Div 4 South 2018/19

[J T Melsom]

That's only a comment on the club not on Nick Faulks himself about whom I know very little. With a little research he could also have established my commitment to junior chess over recent years, but that basic effort to seek out the truth wouldn't suit his style of posting, so instead he insinuates that I am anti junior and given half the chance would be sexist as well. I think posters deserve to be treated on the merits of their own views and not have views inaccurately ascribed to them. However neither Nick Faulks nor Brian Towers have seen fit to correct their posts and John Foley hasn't withdrawn his accusation that I am a troll, so I guess I shall have to play by their rules from time to time not by my own.

[J T Melsom]

Alex - there may well be a misunderstanding, but I suspect it arises because the posters concerned are not really interested in a shared dialogue but in the expression of their own views almost regardless of what the original poster has actually said - hence the lack of constructive remarks from Nick Faulks and the tangential post from Brian Towers inferring a set of views on FIDE ratings not mentioned at all in the original post.

[David Sedgwick]

I think the whole misunderstanding has been caused by a failure to appreciate that you were in effect being self-deprecating, as the 154/1712 in question.

I commend your effort to pour oil on troubled waters. Not all such efforts succeed.

But there's no reason why every ECF-graded Rapidplay in England isn't FIDE-rated.

There are very good reasons for that. The administrative burden on organisers of FIDE rating is by no means trivial. Some run a FIDE rated tournament once and swear "Never again".

Off topic, but that is the fallacy in your argument that organisers and arbiters would rapidly adjust to monthly ECF grading. Those who run FIDE rated events have the requisite understanding and skills to meet the tight deadlines, albeit only just in my case!

It would be dangerous to assume that those who don't currently need such skills because we have six monthly grading would necessarily have the ability and motivation to acquire them if monthly grading were introduced. Some might decide to retire from chess administration.

"About time" I can hear you muttering under your breath. Fine - so long as the resultant drop in chess activity proves to be only temporary.

[MatthewParry]

Maybe a possible rule would be to require every team to have a reserve which might encourage developing players locally to the venue to get involved as an extra option? In the event that reserves are not needed, then graded friendlies could be arranged for them?

Watford entered the 4NCL after several years' experience of the J4NCL where this is more or less what happens. There it's not onbligatory for reserves to put in a physical appearance but they know that, if they do, a graded friendly awaits. That's a good deal more encouraging than the main 4NCL where a reserve can arrange to keep his or her weekend free, only to discover it was wasted effort. I'm a great admirer of 4NCL, and hesitate to try to tell them how to improve things, but why isn't the same practice adopted?

Thinking more about this, and how it could be developed, it could even be made part of the league format; a separate 'reserves' table so if the West is Best mandatory reserve plays a game on both days and wins both, West Is Best get 4 points in the reserve league. Even if there was a nominal £50 prize at the end of the season for the team that has topped the table, it would encourage reserves to be there. The draw could be done on the day (not in any way suggesting that the organisers don't have enough to do already!) I suppose the only issue would be that in some cases teams wouldn't know until an hour in whether or not the reserves will be needed. It would also be a league where players whose opponents don't turn up could then get their graded friendly in a semi-competitive setting.

[Roger Lancaster]

Thinking more about this, and how it could be developed, it could even be made part of the league format; a separate 'reserves' table so if the West is Best mandatory reserve plays a game on both days and wins both, West Is Best get 4 points in the reserve league. Even if there was a nominal £50 prize at the end of the season for the team that has topped the table, it would encourage reserves to be there. The draw could be done on the day (not in any way suggesting that the organisers don't have enough to do already!) I suppose the only issue would be that in some cases teams wouldn't know until an hour in whether or not the reserves will be needed. It would also be a league where players whose opponents don't turn up could then get their graded friendly in a semi-competitive setting.

Agreed but, given that the 4NCL organisers are sensible people and moreover that the concept is included within J4NCL, it's a safe bet that the idea hasn't eluded them for the past 25 years. What I wondered was why they had apparently rejected it and were the reasons still valid?

[NickFaulks]

It would also be a league where players whose opponents don't turn up could then get their graded friendly in a semi-competitive setting.

I would have no interest in playing a graded friendly in a semi-competitive setting. I would prefer to watch the other games - although that wouldn't justify the trip either. Is this a common view?

[Roger Lancaster]

I would have no interest in playing a graded friendly in a semi-competitive setting. I would prefer to watch the other games - although that wouldn't justify the trip either. Is this a common view?

Nick, I can understand that (and, from a purely personal perspective, I tend to agree) but, as long as it's not a unanimous objection, the proposal would still have some currency. Question is whether a marginal person, who would otherwise have been asked to keep his or her weekend clear as a reserve on the chance (in the event of a late withdrawal) of a game would be more inclined to say 'yes' in the knowledge that they would have the option of a graded friendly.

[J T Melsom]

The idea of a competition amongst reserve boards has also been used historically at EPSCA events. It is more obvious in that case that encouraging chess is the priority as well as relieving team organisers of the extra challenge of bored young children with no game. I tend to agree with Nick Faulks (it is possible) that a graded friendly isn't really my cup of tea, either in a team competition or indeed a weekend swiss. My motivation is in playing for the team, more than for myself. Indeed 'graded friendly' seems to me an oxymoron and my play would probably reflect that. I wouldn't stand in the way of others if it gives them pleasure and is a productive use of their time, but it wouldn't be for me.

And as Roger Lancaster has just said, we are effectively trying to address an issue at the margins which might be an improvement for those affected by defaults.

[Alex Holowczak]

But there's no reason why every ECF-graded Rapidplay in England isn't FIDE-rated.

There are very good reasons for that. The administrative burden on organisers of FIDE rating is by no means trivial. Some run a FIDE rated tournament once and swear "Never again".

Off topic, but that is the fallacy in your argument that organisers and arbiters would rapidly adjust to monthly ECF grading. Those who run FIDE rated events have the requisite understanding and skills to meet the tight deadlines, albeit only just in my case!

It would be dangerous to assume that those who don't currently need such skills because we have six monthly grading would necessarily have the ability and motivation to acquire them if monthly grading were introduced. Some might decide to retire from chess administration.

"About time" I can hear you muttering under your breath. Fine - so long as the resultant drop in chess activity proves to be only temporary.

For Rapidplay events, the additional workload is trivial, in my opinion:
1. Instead of filling in the form for just the ECF Calendar, you use the bigger one and make sure you do it more than 7 days in advance (which I suspect people do at the moment).
2. You need FIDE Licenced Arbiters, which means the person just needs to have passed the test. Don't most 1-day Rapidplays have those already? I admit to assuming so, but I expect that this is done by almost all of them already?
3. You have to send off a FIDE-rating file to the IRO as well as the ECF-grading file. All tournaments seem to use this these days, so I don't think that's a big additional burden.

There's no Gold membership argument. What other arguments are there?

[Roger de Coverly]

What other arguments are there?

You need to check that everyone has a FIN, or if they don't that they are content to be ENG.

[J T Melsom]

This stuff needs its own thread or the debate about whether and how to improve Div 4 which is what the majority of posters are interested in will get lost. But playing by the rules of others I'll throw my tuppence worth in here;

Of course those who are repelled by modernisation of pairing and rating systems may gracefully retire, and hopefully have their efforts acknowledged with the gratitude of the chess community. And there is a general shortage of volunteers. But others may be attracted by the modernisation. There is a slow but gradual appearance of younger people organising, as well as those remaining who are prepared to embrace change.

[David Sedgwick]

Of course those who are repelled by modernisation of pairing and rating systems may gracefully retire, and hopefully have their efforts acknowledged with the gratitude of the chess community. And there is a general shortage of volunteers. But others may be attracted by the modernisation. There is a slow but gradual appearance of younger people organising, as well as those remaining who are prepared to embrace change.

Well put.

But my points stand, I think:

1. Unless and until this happens, there are valid reasons for not FIDE rating all Rapidplay events.

2. The introduction of monthly grading in 2019-20 will lead to an abrupt acceleration of your first sentence, without there necessarily being a commensurate acceleration of your third and fourth sentences.

[J T Melsom]

You see I don't personally much care for rapid-play but I recognise it has a following. I would rather see more frequent grades and the additional workload tested in that place before roll-out to other chess. I suspect that would sate the demand for more rapid grades amongst the most demanding, and give us a better sense of the challenges that are faced - at present we are dealing with guesswork however well informed. However, I actually see lots of red-lines being drawn in rather bizarre places and no pragmatism from the 'no' camp. I think that's a poor and ill-advised strategy to adopt.

[Roger de Coverly]

I would rather see more frequent grades and the additional workload tested in that place before roll-out to other chess.

For some years, the grading database has been used to generate tables for the Grand Prix. As a consequence, tournament organisers seem to have become used to submitting results within monthly deadlines. As far as data is concerned, I would have thought the ECF already has all it needs to roll out monthly grading or rating for tournaments. What it doesn't have is an agreed method of calculation. We've seen with FIDE ratings just how random rankings can become for players rated below 2000. That's assuming the rankings implied by ECF grades are still regarded as correct.

[NickFaulks]

We've seen with FIDE ratings just how random rankings can become for players rated below 2000.

Only because the great majority of games played in England go unreported. Whatever the details of the new ECF system, I'm hoping that is not intended to be a feature.