ECF News      SCCU home page
updated 11.9.07
ECF GRADING

ECF PRINTED LIST 2007
11.9.07
The 2007 List appeared a few days ago and can be ordered @ £22.50 from the ECF Office. Last we heard they had sold 60-odd, we think, out of a print run of 150. But adjust for the people (number doubtful but maybe 30-40) who get it free.
     Time was, they reviewed Grading Lists. Honest. But that was then. The printed list, these days, exists on suffrance. Some would abolish it. It loses money after all. Well, so we understand.
     We shall review it lest the abolitionists prevail. It is much what it always was, in terms of number of players. See the next item 27.8.07. In pages it is reduced to less than 80%, through a tasteful use of multiple columns. This may or may not enhance its portability, for those who will have it at chess events. We do not pretend it matches the content of the online list. A paper list could not. We do pretend that your 2007 printed List, if your grandchildren look after it, will be still there in 2077. It would be rash to make this claim for the 2007 online list.


ANOTHER GRADING UPDATE
27.8.07
The season has been notable for two things that have been done and one that has been talked about.

A halfyear Rapidplay list was produced, for the first time since 1998, and appeared on the ECF website in January. In fact the 1998 exercise involved Standardplay as well, but this year's approach was more cautious. Perhaps with reason, for the ECF Council rejected halfyear Standardplay lists three months later.
     It is not certain that all organisers have taken kindly to this year's halfyear Rapidplay list. Your Webmaster suspects that most players appreciate its flexibility. It allows grades to chnge more frequently. A new player can obtain a grade more quickly than before, and the most active players can benefit from the other thing done. X grades. These are based on the most recent six months, for those who have played 30 or more games in that time. A glance at the table below will show that 91 players have X grades.

The thing talked about was the one treated 11.10.06 below. The mills grind slowly. This is not to say it has been swept under the carpet. It hasn't. It seems to be agreed by all that the system is deflationary. What is not yet agreed is what to do about it. "Nothing" has been proposed, but has not mainstream support. Our impression is that adjustments are likely in (July) 2008, and that the October 2007 Council meeting may be asked for a decision.

The 2007 online list is here. It first appeared 21st July 2007, followed by the August revision 22.8.07. This version will be used throughout the season, for the ECF's season-long Standardplay competitions. PLEASE NOTE that it will be applied also to SCCU County matches. The August revision will be exactly mirrored by the printed version which will appear in book form (contact ECF Office) in the first week of September. Price £22.50 including post and packing.
     We can at least give you some statistics. This year's figures, overall, are little different from last apart from a rather strange pair of equal and opposite blips.



Halfgames graded
Players active
Players published 		2005
272457
  16426
  12237 		2006
270605
  15650
  11873 		2007
270555
  15384
  11823

STANDARD
Halfgames graded
Players active
Players published
A grades
B grades
C grades
D grades
E grades
208369
  13810
  10608
    1859 (129)
    1558 (121)
    2473 (115)
    2606 (105)
    2112 (  97)
201539
  13089
  10383
    1799 (129)
    1600 (120)
    2422 (115)
    2637 (106)
    1925 (  97)
207964
  12955
  10371
    1902 (126)
    1635 (118)
    2382 (114)
    2595 (105)
    1857 (  97)

RAPID
Halfgames graded
Players active
Players published
X grades
A grades
B grades
C grades
D grades
E grades
  64088
    5483
    3677

      418 (  86)
      232 (  89)
      525 (  95)
    1451 (  73)
    1051 (  67)
  69066
    5627
    3573

      477 (  84)
      233 (  99)
      458 (103)
    1211 (  80)
    1194 (  50)
  62581
    5617
    3545
        91 (  88)
      274 (  87)
      221 (  98)
      416 (106)
    1119 (  86)
    1424 (  41)

Figures in brackets are mean grades. "Players active" are players with at least one graded game in the most recent season. 7,563 Juniors have been active this year, out of 15,384 players in total. Standardplay games by Juniors: 25,668. Rapidplay: 35,572 or more than half of the total.


GRADING UPDATE
11.10.06, and already in its second edition
This has been in Open Forum and on the Atticus website, and - perhaps belatedly - popped up the day before yesterday on the ECF site (Grading page). Now that the question is ECF-recognised, your Webmaster would like to throw in some remarks of his own. Readers will know he is not a statistician.
     The problem is that players don't score what they ought to. An analysis of last season's results has shown that players outgrading their opponents by (say) 25 points have not scored the theoretically expected 75%. They have scored more like 68%.
     Why? No one knows. Something has crept in to distort the system. The ECF site suggests possibilities, some of them lost in the mists of time. Apparently no one even knows if the anomalies are real, till the statisticians have had another go at them, but this Website would not mind betting they are. Suggested sources of distortion include the treatment of new players and that of juniors.
     Does it matter? Not sure. As the ECF site points out, people are playing on the average as many players above them as below, so you would expect the system to remain static regardless of distortions. (How about new players? If there is distortion, why don't they tend to counter it? Maybe they do.) At all events the system doesn't remain static, or at least doesn't seem to have over the years. Perhaps it matters.
     Is the ECF grading methodology flawed? Our answer, in the small hours of this morning, was "Of course it isn't. Not essentially." We're not so sure now, having grazed again in the higher pastures of the Atticus site. (It's worth going to, if you haven't.) One possible cause of deflation, touched on there but made clearer to us by someone else, is that even with a static pool of players the average grade can fluctuate. We've always known this but its significance had escaped us. It might not matter if the fluctuation was locally random, but there is some reason to expect a downward drift. We think. There seem to be other issues, but go and graze.
     Would switching to Elo calculations solve the problem? Not obviously, though we're less sure than we were in the small hours. Your Webmaster likes ECF because he can do it in his head, but maybe that's not the only consideration. (Switching to Elo so our grades would look the same as everyone else's is a different question, and we wouldn't vote for it.)

How will this impact on English competitions? You may know that Sean Hewitt, the unopposed candidate for election as Home Director at the ECF Council meeting 21.10.06 - and thus prospectively in charge of grading - was minded to go ahead at once with an adjustment to the 2007 grades. The impact on leagues and congresses would have taken effect from next season. You may also know that he informed the ECF 9.10.06 that he was withdrawing his candidature. His decision was not prompted by the paper on the ECF website. He didn't know about it.
     He has so far resisted attempts to persuade him to change his mind. What the effect will be we don't know, but the impetus for change may be lessened. Some say more checks are needed, and they may be right. Is there time for more checks if we are to have adjustments in 2007 and still give organisers adequate notice? It seems unlikely.
      But we are coming round to the view that adjustments may be necessary.


Earlier material is in the Archive.

Back to ECF News      Back to SCCU home page