New Longplay twice yearly grading...good or bad

[Roger de Coverly]

I`ve indicated my main concerns regarding this proposed move to twice yearly longplay grades...mainly that you would end up regrading thousands of players, in most cases with very minor grade adjustments, at the expense of a series of potential ripple effects in various areas. My suggestion is to go for a targetted approach, just hitting the handful of `fast moving` players (mainly juniors & u/g players), who experience a significant movement....giving them revised grade estimates.

It has to be simpler to collect all the results and run a complete recalculation. Once you have the results the computer does the leg work. You could presumably ignore the players with small grade change or a limited number of results. That does get subjective though as to who you change and who you ignore.

The general presumption is that for leagues and county teams is that you establish eligibility from the grades published around 1st August. So yes you have the potential anomalies that improving players breach the maximum grade requirements. That's not in fact new, on an annual system their performance would have been over the limits, it's no more than the fact that there's now published evidence.

I would have though that an U-180 captain would even in the absence of a fresh grading list, keep an eye on the results of the U-160 team and the players within, with a view to offering promotion to players having a particularly good season.

[Andrew Farthing]

I understand that there`s talk that the ECF might back track on the county grading bands for counties competitions...possibly reverting back to the wider bands, ie..Open, U175, U150, U125, & U100 due to a number of counties complaining of increased difficulties in raising county teams. So, maybe this is indicative of what can happen when you start tinkering with a system, if you`re not careful.

This is news to me. I was aware that the MCCU Chief Executive's report for the AGM included comments on the subject (as well as a comment to the effect that one of the other unions was planning to discuss it at their AGM), but I am not aware of any talk within the ECF itself of changing the bands for the County Championships.

In my county of Worcestershire, it has apparently been more difficult in the last year to raise a county team in the Open event, but I haven't heard any suggestion that this was linked to the grading bands in any way.

[David Pardoe]

It might just be the Midlands that are struggling here, I dont know. No doubt they will be discussion these issues in more detail at the MCCU AGM next week. (I see there is a separate thread about this below in the MCCU section, where I have already commented on some matters).
I guess the NCCU has few problems due to playing almost no qualifying matches anyway.
For the SCCU, they seem to have a solid support base for county chess, and a population/transport base to support it.
However, I`m wondering if a radical overhaul of the counties events is now due. Maybe, if they transformed the National Finals stages into one grand `Jamboree style` event, possibly over one weekend at somewhere like Barcoli Hotel, Hinckley...similar to the 4NCL Finals weekend, it could save tremendously on travel, Hotels, time, etc...and give things a much greater, more streamlined focus. This event just drags on too long in my view, particularly into the summer months for those who get through to the Finals stages.
Also, that could free up the calander, allowing the Qualifier stages to perhaps be extended to May. This in turn could take pressure off the counties qualifying stages during the winter months, when travel & fixture conjestion issues leave many county captains struggling...

[Stewart Reuben]

David Pardoe >if they transformed the National Finals stages into one grand `Jamboree style` event, possibly over one weekend at somewhere like Barcoli Hotel, Hinckley...similar to the 4NCL Finals weekend, it could save tremendously on travel, Hotels, time, etc...and give things a much greater, more streamlined focus. <

I am unclear what you are suggesting here. Is it to have just one day for perhaps 8 teams in a section playing a jamboree system over 16 boards? Play 2-7pm and there would be no hotel living costs and travel expenses would be very much reduced. The cost of of hiring the playing halls would be huge as I am sure the Hinckley Island Hotel conference facilities is offset against the bedroom use generated by the 4NCL.
Is there not the danger of going to the ultimate way of saving costs. That is to stop running the event?
It is typical of a forum that we have wandered away from the original subject on this thread.
Stewart Reuben

[David Pardoe]

Stewart,
Yes , I`d envisaged a grand two day double round jamboree Finals, similar to the 4NCL Finals, which proved a great success, but whether Hinckley Island Barcelo could actually cater for an event that size, with about 50 teams taking part, I`m not sure. Certainly there would be pressure on hotel rooms, but the good discount rates are certainly attractive. There is other accommodation in the area, of course. It would also offer the opportunity for some Saturday evening team socials, which are another attraction of the 4NCL meetings.
It might be that the Finals could be brought forward to either late May or early June. This would create a suitable gap to the next major event, being the British Championships.
It struck me that such events could also be used to promote the ECF and offer discount memberships to those signing up at these events....maybe for 1 or 2 year terms.

But, yes, feel free to comment on the original topic......gradings.

[Roger de Coverly]

but whether Hinckley Island Barcelo could actually cater for an event that size, with about 50 teams taking part, I`m not sure.

At 16 boards a team, that's around 800 people, compared to the 4NCLs 500 -550.

I would have thought the bigger problem was finding 800 people willing to spend a weekend away in Hinckley playing team chess, particularly as many of them will already have played the 4NCL weekends. You could halve the head count by just playing semis and finals, that would be below 4NCL numbers so would at least fit. A residential weekend would at least avoid the issue of Southern teams having to travel to the Midlands to play one another.

[Stewart Reuben]

Don't worry too much about the size. For example Ponds Forge in Sheffield could accommodate 1000 people playing chess in one hall.
When we ran the English Counties Finals and the National Club Finals back to back in Birmingham over a weekend, eventually people didn't like it. Since the 4NCL has 5 such weekends per year, perhaps that is enough for team play over a weekend in this country.
It would be perfectly reasonable to do market research, by means of a questionnaire, on the subject.
Stewart Reuben

[David Pardoe]

I understand that there`s talk that the ECF might back track on the county grading bands for counties competitions...possibly reverting back to the wider bands, ie..Open, U175, U150, U125, & U100 due to a number of counties complaining of increased difficulties in raising county teams. So, maybe this is indicative of what can happen when you start tinkering with a system, if you`re not careful.

This is news to me. I was aware that the MCCU Chief Executive's report for the AGM included comments on the subject (as well as a comment to the effect that one of the other unions was planning to discuss it at their AGM), but I am not aware of any talk within the ECF itself of changing the bands for the County Championships.

In my county of Worcestershire, it has apparently been more difficult in the last year to raise a county team in the Open event, but I haven't heard any suggestion that this was linked to the grading bands in any way.

Andrew,
The CEO`s report talked of another Union also considering this..ie, changing back to the original grading bands.
I`d agree that such a move might well help ease the pressures on county captains.
It also says that they (the MCCU), tends to follow ECF policy, so one might assume that any moves would be linked to potential changes in ECF policy.
I see that `twice yearly grading` also got a brief mention.
I`ve suggested that they might discuss this further at the meeting, and I hope they do. Not sure if any county rule changes would be required regarding eligability, etc....but the sight of several `over 160` players suddenly appearing on the U160 team might not look too clever, to sight just one possibility. Ungraded players could prove tricky, since they might move significantly. We had one last season who `moved` from E143 to E185 (mid season). Whether it leads to other captains `stealing` fast movers (up or down..), remains to be seen. Might this lead to some disputes.
Certainly, the sight of a player with revised grade estimate of E185 continuing to appear on the U160 team might raise a few eyebroughs.
As this thread has pointed out, there are a number of potential issues, possible rule changes, etc..additional potential work, and areas of possible confusion that should be considered.
I`ve said before that I think this is `taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut`, and that probably 90% of player grades dont change that much anyway over a season.
In addition, most leagues now produce very good stats that can help captains and players guage `current form`.
Regarding junior & ungraded players, whats probably most important is keeping these players `in the loop`.
Such `newbies`, who have no grades, but only estimates, probably will play minimal amounts of league chess, and certainly wont engage in a frenzy of multi-league & Congress play, as some have suggested. It should be possible to identify `fast movers` & re-estimate grades for some on a targetted basis, I would have thought.
Many such players don`t actually play much team club chess initially, so one might wonder what value might be placed on any `mid season` estimates, based on very few games. How might this work.
It is however, important to keep such players `motivated`, because many clubs have become just `glorified league match factories`, and they might benefit by offering players more internal club competitions. Incidently, it is possible to have such events `graded` at discount rates.
Hopefully, the ECF delegates will be given another opportunity to discuss these issues, and the best approach to any implementation, before anything is `signed off`.

[Alex Holowczak]

I`ve suggested that they might discuss this further at the meeting, and I hope they do.

Are you attending the meeting?

[David Pardoe]

Alex,
I`m not sure that my attendance, and expounding views which are (apparently) in clear opposition to MCF, MCCU, & ECF policy/thinking (even where some of these policies appear to have been taken `on the hoof` with minimal thought/research), would serve any good purpose. I`ve tried to express my concerns as clearly as I can, and others are welcome to take there own positions.
I`ve also found some of the ECForum discussion quite instructive...hopefully leading to some constructive changes.
I`ll just say that, on the subject of `twice yearly gradings`, there appears to be several angles to consider. I`ll say that I`ve been quite impressed by our local Stockport leagues website`s player stats, particularly on those graded U110, where various estimates of grading & `Current performance`, etc dont look at all bad, generally speaking. Taken along with detailed published match results on both the Manchester & Stockport sites, you get quite a good picture, I think.
I`ve attended previous MCCU AGM`s and had some lively discussions. What is important I think is to allow and encourage open discussion, which hopefully will result in positive changes, and greater participation....and more volunteers coming forward to take `posts` and bring forward new ideas & initiatives.

[Sean Hewitt]

Alex,
I`m not sure that my attendance, and expounding views which are (apparently) in clear opposition to MCF, MCCU, & ECF policy/thinking (even where some of these policies appear to have been taken `on the hoof` with minimal thought/research),.

To be fair.......this idea has been floating about in it's current guise for 4 years........you might not agree with it........but to suggest that it's policy on the hoof..........is disengenuous.

[Roger de Coverly]

To be fair.......this idea has been floating about in it's current guise for 4 years........you might not agree with it........but to suggest that it's policy on the hoof..........is disengenuous.

It's been a design feature of the software since around 1996 when it was first specified. The first attempt to get it to work was in around 1998 or 1999 when by the time March arrived with no grading list, it was abandoned. It next appeared in July 2000 when what was supposed to be an annual list turned out to only have six months of results in it.

There are various forms of six monthly calculation possible, but only speculation as to the exact details. The favoured view would appear that it will treat half-seasons in more or less same way as seasons at present, notwithstanding the naturally different game content from one half year to the next.

[David Pardoe]

I dont think anyone is challenging the calculations, or the thought thats gone into computing the grades.
Its more about benefits v overall costs/effort, and whether there is more milage in adopting a more targetted/selective approach, using revised estimates in mid season for selected `fast movers` (both up & down...) .
As I said, are we taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
And should we not be making more use of the available data on League & Congress websites regarding player data, league results, Congress results, etc. which is now far better than it was a few years ago.

[Roger de Coverly]

Its more about benefits v overall costs/effort, and whether there is more milage in adopting a more targetted/selective approach, using revised estimates in mid season for selected `fast movers` (both up & down...) .
As I said, are we taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
.

Provided you have obtained and validated the data, running the grading process and uploading the results should be quite straightforward. The problem with a selective approach is that you don't know whether or not to expect to find someone on the list. So you have a player 150 on the July list. They would be 151 on the January list, you remove them from the updated list. You have another player who is 160 on the January list. You leave them in. But why bother?

You have to process all the data to find the fast movers. So you might as well publish it. It isn't as if you have to print a list and dispatch it to all and sundry.

[Alex Holowczak]

Its more about benefits v overall costs/effort

The benefits are marginal for seasoned players, larger for juniors. The costs are virtually nil. The time commitment is the same, save for a few extra e-mails. It's no big deal.

and whether there is more milage in adopting a more targetted/selective approach

There isn't. According to the graders, it would completely screw up the system for some to have more updated grades than others, because it'd mean one halfresult in a game is being graded and shown, while the other isn't.