English Chess Forum

The new grading list went live this morning:

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/

There goes my lunch break...

My Jan 2012 grade was 160.
I have 18 games recorded for the Jul 2012 list at a grading performance of 167.
My new grade is 156.
I guess this can be right?

Tim Spanton wrote:My Jan 2012 grade was 160.
I have 18 games recorded for the Jul 2012 list at a grading performance of 167.
My new grade is 156.
I guess this can be right?

It can. Whether it is or not, I have no idea; I'd need more data.

Tim Spanton wrote:My Jan 2012 grade was 160.
I have 18 games recorded for the Jul 2012 list at a grading performance of 167.
My new grade is 156.
I guess this can be right?

It is an A-grade, so it is "based on the 30 most recent games, all played in the latest 12 months". You have 18 games in the July 2012 list, 28 in the January 2012 list. Which 30 of those are used to get a grade of 156, I don't know, but it can probably be calculated. It will be the 18 from the July 2012 list, plus either 12 from the January 2012 list, or something else. If you go by date, it will be your Hastings games (9), your loss in the Kent League 2011-12 (1), your draw in the SCCU County Under 180 (1) and your loss to Marcus Osbourne in the SCCU County Open (1).

Tim Spanton wrote:My Jan 2012 grade was 160.
I have 18 games recorded for the Jul 2012 list at a grading performance of 167.
My new grade is 156.
I guess this can be right?

According to the published rules, yes it can. What they have probably done is take the last 12 games of your January 2012 performance. The last 9 of these was Hastings and that's a sea of red for you against opposition without particularly high grades.

Actually that reveals something I didn't know. An event such as Hastings which straddles the cut off is put into the first part of the grading season. I think that's a bit sneaky and undesirable if, like FIDE, the ECF ever managed to get towards real time publication. It's also intensifies the differences between the national system and the international one if you put them out of sync. Under the FIDE system, the point of inclusion for Hastings would be determined by its completion date. On the new monthly system, this would be end January.

The ECF six monthly system is going to be much less stable. My own grade is a case in point. Instead of staying static at around 183, I had 49 * 175 for the first half, but an apparent career high of 40*193 for the second.

Roger de Coverly wrote:The ECF six monthly system is going to be much less stable. My own grade is a case in point. Instead of staying static at around 183, I had 49 * 175 for the first half, but an apparent career high of 40*193 for the second.

Do you know why there was such a disparity between the two halves of the season? Have you looked at what it was like for previous seasons?

Hmm, so basically I stink and the grade's right. Thought so.

Tim Spanton wrote:Hmm, so basically I stink and the grade's right. Thought so.

I did some sums and it does seem low to me

Roger de Coverly wrote: The ECF six monthly system is going to be much less stable. My own grade is a case in point. Instead of staying static at around 183, I had 49 * 175 for the first half, but an apparent career high of 40*193 for the second.

Coming back to this again, if you look at Roger's grade progress:

http://www.ecfgrading.org.uk/?ref=109494E&progress=1

There is volatility in the 1990s as well (you were graded 163 in 1998?). The volatility introduced by the half-year grading list looks, to this untrained eye, as less than the volatility caused by playing well some seasons and poorly other seasons... And you have had a rapidplay grade of 200, so its not like 193 is breaking the bank.

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: There is volatility in the 1990s as well (you were graded 163 in 1998?). The volatility introduced by the half-year grading list looks, to this untrained eye, as less than the volatility caused by playing well some seasons and poorly other seasons... And you have had a rapidplay grade of 200, so its not like 193 is breaking the bank.

The point is though, that most seasons it averages out. Back in 1975 I hit 190 with a first half at around 200 and a second half at 180.

The rapid-play grade is based on five games a season at a local Congress. I took a point or two from a fellow club member who was given a grade of something like 225 from the re-estimation process.

Roger de Coverly wrote:

Christopher Kreuzer wrote: There is volatility in the 1990s as well (you were graded 163 in 1998?). The volatility introduced by the half-year grading list looks, to this untrained eye, as less than the volatility caused by playing well some seasons and poorly other seasons... And you have had a rapidplay grade of 200, so its not like 193 is breaking the bank.

The point is though, that most seasons it averages out. Back in 1975 I hit 190 with a first half at around 200 and a second half at 180.

The rapid-play grade is based on five games a season at a local Congress. I took a point or two from a fellow club member who was given a grade of something like 225 from the re-estimation process.

OK, that explains the rapidplay grade of 200. Still doesn't explain the slowplay grade of 163... (Taking what you say to a logical conclusion, your 'true' grade is the average over many years - for you that is 176).

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:[ Still doesn't explain the slowplay grade of 163...

A run of seriously poor results, particularly with the White pieces. The Trompovsky isn't the best choice of opening if you aren't playing well.

Roger de Coverly wrote:
The ECF six monthly system is going to be much less stable. My own grade is a case in point. Instead of staying static at around 183, I had 49 * 175 for the first half, but an apparent career high of 40*193 for the second.

Well i was hoping for that for a bit of interest, but no, it's another stunningly dull grading list for me (my run of grades since some funny happenings in the mid noughties being 221, 222, 219, 219, 221, 222, 222...). In fact in my case i would have probably been a couple of points higher without the six monthly lists...

Still, at least i've still got a silly rapidplay grade to keep me amused.

Richard Bates wrote:Still, at least i've still got a silly rapidplay grade to keep me amused.

You are tenth in the country overall at rapidplay!