New Grades
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:33 pm
The start-of-season revision which includes the new grades amendment for next year has just gone live
The independent home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
https://ecforum.org.uk/
Is this actually true and scientifically accurate?Howard Grist wrote: juniors are all significantly under graded, and my investigations actually bore this out.
Under the current system Juniors were, on the whole, out-performing their grades. The New grades correct this, which is why juniors have increased more than a similarly graded adult has.John Upham wrote:Howard Grist wrote: juniors are all significantly under graded, and my investigations actually bore this out.
Is this actually true and scientifically accurate?
The Junior increment performs two functions. One is to acknowledge that juniors are, on the whole, improving. The other is to put points in to the system that are lost due to the deflation that occurs 'naturally' due to the fact that the better players play more often. The composition of the standard and rapid play lists are very different. The rapid play lists consist of many more juniors, and junior games make up a far higher percentage of the total number of games. This result of this is that the component of the increment required to stop the system deflating is much smaller.Paul Stimpson wrote:Also the new increment on Junior Rapid grades also looks small to me
I've seen this stated before. This was in the context of trying to overturn the argument that it shouldn't matter if a 170 player scored 168 against 160's because he would score 172 against 180s.the fact that the better players play more often.
I think your statistic just shows that active players have higher ratings. Not a total surprise since you need to retain some degree of match fitness to get decent results. Do you want to support an entire theory of grading deflation on those averages?A preadjustment difference of 30 points (and 24 postadjustment) between the most and least active categories I think confirms the assertion that stronger players tend to play more.
Which, to me, is the same as saying that stronger players are more active.I think your statistic just shows that active players have higher ratings.
My interpretation would be:Could the terms "better" and "often" therefore be defined please?
My grade has gone up by 8 points. I'd like to know where the extra points came from. Empirical checks on some of my local opponents suggests that those who keep their 175 ish grades by bashing 140s and 150s have gone up by more than those who score 50% against a 175 field or 25% against a 200 field. I also suspect without proof that you've injected a lot of inflation into the system. The results have been cooked so that for example Jack Rudd is unchanged at 215 but if you increase the grades of people that the likes of Jack play and beat then the top end will inflate. By way of a small scale example, I scored 2.5 from 6 in my most recent tournament for an exact par score of 172. On the new grades it was 182 which is +2 on my "new" grade.You ask if there is any way to 'check' your New grade. As mentioned in the explantory text, New grades have been calculated going back to 2006 and these figures could be published.