English Chess Forum

Where are they out?

Where? On the ECF website. When? Before August 1st

There she blows

That's great - got some draft nominations out for our club teams.

My own drop gives me a chance to play in lower rated tournaments or worry stronger players who will have far more points to lose than me in our games this season.

I've published Barnstaple's grades on our Facebook page. Because I needed to post something on there.

pleased with my record grade, though I cannot be delighted, knowing that it is a reliable sign of grading inflation. I was still probably more dangerous in the mid to late 1990s.

There appears to be a problem with the list, I (selectively!) quote a colleague and grader as follows:

"If you check your personal page you will find you're shown as having played some number "x" games over the last 12 months. However, if you then click on "Standard games played, last 12 months" you'll find a greater number "y" are recorded. Whilst your internal club games played since January are listed, your opponent's grades are not shown for these games. These games seem to account for the difference between "x" and "y". This seems to be a common problem for many, but not all, of the clubs for which I submit results. I don't know if this has affected the grading calculations. I'm on the case with the Grading Administrator."

Jonathan Rogers wrote:pleased with my record grade, though I cannot be delighted, knowing that it is a reliable sign of grading inflation. I was still probably more dangerous in the mid to late 1990s.

Whether or not grading inflation has been occurring (or occurring within certain segments of the population) I'm not really sure that your grade can be taken as evidence of it, yet alone "reliable" evidence. It just looks like the sort of statistical outlier that can sometimes occur when somebody who doesn't play much ("c" grade) has a particularly good result/set of results.

Oh, I didn't use the word "evidence". What I say on matters of grading always has been and always will be a non-scientific rant based entirely on impressions. I offer them just in case others nod and say "yeah, that is my general, non-scientifically validated, impression too, and I feel much better knowing it's not just me". It is a public service, no less.

I generally had B or C grades in the late 1990s too, and also had very good seasons from time (I must have had a 240 grading performance over ten games for Essex in 1999/2000, for example). But still I am that bit higher now than I ever was then. I am sure that in 99/00, when I beat Neil McDonald in a county match, his grade was around mid 220s. I did the same this last season, and his grade was 237, I think. Well, if that is part of a pattern that could explain a few things. And there are a number of players who I just feel are almost, or about, my level, and they are still not so far below me. That is why I think that grading list inflation mainly explains my highest ever grade just now, at comfortable middle age.

Jonathan Rogers wrote: That is why I think that grading list inflation mainly explains my highest ever grade just now, at comfortable middle age.

What about your FIDE rating, broadly static since 1993? I don't think there's any systemic inflation there. I know it's based on relatively few rated games, because you play in England, but still should be enough.

NickFaulks wrote: What about your FIDE rating, broadly static since 1993? I don't think there's any systemic inflation there.

At the lower levels, the relationship between ECF grade and FIDE rating is all over the place. In my pairing this afternoon in round 1 of the Major Open, I face an opponent 1 ECF point higher. Seeded pairings have been replaced by semi-random ones, as measured by ECF grade. The ECF rule that treats all juniors as new players would be inflationary where it not that it isn't actually used in the calculations for the next list.

Roger de Coverly wrote: At the lower levels, the relationship between ECF grade and FIDE rating is all over the place.

That is an old story and the reasons for it are well known. At Jonathan's level there is no reason why it should be the case.

NickFaulks wrote:

Jonathan Rogers wrote: That is why I think that grading list inflation mainly explains my highest ever grade just now, at comfortable middle age.

What about your FIDE rating, broadly static since 1993? I don't think there's any systemic inflation there. I know it's based on relatively few rated games, because you play in England, but still should be enough.

Is your point that I haven't really declined all that much, if at all, over the years, and so suddenly getting my highest grade is not such a shock and thus not a sign of grading inflation? (I'll answer this, if so; just checking first that I understand).

Anthony Higgs wrote:There appears to be a problem with the list, I (selectively!) quote a colleague and grader as follows:

"If you check your personal page you will find you're shown as having played some number "x" games over the last 12 months. However, if you then click on "Standard games played, last 12 months" you'll find a greater number "y" are recorded. Whilst your internal club games played since January are listed, your opponent's grades are not shown for these games. These games seem to account for the difference between "x" and "y". This seems to be a common problem for many, but not all, of the clubs for which I submit results. I don't know if this has affected the grading calculations. I'm on the case with the Grading Administrator."

Hi Anthony,

What seems to have happened is that the internal games at a number of Sussex clubs including Brighton, Horsham, Chichester and Bognor played between January and June are all on the system but they haven't gone through as graded. Other competitions like league games, county games and congresses have all gone through fine apparently. Hopefully it won't be too much of a headache for the admins, whose thankless tasks can often go unappreciated!

Jonathan Rogers wrote: Is your point that I haven't really declined all that much, if at all, over the years, and so suddenly getting my highest grade is not such a shock and thus not a sign of grading inflation?

Yes, that is suggested by your FIDE rating history. You have gone from world #3500, in an era when the system had not yet discovered many players of that strength, to #6000 when most of them ( I suspect ) have been found.