SOME SUSSEX OMISSIONS?
31.8.02
We hear that many, perhaps most, of the Sussex Junior events 2001-2 did not get into the list. Apparently the results were not processed though the Grader sent them to the BCF in good time. We have no details, but it seems that a lot of Sussex Juniors were expecting their first official grade and haven't got one.
This is the first such case we've heard of.
COPYRIGHT CHARGE REVISITED
29.8.02
We reported on the 24th July [see below] that the Director had announced a charge for the right to publish local lists. And that subsequently, in view of adverse reaction, he had told us he would put it to Council in October. No doubt that's still the intention. But the BCF website announces the charge today, in what seems to be its first mention of the subject, without any suggestion that it's up for discussion. Perhaps this is just a breakdown of communication within the BCF.
The adverse reaction continues. We're still hearing complaints.
GRADING LIST 2002: A REVIEW
I would like to thank the BCF for my complimentary Grader's copy of the new list. They'd already sent it to Graders electronically, and quite right too, but a free hard-copy version is more than I expect. It's £13 to most people (£12 last year).
Let's start with the first thing that strikes you. The colour of the front cover is a matter of taste, but the title on it was worth a bit of thought. It's "GRADING LIST 2002-3". Now, is that the season it's (mostly) based on, or the one in which it's current? The answer's obvious, at the moment. It will be less obvious in a year's time when I pick this list up and have to decide whether it's current. What was wrong with "Grading List 2002"? It actually says that at the top of the first page.
OK, it's a small point but it was worth making. How about the contents?
The range of grades is from 1 to 272. (Nobody's graded nought.1 There are plenty of noughts, but it means either "no grade" or "not qualified for inclusion".) The number of players is 12175. I've not checked this against last year, but it's pretty similar. There are 10546 Standard grades and 3439 Rapid ones. (I expect if you drew a Venn diagram you could work out how many players have grades of both sorts.) The spread of A-E grades looks sensible: in the region of 2700 (each) for C and D, 1700 each for the rest. That's Standard. Rapid is more heavily weighted towards the Ds and Es, Ds especially.
Is it accurate? Hard to say until the complaints come in, but it's been out nearly three weeks and I haven't heard of many so far. I thought at first that my own grade was two or three points too low, and suspected that my National Club results hadn't gone in. (It had to be National Club, because all the rest of my games were graded by me.) On a recount, I think they did and it's right.
As far as I know, all the Top Ladies and Girls are genuinely female2 (and Laurie Neatherway's a boy now). The names that got chopped to 18 characters last year are now restored. The ones that start with lower-case letters are incompetently sorted, after the Zs, but luckily there are only two of them. More important, there is a mistake with Juniors' ages. The age given is not, as stated in the preamble, the Junior's age on the 1st September 2001. It is the age he will be on the 1st September 2002. This mistake appears to be a carry-through of an accident that happened with last year's list. Previous lists had it right.
Someone on the Grading Forum has drawn attention to an oddity. A lot of "previous-year" grades have disappeared and been replaced with noughts. Research turns up 500-plus of these in the Rapids and 70-odd in the Standards. I don't know why this should be. There are also a handful of Standards with previous-year grades that have changed, I suppose because of late corrections.
Someone else has observed that only one club is shown for each player. He suspects that it is the first one in the BCF's (private) list, and therefore the oldest and most out of date. The BCF have records of up to six clubs, at least, for each player, and there was a time when grading lists used to include all of them. Perhaps this is something they should look at.
The list concludes with an interesting statistical analysis by Bruce Holland. Unfortunately it's an analysis of last year's list. It includes master-list data not available twelve months ago (because the master list keeps changing), but up to date it isn't. To the best of my knowledge, the only published analysis of the 2002 list is what's in this review.
I've made some negative points. But I support the BCF's endeavours to produce an accurate list, and (with the provisos I've mentioned) I have no reason at all to think they haven't done so. We've come on since two years ago. Verdict: Pleasing progress, but room for improvement.
rjh 21.8.02 1 Wrong. Scott Freeman tells me that one of the Coulsdon Juniors has an E grade of nought. (The noughts that aren't grades don't have a letter with them.) On checking I've found eleven other zero grades: three Ds and the rest Es. All twelve are Rapidplay, and the ones with known dates of birth are Juniors. (The Coulsdon one does not have a known date of birth: action SGF?) What I might have said was, nobody's supposed to be graded nought. The lowest permitted grade is 1. Scott also remarks on negative grades in a previous master list. 2 Bruce Birchall observes that 14 UK residents have been excluded from the Top Ladies list, apparently because not English (though some of them live in England). They are mostly Scottish, Welsh or Irish but include a few from further afield. They do have grades in the list. For details, see Open Forum.
CHANGES FOR 2002-3
24.7.02, with updates to 8.8.02
200 copies of the new list arrived in Torquay on the 1st August. We got our emailed copy six days later, but haven't done more than glance at it. The new grades are in use at the Congress, presumably by sneak preview.
For next year, the Director announces three changes: Eligibility for Grading
From the new season, the BCF's regulations are (roughly) in step with FIDE's definitions. Rapidplay means at least 15 and not more than 60 minutes each. If in Fischer mode, the time stated assumes a 60-move game. Going beyond FIDE: there can be a QPF in Rapidplay, and the time stated includes it.
Standardplay is anything exceeding 60 minutes each. 60 minutes exactly may be graded as Standard by agreement with the Director (or by lying to the BCF and saying it was 60½ minutes).
The Director tells us 2.8.02 that, for Junior events, the Rapidplay limit can be below 15 minutes and the Standardplay limit can be below 60 minutes. He does not say how far below. FIDE Conversions
The conversion formula, until now, has been:
BCF x 8 + 600 = FIDE
This is retained for BCF grades greater than 215. For others, the formula is changing. It becomes:
BCF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE
The effect is to enhance BCF grades below 216. Apparently the old formula undervalued them. Your Webmaster has seen the Director's explanation and does not understand it. He is no mathematician.
Note 6.8.02. Correspondence about this on the Grading Forum has become technical, and your Webmaster wouldn't even expect to understand it. This is good. It means the experts are talking to one another, in a way we think they sometimes haven't. Perhaps they are also listening to one another. We can't say whether it will have an impact on the conversion formula that's been announced. Copyright charge
The Director announced 24.7.02 (but see last paragraph below) that the BCF would in future make a "modest" charge for permission to produce local lists. The charge would depend on the size of the list, and the only hint provided is that it would be £15 for one particular, named, small-to-middling County.
The Director argues that this is not a change at all, because the Grading List has always been BCF-copyright even if there's not been a charge. He states that his own County has been paying in recent years. They may be unique. There are plenty that haven't, and haven't been asked to.
Reaction from graders and others has been adverse, and the Director tells us that in view of this he will put the whole thing to Council in October.
A MAJOR CHANGE IN DIRECTION
1.4.02
In a surprise announcement made over the Easter break Chris Majer, BCF Grading Director, has revealed big changes to come. Discussion at Management Board level has been kept very private, and only now has the time been judged right to go public.
Graders are in revolt. In a recent survey 67% of respondents expressed severe dissatisfaction with the way the system works, a further 17% expressed serious concern, and 17% were more or less resigned to putting up with it. None were entirely happy, and some have voted with their feet.
It's about the BCF/Grader interface. Hopes were high, eighteen months ago, when the BCF engaged a paid officer to do the (substantial) routine work no volunteer had had time for. Indeed the officer has been prompt and efficient. However, for technical reasons it has proved necessary to retain an obsolete semi-autonomous processing module, a component of the system since before the Chris-Howell days, for handling much of the Graders' input. Periodically this module breaks down completely under the workload and has to be coaxed back into life. It can't be mended or replaced, and it is taking months (literally) to respond to Graders' communications. Graders are months behind with their submissions in consequence.
So the time has come for change. The current system of reporting results will be scrapped, and the Graders with it, and from the start of the new grading season we will be using a SELF-SUBMISSION SCHEME
Under the SS, each player is responsible for his own games. This will finally eradicate the problem of unreported games, probably the most frequent cause of complaint.
Many of the details are already worked out. Results will be submitted using Form SS1S (or SS1R for Rapidplay), obtainable from the BCF Office. This can be used for any number of games, up to a maximum of 30, and must be submitted not less than 7 days (Sundays excepted) after completion of the earliest game on the list. Typically a player would send SS1S or SS1R after playing in a congress, though it might also be a County or Club match. The form will be headed with your full name (as printed in the Grading List), Direct Membership Number, BCF Code (as printed in the Grading List), Club, Gender, and Date of Birth. It will show, for each game:
(1) Name of Event, with Event Code (obtainable from BCF Office)
(2) Date of Game
(3) Opponent's full name, as printed in the Grading List
(4) Opponent's Direct Membership Number
(5) Opponent's seven-character BCF Code, as printed in the Grading List
(6) Opponent's Gender (where known)
(7) Opponent's Grade, as printed in the latest update to the Grading List. (Updates will be published daily on the BCF website.)
(8) For a Standard game, the method of finish used (eg quickplay finish, adjournment, adjudication). Games subject to adjudication are not eligible for grading.
(9) Colour, stating whether it was your colour or your opponent's colour
(10) Result of game
For opponents not shown in the Grading List it will first be necessary to submit Form SSNPS (or SSNPR) giving more detailed information, including Date of Birth and Club Code. (A list of Club Codes can be obtained from the BCF Office.) You will then be given a BCF Code to insert on SS1S or SS1R. It will not be necessary to give Opponent's Grade.
The completed SS1S or SS1R must be authenticated by the signature of the person or persons responsible for the event or events (eg congress director, match captain, tournament controller), and countersigned by a person of standing (eg BCF Director, minister of religion). It will then be returned in triplicate to the BCF Office, together with Game Fee (where applicable) at the current rate. This will relieve league and congress organisers, and Club and County treasurers, of the burden of calculating and paying Game Fee.
Additionally there will be Form SS2S (and SS2R) for notifying changes to your or your opponents' details (change of name, gender etc).
The Director says:
"This step forward will bring Grading into the 21st century. Grading will be accessible to the grass-roots player as never before. Costs saved on the production and distribution of Graders' master lists will be considerable."
AUGUST 2001 LIST: SOME STATISTICS
rjh 22.12.01
Our Grading CD came this morning, and we couldn't resist a bit of statisticulating. It's a revised and corrected list, actually, so won't be quite the same as the one published in August. (We understand the BCF are to publish the revisions on the BCF site.) These figures are ours, not the BCF's.
STD
A
B
C
D
E
A-E
Players
1680
1661
2764
2836
1798
10739
Mean
132.5
122.5
116.3
105.9
99.5
114.2
RAPID
A
B
C
D
E
A-E
Players
482
256
505
1396
940
3579
Mean
95.8
99.8
99.2
80.7
75.3
85.3
The Rapid "A" mean surprised us, but there's an awful lot of newish players, no doubt mostly juniors, with "A" grades way below 100. Junior chess is Rapid chess, by and large, and that will explain the discrepancy between the Standard and Rapid means overall.
Hang about, though. Who says Standard and Rapid grades are commensurate? How do I know they aren't mutually invisible black boxes? I suspect they're not, but I'd like to see the reason spelt out.
Total players A-E, Standard or Rapid (or both): 12488. If you add the people with too few games to qualify as A-E, the number goes up to 27,497.
RAPIDPLAY: AN ANOMALY?
rjh 21.9.01
The FIDE Laws define a Rapidplay game as one in which each player has from 15 to 60 minutes for the entire game. The BCF grading rules (see the introduction to your BCF grading list) define it as one in which each player has at least 25 minutes, and less than 1¼ hours.
Some events, like the Coulsdon 15/15 the other day, may be legitimately played under FIDE Rapidplay rules yet don't qualify for BCF grading. I don't know how strictly the rule is applied. I suspect that sometimes a grader will bypass the system altogether and just not say what the time limit was, and they take his word for it that it was Rapidplay. That shouldn't be possible when we're properly automated, but we aren't yet.
At the other end of the scale a player may play a game under FIDE "normal" rules, innocently expecting Standard grading, and it comes out graded as Rapidplay. This doesn't happen in events I grade, because I lie about the time limit.
I believe that the BCF definitions were introduced before the current FIDE ones existed, and they've just never thought (or wanted?) to get in step. I think they ought to now, to avoid confusion if nothing else.
Note 24.9.01. It looks as though the BCF rules are applied, but it doesn't happen very often. Howard Grist tells me that one event in 1999-2000 was entered as 20/20, and was excluded. In 2000-2001 no events at all were entered as less than 25/25. It remains possible that graders have been untruthful. I have no information on events entered as (say) 70/70, but presumably the rule will have been applied if there were any.
NEW GRADING LIST IS ON SCHEDULE
Chris Majer advises that the list goes to the printers today 17th July, and should be on sale at the British in a fortnight's time. The following checks have been made: (1) The number of Standardplay halfgames graded has been compared with last year's figures, and those for the year before, and found to be broadly similar. Figures: 1999 208,000; 2000 213,500; 2001 204,000. The 2000 figure is from the corrected mid-year list, which included lots of results received late. There are thought to be two or three events that have not yet reported this year, but it could be more. It's hard to tell, sometimes, whether silent events are extinct or simply uncommunicative. (2) The percentages of A-E category players have been found to be the same, to a close approximation, as in the corrected 2000 list. (3) Large grading changes have been investigated. The bulk of them appeared to be right, but there were some cases where players had been misidentified, and this has been corrected. In a couple of cases it was not possible to decide whether the data was correct and it will be referred back to the grader.
rjh comment: These checks, if carried out a year ago, would have instantly picked up the grotesque error in the August list. Check (1) alone would have shouted it from the rooftops. This year's manifest improvements have been achieved partly by doing the obvious things and doing them right. Another factor has been the involvement of various computing experts, including notably Howard Grist. The decision to employ a paid Grading Officer will not have done any harm either. Yes, I have reservations about some of the things that have been done this year, and we're still on a makeshift system pending revision of the "Chris Howell" software. But grading is FAR more on course than it's been for I don't know how long. We had a Kent AGM three days ago, before I'd seen Chris's figures, and someone asked me, as Kent Grader, whether I thought the BCF would publish a proper list on time. My answer, admittedly after a short pause, was "Yes".
Note 28.7.01. Graders got an electronic copy of the list three days ago. This does not prove there won't be a cock-up at the printers. But the electronic version looks sensible, apart from your Webmaster's (regrettably correct) grade.