious players should be allowed to 'play up' in tournaments, which often happens with improving juniors and Kishan Pattni.

Perhaps there are tournaments that simply don't give ungraded players a prize?

Players like clearly defined sections where they know the spread of the grades they will be facing.

[Adam Raoof]

If they enter other people's events, they will (should?) consult the Master List, and see the grade based on their play in the Golders Green event.

That is obviously not happening, and it doesn't address the situation where a player will literally go on a spree and play in five or six tournaments in a row in, say, the London area, before anyone sees the results published and is alerted to the potential issue.

[Roger de Coverly]

If they enter other people's events, they will (should?) consult the Master List, and see the grade based on their play in the Golders Green event.

I thought the Grading Master List was a once a year thing, so results in the current season would not be included. If you have got a Master list containing recent performances, then it makes a certain amount of sense to publish it more widely.

[Roger de Coverly]

Players like clearly defined sections where they know the spread of the grades they will be facing.

You could always have a bear pit where you put all the ungradeds in the same section and let them fight amongst themselves. You would face problems with this in that
- you might not have enough players
- genuine beginners might suffer
- pairings would be difficult
- grading would only give you relative rather than absolute values for the strengths of player.

You could work out a Golders Green grade purely for Golders Green eligibility purposes, this would only apply to the second or later tournament. Doesn't stop sandbagging though, not that the prize money encourages this.

[Sean Hewitt]

Adam - Does the practice of accepting entries on the day exacerbate the problem? I'm guessing that where players enter in advance some background checking, including foreign ratings, is entirely possible.

Publishing current grading performance of ungraded players would certainly help organisers.

[Mick Norris]

Adam - Does the practice of accepting entries on the day exacerbate the problem? I'm guessing that where players enter in advance some background checking, including foreign ratings, is entirely possible.

Good point, I've had problems with this - it isn't easy trying to check ECF, FIDE, Yorkshire, NWELO lists when there is a queue of people and a deadline to start a tournament

[James Coleman]

At Richmond Rapidplay a couple of weeks ago we had a chap turn up and proudly announce he'd won the Golders Green U120 the week before with 6/6, followed by asking if he could play in our U80 section!

He ended up in the U135 which he steamrollered. If it hadn't been for his upfrontness I may well have let him in the U80 as there was nothing to suggest otherwise. There was no sign of him on the Master List as the previous tournament had been too recent.

[Adam Raoof]

At Richmond Rapidplay a couple of weeks ago we had a chap turn up and proudly announce he'd won the Golders Green U120 the week before with 6/6, followed by asking if he could play in our U80 section!

He ended up in the U135 which he steamrollered. If it hadn't been for his upfrontness I may well have let him in the U80 as there was nothing to suggest otherwise. There was no sign of him on the Master List as the previous tournament had been too recent.

Hmm.

Sean is spot on - the two players who I am thinking about turned up on the day to enter. Perhaps the answer for Richmond and Golders Green is to simply state that ungraded players MUST enter in advance, and no late entries will be accepted from players without a valid rating?