Grading statistics      BCF News      SCCU home page
updated 28.7.01
BCF GRADING

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.


STATISTICS
have been received 2.7.01 from Chris Majer. We've opened a new Statistics page for them.


ANOTHER UPDATE
25.6.01, updated 26.6.01
An extract from Chris Majer's latest progress report, just received:
General Progress
We are now at the busy time of the Grading year and results files are coming in. So far out of an expected 800 results files:
324 files have been processed;
37 files are awaiting processing;
4 files have been referred back to the Grader due to anomalies on the input file.
     A few anomalies have been raised by Graders based on the feedback to them, and these are under investigation. This is an improvement on last year when there was no feedback. Overall, things seem to be going smoothly and we are currently on track for success.
     [rjh: I don't know how many files were eventually processed last year, but I'm told that it was 700 for the September list, and that the number processed by the 1st July was 38. No misprint. Thirty eight.]
British Championships
A Grading service will be provided at the British Championships, which will be able to provide Members of the BCF with an event-summary-based Grading print-out (as used to be provided by the pre-Chris-Howell system). The Howell-format Grading print-outs will be provided to Members as usual in November.
     I will also be at the British Championships for both weeks, and will be available if anyone wants to discuss Grading issues in person.
Six-monthly Grading lists?
The Grading list to be published in August 2001 will be intended to cover an entire year – there will not be a six-monthly list next January. The central Grading team questions the merits of producing six-monthly grading lists, a view supported by the BCF Management Board. Nevertheless, I will raise at the BCF Council meeting in September the issue of whether six-monthly lists should be started from January 2003. Six-monthly lists can only be successful if results are sent in promptly. I would welcome your views.
Central Grading Software
Development will continue of the Howell software with the objective of using it for the 2002 Grading list. The Hybrid system, used for this year's list, will be maintained until sufficient confidence is gained in the improved Howell software.
Chris Majer 17.6.01


AN UPDATE
8.5.01
We said three weeks ago that the list of this season's new players had not gone to the graders. It has now. It's no longer the 1000-player list it was. It's gone up to 3000+. This brings the number of listed players to somewhere around 40,000. That is the people who have played any graded games at all in the last 3 or 4 years.
     What does startle us a bit is that, out of 3000 new players this year, 1027 (all rather recent) appear to belong to one and the same club. So that wraps up this year's Club of the Year award. To keep us guessing, the club is identified only by a code number which isn't in the code book. However, it appears to be in Surrey.
     We understand that the grading team met yesterday afternoon. We can't make out that anything very newsworthy came of it. It is possible that the temporary "hybrid" system (see below) will give way to a full-blooded improved CIH one next season. We'd welcome that.
Postscript 24.5.01. It was the Coulsdon Chess Fellowship, and it has indeed entered more than a thousand new players.


CORRECTED LIST IS OUT
17.4.01
The corrected A-E grades have just appeared on the BCF site. Why it's taken them so long, after the decision at the MB meeting on the 10th March, we can't say. "Significant" changes are changes of 5 points or more. The predicted number of entries in the list (see last item) was 800. This won't be all that far out. We counted half way before getting sick of it, and our estimate at that point was 600+.
     It's been a quiet month otherwise, for graders. The BCF produced a New-Player list a few weeks ago, to help graders avoid entering new players that someone else already had. There were nearly a thousand names in it. This was an excellent idea. Unfortunately they have not given this list to the graders. We have no doubt there was a good reason, but to find out what it was you'd have to ask the Grading Director.


THE CORRECTED LIST
13.3.01
The corrected master list reached the graders yesterday or thereabouts. It's a corrected "August 2000" list. It includes events that should have gone into that list and didn't, but it does not include anything from this season.
     The new list will not be used for eligibility in BCF team events, but it will be used in this season's calculations. We have just heard that new A-E grades, and corrected ones if they have changed "significantly", will be published on the BCF website. All will appear as "last-season" grades in the next August list.
     To give you an idea of the scale of things, the total number of A-E grades is around 12500 and there are expected to be about 800 players in the website list. By our reckoning 90-odd players now have A-E grades who didn't before, and another 1700-odd have A-E grades that have changed. That's not counting the ones who have changed category while their grades have remained the same. There's about 170 of those. Something over two-thirds of the changes are to Standardplay grades.
     The biggest change is said to be in the region of 60 points. That isn't ridiculous, if the original grade was a starred one based on hardly any games.
     Nearly forgot. If you don't recognise yourself in the list, it's because all the names have got chopped to 18 characters. There seems to be no particular reason for this. The BCF computer still knows your full name.


FEBRUARY PROGRESS STATEMENT
from Chris Majer, Acting Director of Grading
[Addressed to graders, but still may be of general interest]
10.2.01
Last month, I stated that I expected that the Grading Team would complete work on the Master List by the end of January. Unfortunately, we have not been running to time and I now expect that by the end of the month you should receive an updated CD-ROM containing:
  • The Updated Master List;
  • Data-checking program for submission files (including associated documentation);
  • Updated documentation defining the format for submission files;
  • Updated version of Congress program;
  • Updated version of League program;
  • General Instructions, etc.
The data-checking program is currently under beta testing and the documentation format is currently under review. I can send these out by e-mail in advance of the CD-ROM for anyone that wants a preview.
     The production of the Master List confirms the feasibility of using the hybrid system for central Grading computation.
     Finally, we have cleared the backlog of new player requests, if anyone thinks that they have any long-standing requests for players or event codes would they please contact me.



A PROGRESS STATEMENT
from Chris Majer, Acting Director of Grading
dated 4.1.01, published 11.1.01
[This statement will appear also on the BCF site. It is addressed mainly to graders, though others may find it of interest.]
As we've entered a new year (or for purists a new millennium), I thought it was time that I let you know where we were on Grading.
     The more attentive of you have spotted an inconsistency in the closing date for submissions between my original communication and the subsequent one (dated 27.11 and 22.12 respectively on the BCF Website). I confirm that the deadline for submission of grading results is 30th June 2001, but would be grateful if events that are finished earlier can be sent in as soon as they are ready, to cut down on the last minute rush. We will shortly issue a checker for grading data submissions (see below for details). I would ask those of you who are about to submit Grading data, and are able to use the submission checker, to wait until you receive it.
     Work is continuing on processing Grading results omitted from the published 2000 Grading List and correcting those anomalies that have been pointed out to us. It is expected that this work will be completed by end of January, when an updated master list, together with any additional software deemed appropriate, will be released to Graders.
     Testing to confirm the feasibility of using the hybrid system for central Grading computation is expected to be completed by the end of January.
     A manual process has been put in place to supply player codes for new players before their results are submitted. The idea is to reduce the incidence of new players getting more than one code, and to confirm that new players really are new. To date over 200 requests for new player codes have been processed, out of which about 30 have proved to be existing players. However, there is still a backlog of about 500 new player requests, which I expect to be cleared within the next two weeks. So if you are awaiting new player codes, please be patient. I would ask all Graders to send in their requests as soon as possible, since a late deluge will jeopardize getting the Grading done. In this respect, I am imposing a deadline of end of May (i.e. one month before the deadline for submission of grading results) for requests for new player codes.
     Last year, not many people received feedback due to the processing time involved. We are still investigating how to streamline this process so that we can provide feedback to Graders on what we think they have submitted.
     A data checker for submission files, which will be provided to all Graders, has been developed and is now under test. There are two versions, one that can check spreadsheets and requires Excel 97 to be installed on the machine, and one that just checks text files, which requires Windows 95 (or later). The hard disk requirements for the Checker are about 10Mb, plus 5Mb or so for the indexes on the .dbfs (which are optional).
     We have processed all last year's files through the prototype checker. The failure rate was over 90%! Here is a list of some of the common errors and problems with last year's submission files:-

     (a) Last year, we allowed Graders to make up their own event code. Unfortunately, many of you independently came up with the same code, which could have lead to confusion of events. We believe we trapped them before they overwrote each other. Hence, to avoid a recurrence this season, event codes must be taken out from Roger Edwards.
     (b)There was a problem last year with generation of multiple references for the same new player. Therefore this season data will not be accepted unless local Graders use the issued new player references.
     (c) Many Graders have not included #FINISH at the end of their files, which causes the central Grading software to loop. There have been several other minor keying faults that have caused problems with the system. It is not sufficient for the Grading administrator to add the missing #FINISH centrally and process the file, because then we have no check against files truncated in transmission. So the file must be referred back to the local Grader for a correct submission.
     (d) There have been several cases of missing #'s causing data overflow and the system to hang. Even experienced Graders have fallen into this trap. These, together with spelling mistakes in the field names, are the major cause of complete failure to process.
     (e) Several Graders seem to have a Y2K problem judging by the number of events that took place in 1900 & the number of players born in 2087. Correct submission requires four-digit years; failure to supply them is the most common error in the submission files.
     (f) After the four-digit year problem, the most common error is failing to properly specify the club. Either a CLUB CODE, or both a CLUB NAME and a CLUB COUNTY is expected.
     (g) Incorrect check digits on the BCF Grading reference.
     (h) Giving a result for a PIN that does not occur in the player list, or duplicating a PIN number within the player list.
     (i) Giving the same value for PIN1 and PIN2 (which suggests that the player played himself) - some of these may have been misguided attempts to show defaults/byes/half point byes.
     (j) Failure to give details of results officer.
     (k) Messing up the time limit details - in any number of different ways.
     (m) Incorrectly filling in the name of the player. In particular, where separate fields are used for forename, initials and surname. A player called Alan Brian Charles Green has a forename of 'Alan' (not 'Alan BC') and initials of 'ABC' (not 'BC').

The data checker will detect all of the errors described in paragraphs. "c" to "m" and I would ask you all to use the data checker when you get it. If anyone wants any further information, or has any questions, please contact me.
CE Majer CEMAJER@aol.com



UPDATE
12.12.00
We're off
Graders can now (at last!) start sending results to the BCF. Until a couple of days ago they have not known who to send them to. It turns out that the new setup will, after all, affect the way graders work. If an event includes new players, the grader cannot just send his results off as in the past. He must first send a list of the new players and wait to be given code numbers for them. This is a part of the BCF's response to the multiple-entry problem with new players.
A little problem?
The hybrid system introduces a little problem that has just been brought to our attention. The old system chops the end off your name if it's longer than 18 characters (many are). Presumably the new system will remember the full name if it ever knew it, but the old one does the printing. We don't know whether they're going to modify the names or the system.



DIRECTOR'S NEWS
26.11.00
From Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com, Acting Director of Grading. This has gone also to the Grading Forum [see paragraph 3, preamble], and to the BCF Site. It is addressed both to graders and to the general chess-playing public. It has been edited, in its SCCU Site version, to avoid repeating things already reported on the SCCU's BCF page and in the next item down.

(1) Who's doing what on BCF Grading?
Roger Edwards will continue to serve the BCF in the post of Grading Manager. He will be responsible for day-to-day technical issues, and supervision of the Grading sub-contract with Richard Furness. In addition, Howard Grist will be working on solving the residual problems of the Chris Howell software. I will deal with coordination of the various people working on grading, and am the point of contact for questions and complaints on Grading.
     In case any of you are wondering what my background is in Grading, I will tell you - none. What I do have experience in is the management of software development projects. If any of you out there feel that they are better qualified than me to take on this role, and are willing to do it, then please contact me. In default of anyone better, I believe that by coordinating the efforts of experienced Graders such as Howard, Roger, David Thomas and Richard Haddrell I can make a success of this season's Grading list.

(2) Immediate Grading Issues
The following addresses some points of immediate concern on Grading:
     (a) Work will continue on the processing of omitted grading results from the 99/00 season. It is expected that this work will be completed by January. The Grading List itself will not be re-printed when this exercise is complete. However, updated data will be provided to graders and consideration will given to the best method of publishing amendments.
     (b) An updated Junior list will not be produced in January. However, if the Grading process works well this season, it should be possible to produce six-monthly Junior lists starting in 2002.
     (c) Finally, I am aware that some graders are champing at the bit wanting to know where to send grading results to. If you will bear with me, I expect to issue guidelines within a week on the format for submission of grading data and the person to whom to send the data.

(3) MB Meeting 18th November.
The following is a summary of what was agreed on Grading at the BCF Management Board Meeting (MB) on 18th November. This shows the current thinking of David and myself on the things that we should be doing on Grading. Please feel free to come back with constructive suggestions, or better still offer your services to help tackle one of the issues that we've identified.
     I will publish progress against this report, both on the BCF Website and via the Grading Forum run by Richard Haddrell. I would advise anyone involved in Grading to join Richard's Grading Forum [contact rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk], as this will be one of the main methods by which I will communicate Grading information.
(3.1) Grading System to be Used this Season
It will be a hybrid [see next item down, paragraph 4].
(3.2) Action Plan for this season
The following measures are planned to ensure that the 2000/2001 Grading List is a success:
     (1) Ensure closer involvement of Union Graders with BCF Officers working on Grading centrally, e.g. Roger Edwards and Richard Furness.
     (2) Compile a list of lessons learnt/most common mistakes made in submitting grading results, and provide as a checklist to graders. In addition, provide some basic instructions on how to do things.
     (3) Encourage graders to submit results at an earlier date1, rather than at the last minute. Specifically: ask congresses to submit results one month after completion, while for leagues get the league to submit interim results mid-season so that the player lists and event format can be validated.
     1 It is considered that a contributory factor to the grading difficulties has been insufficient time available for the central processing due to Graders submitting results at the last moment and a big flood of results at the end of the season. This and the following measure are planned with the objective of increasing the time available for the central processing and checking of grading results.
     (4) For this season only, we shall increase the time available for central processing of grading data after the closing date for results. Thus the cut-off date for the grading season comes forward one month to end April and the cut-off date for submission of grading results to the BCF comes forward one month to end of May.
     (5) Endeavour to introduce a process for "new" players such that they are checked to see if they really are new. A similar checking process should be instigated for abnormal grading jumps. Finally, the feasibility should be investigated of improving the central software to provide:
     (a) better error-reporting for processing problems
     (b) improved speed to generate processing reports.
(3.3) Longer-Term Issues
The following longer-term issues have been identified for where we go next, e.g. after the next two years:
     (1) An initial audit of the Chris Howell software has been conducted. It was concluded that the grading system is not a finished product. The immediate essentials are some documentation and an improved user interface. However, the fundamental design is sound and the implementation appears to be basically accurate. Finally, the programming is sufficiently good that the errors are correctable. Work will be done to confirm the feasibility of solving these problems so that the Chris Howell software is easily usable in future.
     (2) Investigate the issues associated with moving to an ELO based grading system (Generating an ELO style grade and/or using the ELO computation method).



THE NEW SETUP
rjh 21.11.00
I am not privy to the detailed discussion or decisions of the new grading team, or of the Management Board 18.11.00. This is just what I've picked up along the way. It will be incomplete, and if it contains errors I hope someone will say.
     (1) The Grading Committee. I don't know whether that's its correct title. Chris Majer is not a grader. He has taken on the Director's job as an administrator, and will seek expert backup from a whole team of people. His deputy, David Thomas, is a grader with expertise in computer programming. I don't know who else is on the team so far, apart from Roger Edwards. Chris will be interested to hear from anyone who feels he may have something to offer.
     (2) The existing software. It's no secret that the user-interface, at the BCF end, is exceedingly unfriendly. David Thomas has done a preliminary analysis of the system and, while he has identified one or two problems, he has found the coding to be essentially sound and certainly good enough to permit modification where necessary. Like Howard Grist before him, he has concluded that the system really does appear to work.
     (3) Known problems. Rather selectively:
(a) the user-interface
(b) the lack of documentation for the graders' software. Probably less than half the graders use this software, and that's not counting the ones that don't have computers. Quite a lot use their own software.
(c) the lack of a graders' syntax checker. (Actually there is one, but it doesn't work.) This is, or would be, a program which checks a grader's result files before he sends them off, to verify that they are in a form the BCF computer can process. Many files, this year, have reached the BCF only to be rejected for incorrect format. Maybe (or maybe not?) they have been produced by programs other than the BCF's.
(d) late submission of results
(e) a general all-round lack of communication. There could be many reasons for this, including other calls on people's time.
     (4) The hybrid system. The need for a hybrid was first suggested by Roger Edwards. He became so frustrated by the system's interface and other things that he resolved to go back in part, if still operating this year, to his old pre-Chris-Howell system.
     The change is happening, and I'm afraid my opinion of it will emerge if you read on. It affects only the BCF end of things. It will make no difference to local graders.
     So what is the change, exactly? It's about bundles, and it will affect people's grades. The Chris Howell (CIH) system, in principle, works with raw game results. The old Roger Edwards (RJE) system accepted only bundles ("Player X, Number of Games Y, Number of points Z"). The bundles had, of course, been calculated by the local grader. In the hybrid system, CIH will accept raw game results from graders in the usual way and convert them into bundles, one per event. Then at the end of the season RJE will add the bundles up and divide, to produce the final grades.
     The hybrid will not always produce the same grades as CIH. This is because of the new players. A new player has no previous grade, so you have to calculate one for him before you start on the grading proper. CIH, until now, has done this in one go, using all his results. Naturally. Under the hybrid, it will have to do it in small chunks. Once for each bundle it makes, using only that bundle's games. A new player appearing in several bundles will get several different "previous-season grades", varying according to his tournament performance. Some of his opponents will be luckier than others. This was a built-in drawback of the old bundle-based RJE system, and CIH cured it. We're throwing the cure away.
     An incidental advantage of the change, and in my opinion the only advantage, is that RJE rings alarm bells if you give it silly results (like Dave Ledger playing 77 games for 1500 points). This will be what Chris Majer means, in the BCF page, by "additional checking of submitted grading results". CIH lacks this check, and in principle it doesn't need it because you don't give it results in that bundled form. In practice CIH has always accepted a limited amount of bundled input, from computer-free graders who could only work that way. Chris Howell didn't like it, but it was a compromise he was forced to accept.
     (5) Dates. Grading has been on hold since the Council meeting. With any luck it will get going again soon. The local graders await instructions. Perhaps because of this, and certainly to avoid last-minute panics with an untried system, the end of the grading season is brought forward by one month, for this season only, from the end of May to the end of April. Deadline for submitting results is end of May.



NEW PRINTED LIST IS OUT
5.10.00
We got ours in this morning's post. So far, we've heard one complaint that it's the same colour as the original and you can't tell the difference from the outside, so who's to say which one is right when there's a dispute later in the season? There is actually a note in the new one saying it supersedes the August list. Unfortunately, the August list is not labelled "August". Neither version is dated, beyond the "2000-2001" on the cover. This is sloppy, and we daresay both versions would have been rejected if they'd been result files.
     The new version has a list of events in. We are dismayed to see that it still includes Thanet League and Clubs. We thought that had been edited out long ago. The BCF, who know the truth as well as the Thanet grader does, will not mollify him by leaving this mistake in. Another SCCU omission, which we think we've not mentioned before, is the North Circular Chess League. This was not the BCF's fault. We know of no others, though there were some that got in by the skin of their teeth because the BCF extended the deadline beyond reason. We still believe the list to be substantially accurate.



NEW LIST: GRADERS' VERSION IS OUT
15.9.00
Barring hold-ups at the printer's, we guess the new printed list will be out next week on schedule. The processing is done, and an electronic master list went out to graders yesterday evening. The new list, as already reported, will be definitive for BCF competitions (as for SCCU ones). A few comments:
     Yes, the 1999 games are in. The printed list will be much bigger than the August one. It should contain something over 12,300 names, compared with 10,400 then (but close to 13,000 last year). A large number of duplicate entries have been merged.
     This Website has a sort of feeling the revised list is going to be reasonably accurate. Clearly there will be events missing because never sent. This always happens. Of those that were, to the best of our knowledge nearly everything has gone in, admittedly after some alarms and near misses. We hear that one East Anglian grader was super-efficient. He sent every result three times over, all in one file. Actually this may have been partly the BCF's fault. The triplication is in the new list, but not the original August one.
     The only omission we know of in the Southern Counties is the Thanet League and Congress. Don't blame the Thanet grader. He sent his results in good time, and the fault is the BCF's.



SOME THOUGHTS ON THE GRADING SYSTEM
from Howard Grist, in a personal capacity (see below)
6.9.00
The system is very much a curate's egg, but I will start with the most obvious points. Firstly the user-interface, at the BCF end. It's not good. Secondly the user-interface, at the BCF end. It's terrible. Thirdly the user-interface, at the BCF end. It's the worst I have ever come across on any computer program on any computer ever before.
     However, this is not an insurmountable problem, with a good bit of documentation. Moreover, I am pleased to report that I was unable to find any problem with the documentation. There wasn't any.
     OK you say, does it work if you do know what you're doing? The answer to this, surprisingly enough, is that it does. In fact I would even go so far as to say that, with a file submitted in proper format as per the BCF published specification, with full names, initials, dates of birth and club for all the players, it works wonderfully, brilliantly, like a dream. I am almost tempted to gloss over the fact that there were probably fewer files submitted that met these criteria than I currently have healthy elbows.
__________

Howard writes not as SCCU Grading Secretary, nor yet in a BCF capacity, but with a private hat on as the person who's had most to do with the central processing of data this last month or two. The above is an extract from a much longer report he's sent to 30 or 40 graders on the Grading Forum. His current number of healthy elbows is one, as a result of his cycling accident reported earlier.
     Read between the lines. Howard's report is broadly in favour of maintaining the current system, given certain essential improvements.



LIST TO BE REPRINTED
29.8.00, updated 31.8.00
It's official. The BCF are to print a revised and definitive version of the List, with more people (and the 1999 games) in. A large number of events previously omitted will be included. Expected publication date 18th September. The Director has confirmed that people who bought the old list will get a replacement free of charge. Automatically if they purchased through the Office, and on request if they purchased elsewhere.
     What's uncertain now is whether the CD will go on sale.



PROGRESS REPORT
26.8.00
Seventy-odd people, mostly graders, received the CD material by email this morning. It was thought, at the time, to be final. However, the Director still has some events he wishes to include. The only ones we know of from the SCCU are the North Circular League and some of Surrey. Yorkshire are in tbe pipeline, having presumably failed to process first time round. Northumberland are saying this is the third year running their grading hasn't gone in. We're not sure how much longer the final version is expected to take, and we still don't know which list is going to be definitive.
     The printed list (grades A - E) should clearly have been bigger. Given the CD data we've got now, it would be something over 11800 names compared with the actual 10400. Dave Ledger has rather more than doubled his grade, but our sampling hasn't gone much further than that.



LIST HAS SERIOUS OMISSIONS
19.8.00, updated 21.8.00
Your Webmaster unexpectedly got a copy in the post yesterday morning. As a Grader, presumably. Thanks, BCF, and he's not complaining, but he'd have been happy with it by email. Must have cost a packet if they've posted it to all of the 100-odd graders.
     Can't say we like the bilious cover, but otherwise the presentation is hard to fault. Standard and Rapid grades are not, after all, in separate lists. They're all very readably on one line.
     Unfortunately, the good news stops there. The List is considerably smaller than previous ones. About 10400 names, compared with something like 13 or 14 thousand last time. The shortfall cannot be entirely due to the excision of duplicate names. It is presumably something to do with the various omissions.
     We hear, from a Yorkshire correspondent, that no one's in from Yorkshire. This seemed to surprise him, as well as us. It isn't a Yorkshire declaration of independence; the YCA grader says he sent his results. The content of the List has also been severely criticised, on grounds of completeness and accuracy, by another commentator who was so offensive about it, though not to the SCCU, that we've forgotten his name on purpose. He was substantially right. There were always going to be omissions, especially in a List produced under such time pressure, but one has come to light which is very serious.
     Events omitted:
     (a) The List does not contain a list of events graded. However, some events were omitted because not received, and others because received very late in July. The late ones will no doubt be on the CD.
     (b) Some - the Director has found at least 35 - were omitted because the grader forgot to give the time controls. This prevents a file from processing.
     (c) It appears that events played in 1999, which means June to December, were accidentally omitted from the calculations. This is why the incidence of A grades is so implausibly low. It's something to do with the twice-yearly cycle which (in theory) applied last year. A few events may have escaped this mishap, and we guess that winter leagues are OK if the grader simply dated them 1.1.00 as graders will.
     Or maybe it isn't quite as bad as that. It's possible - investigations continue - that 1999 games went in as "previous-season" ones. This would mess up the grade categories, but not the grades themselves to quite the same extent.
     The information is not lost, at any rate. The CD, expected in a few days, will correct this error and others. (If you're wondering, Dave Ledger's grade of 107 is due to the grader who put "77 games, 1500 points" when he meant 7 games.)

We do not know which list will be official, nor what the BCF will do about lists already sold if they're irredeemable.



IT'S OUT
11.8.00
The List went on sale at the British this morning. Thank you John Philpott for this information. We understand that it may not be in quite the polished form the Director would have wished, but we congratulate him on making the British against considerable odds. It remains unclear to what extent the full CD version, not yet published, will be different. We still have neither price nor publication date for it.
     We've never said, and neither has the BCF as far as we know, but there are official plans for a Junior half-year list in February. Don't know how it would be published. Things are in flux, and we can't be sure it will happen.



LIST IS WITH PRINTER
3.8.00
The grading list is with the printer, so you really can expect it in the second week of the British. It includes input received on the 29th July from a county which shall be nameless. The deadline was 30th June.
     As we've said, the list will be printed using the "old" (1997) system. The CD will appear in a few weeks, using the new one. It will almost certainly incorporate corrections there has not been time for in the printed list. Merging of duplicated players, for instance. The really obvious duplications will have been picked up already, but errors will remain.
     Howard is out of hospital, nursing a sore elbow but otherwise intact. He will be off work for a while.



LIST DELAYED AGAIN?
29.7.00, with an update 30.7.00
They might make the British, but an accident that occurred last night makes it look unlikely. Howard Grist, the SCCU Grading Secretary, was knocked off his bicycle on his way home from work and will be in hospital for a few days. He has an important and specialised role in the processing that leads up to publication of the list. They were already working to a tight schedule to accommodate late results, with a view to going on sale in the second week of the British. Our guess is that Howard's accident will make that next to impossible. It is our guess, and not official BCF information.
     Update 30.7.00
Maybe we were too pessimistic. Howard's role in the "new" printing system is essential. However, the Director sees a way round. He can just revert to the old system. It means separate lists for Standard and Rapid play, but at least they'd both be in the same book. The new system would hopefully be up and running for the CD.
     The printer is on standby.



BCF GRADING LIST 2000
23.7.00
News has been a little bit hard to come by. As you will know, the Director announced a few days ago that the list would be on sale at the British. He's since told us he's a bit behind, with a potential problem that could slow things down further. He did not suggest that there was any danger of missing the British.
     FIDE ratings may not be included, in spite of what it says on the order form. The format is not finalised, and may be simpler than last year's.
     The £12 price (£9 Direct Members) does not include a CD. A CD will be on sale separately, "later".



MANAGEMENT BOARD REPORT
from the Director of Grading and Game Fee
For BCF Management Board 17.6.00
(reproduced with permission)

My apologies for not being able to attend the meeting, but I feel my time would be better spent in processing the grading system.

I had hoped to produce a corrected list in January, but this did not appear until the beginning of April. There were 2 main causes for this. Firstly I underestimated by a large percentage the amount of administrative work that I would have to do. The other thing that contributed to the delay was the provision of Direct Members prints. I hadn't realised what a time consuming job this was and it took me a month working most evenings to distribute them. This is something that will need to be borne in mind if printouts are promised as part of the new Direct Membership scheme. The amount of time needed to be spent by the member of staff doing them is about 3 hours per 100 members.

The corrected results were processed for the revised list, but 2 leagues still did not provide any data for inclusion in the list, being Thames Valley and Hillingdon. They were both chased several times, but to no avail. I await with interest as to whether or not they will arrive this year.

I am expecting to receive about 1000 files for processing this year. So far, I have received about 200 and processed about 50. The deluge is about to arrive. Before files are processed a check is made that game fee has been paid for the event.1

I am uncertain at present as to what format the grading list will take. I have only received 2 favourable comments on last year's format as compared to about 30 unfavourable ones. Even some congress organisers were not too impressed. The main complaint is people thinking the format too cluttered. On the other hand I have also had requests to make it more cluttered by also including e-chess ratings and correspondence chess ratings. I have turned these requests down, at least for this year.

I have also not decided on whether a CD-ROM should be produced this year. There is a feeling that having produced it last year, it reduced sales of the list because people just copied the CD and passed it on. Also, with sales being so low, I am not sure that production of the CD is financially viable. The number of grading lists distributed was 720, just over 600 being sold. This compares with about 1000 sales about 3 years ago.

A manual system for collection of Game Fee has been re-introduced and is being run efficiently by Cynthia and Dawn at the BCF office with some assistance from Con Power. At the time of writing, the amount of income from game fee for last season is c.£42500. Some has come in for this season, but the main surge is not expected for a few months yet. The information is passed on to me and until I have confirmation that payment has been received then I will not process the data files.1

On a personal level, I do not agree with this policy. I believe the object of the grading system should be to reflect as accurately as possible a player's strength, not to be used as a political pawn or carrot. There are a number of events, most notably the Spectrum circuit and club championship games, that will not be included this year through not paying game fee.2

There are discussions going on at present at FIDE level about the possibility of lowering the bottom of the FIDE list to 1500, BCF 112. The International Director may be able to supply more information on this. If this does come about, then we should be looking very carefully at a) whether a BCF list is still required, and b) whether the BCF will need (or be forced) to convert to 4 digit grades.

Roger Edwards
Director of Grading and Game Fee


Notes by rjh
1 Roger tells me 5.7.00 that if he receives results that have not been paid for he gets the Office to send a reminder. He does not simply bin the results. At this late stage he is prepared to be flexible if, say, your Treasurer's away on holiday.

2 It was reported at the BCF's April Council meeting that Spectrum had not paid for a while. Club internal games have been exempt from Game Fee until this year, and even at one-third rate some clubs will drop out. There will be others that have sent results, but without payment because they're expecting to be billed. I know of one or two. These should not be a problem, if the Office are sending reminders and Roger's being flexible.
     Last year, waiting for a bill was the correct thing to do. It didn't work very well, and this year you're supposed to fill a form in in advance and send (estimated) payment with it. I don't think that's been too well publicised. Established paying events received the form long ago, but I don't suppose many clubs have had it. Where club internal events are entered by the County, the County as an "established event" will have had the form and has no doubt paid.


__________

Earlier material on grading may be found in the BCF News page 1999-2000. That's a link to the 1999-2000 Archive. If you go there, your quickest way back will be the "back" button.


Back to top      Back to BCF News      Back to SCCU home page