Back to SCCU home page
Updated 7.9.03
OPEN FORUM
Open Forum is your vehicle for comment and discussion, and it is open. Anything goes, within the bounds of courtesy and common sense and the libel laws, provided it's got something to do with chess in the SCCU. Or England. Or anywhere, really. It will be assumed, unless you say otherwise, that contributions may also be published in the printed SCCU Bulletin.
To contribute, email Richard Haddrell rjh@sccu.ndo.co.uk. Please give your postal address. We like to know where you are. [Nearly everyone ignores that. Oh, well.]
Text is best. Avoid tabs and indents.
__________________
From Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell
7.9.03
(1) Negative Grades
If publishing negative grades would be confusing, then simply don't publish any grade less than 1. By all means retain negative grades in the BCF Master list, though their usefulness must be somewhat questionable. I would have thought it was better to treat any negative grade as "ungraded" for the purpose of calculating OTHER players' grades. Is a player with a grade of "-70" really an almost certain pushover for a player graded "-20"? At that level, the games are pretty random.
(2) FIDE-BCF conversion
Both the FIDE and BCF systems measure relative performance, not absolute. As both systems are measuring the SAME relative performance, it is necessary that the results of both systems have the SAME statistical properties. The FIDE system assumes each player's strength fluctuates from game to game with a standard deviation of 200 FIDE points. In the BCF system, the standard deviation is 25 BCF points. As this is the same statistical property, the scaling factor must be that 1 BCF point = 8 FIDE points.
Thus, the correct form of the conversion must be BCF = (FIDE - constant)/8. Up to now, the value of the constant has been 600 (hence 200 BCF = 2200 FIDE). However, the value of the constant could be changed without affecting the statistical properties of either system (which depend only on rating differences).
Jeremy Fraser-Mitchell MitchellFJ@bre.co.uk
St Albans
From Jack Rudd
4.9.03
If you want to make it easier to convert grades to FIDE ratings, and distinguish between all the players currently graded 1, perhaps 75 would be a good number to add to all grades. (That would mean the conversion formula would be FIDE = BCF x 8.)
Jack Rudd JackKelshallRudd@aol.com
The Red House, 25-26 Bridgeland Street, Bideford, Devon EX39 2PZ
rjh: Unfortunately, the unpublished grades would still go well below zero. Even the published ones would come close.
From Neill Cooper
27.8.03
Richard
We have quite a few juniors with rapidplay grades, most of which are greater than 1. In due course, however, I can imagine a young junior player with a real rapidplay grade of -70, working hard at his chess and improving so the next year he is -40 and the next year improving to -10. I think that having the same grade of 1 for all 3 years could be very demoralising.
Hence my suggestion is that long play grades are unaltered - very few junior have negative long play grades, but all rapidplay grades are increased by a fixed amount - I would suggest 1000. Yes, this could mean slight confusion with ELO, but it would clearly distinguish rapidplay and long play grades.
Yours
Neill Cooper sccunsc@cplusc.co.uk
Castles Junior Chess Club http://www.cchess.org.uk/
From Kevin Thurlow
25.8.03
Dear Richard
The first thing to remember about grades (or ratings) is that they give primarily an idea of past performance, rather than a measure of strength. It makes sense to grade as many games as possible. I have to say I do not like the idea of negative grades, but I like even less the publication of grades which have been deliberately falsified. Imagine a player apparently graded 1 - he decides improvement is necessary so he keeps a record of his results. He records a fine victory over another "1", and eagerly puts "51" in his points scored column. Of course what he doesn't realise is that he is really -30 and his opponent -70, so he has actually scored -20..... But publishing negative grades would be confusing, so why not add 100 or 200 to everyone's grade? The numbers themselves do not matter; we know a 180 is supposed to be better than a 160 -it does not matter if the 180 is called Scott Freeman or Kevin Thurlow or Garry Kasparov, as long as the system, makes a reasonable effort to quantify recent performances. After all, 20 years ago, 120s were people who put pieces en prise in the opening -now they produce 15 moves of theory! Stewart Reuben is right to say the last digit in the FIDE rating is meaningless, but so is the third digit in the BCF system. I am not sure about late notification of results elsewhere. Most countries do not seem to have the evening leagues which we have. I believe in Germany, Holland and Norway at least that all leagues are played at weekends, like the 4NCL. These are played at sensible time limits and are spared the inconvenience of adjournment, and the lottery of adjudication. Can anyone think of one good reason why games which have been adjudicated should be graded, or even games which have adjourned, so the winner is the one with a better computer and more talented friends?
While we are on grades, can we please return to the old calculation for FIDE-BCF conversion. The new conversion notices that some players graded 180 are 2200, but takes no account of players graded 180 who did not get a FIDE rating. So the conversion is skewed. You would not expect perfect agreement anyway, as FIDE ratings are usually based on fewer games, and some players do better against strong opponents (some do worse of course). This should improve as FIDE limits drop yet further, in which case, why not forget BCF grades and use the FIDE system.
Or better still, forget about grades and ratings, and just play chess.
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
From Mike Gunn
14.8.03
Richard,
I think you are right in your response to Stewart Reuben - there is no reason why the BCF system could not be used to provide grades on a more frequent basis than annually (if that is thought desirable). I noticed when I received the BCF printout of my results that dates appear against each game. In general it seems that these dates are approximately the dates that the games were played. This information is clearly being stored on the BCF system along with the player names and game results and this means that one could apply the standard BCF method of calculating a player's grade (based on the last 30 games or results over the last year) at any time during the year. Thus (if results officers sent in results promptly and the software is tweaked in the appropriate way) we could, in principle, have BCF grades updated and published monthly (or even daily!) on the BCF website.
The real advantage that BCF grades have over Elo ratings is that the mathematics of the system is simple and players can check their own grades. The mathematical theory of the Elo system is only fully described in Elo's book which is not widely available. When I queried a formula in Stewart's Chess Organisers' Handbook a couple of years ago, Stewart replied that he couldn't give me a definite answer as someone had stolen his copy of Elo's book. At about the same time I found an apparently authoritative article on the web about ratings but on studying it I discovered that the table of numerical values used to compute ratings given was significantly different to Stewart's (and Elo's) table. The author of the article was unable to explain how this difference had come about. As there is a broad equivalence between the BCF and the Elo system in how they work I would think we would be wise to stick with the (simpler) BCF system.
As to the issue of negative grades, the simplest solution is to add a certain number of points to everyone's grade on a date to be determined (presumably coinciding with the publication of the grading book). This would not change the underlying way the system operates at all (unlike Scott's suggestion). As Lester Millin says, some players could find this confusing, but we would just have to talk about "old grades" and "new grades" for a couple of years (a bit like what happened to pennies under decimalisation). Personally I would favour the BCF adding 100 points to everyone's grade to mark its centenary. I expect there would still be a small number of negative grades, but at least we would still have something to discuss on this forum.
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz7.fsnet.co.uk
rjh: - Game dates are stored if the grader provides them. Sometimes league matches come with dates attached, sometimes not. Club internal games rarely do. So "last 30 games" is strictly not doable. Where there are not 30+ games in the latest season, the practice has been to make up the 30 by taking the required number of games at the previous season's average. However, an approximation to "last 30" may be introduced in the near future.
The system did produce a half-year list in 1999. It's not technically difficult.
From Stewart Reuben
13.8.03
Negative grades [see below] have to be a bad idea. It must be easy to overlook that -5 is not 5. Life would all be much simpler if the BCF were to fall into line with the rest of the world and use 4 figure numbers, usually called Elo Ratings.
Then a grade of 0 is roughly equivalent to 600 Elo and -75 is 0 Elo. If the conversion is wrong, then even so a grade of 0 is about 300 Elo. I realise even then there could be players with negative ratings.
That is not to say the BCF was not right to choose 3 figure numbers. They were correct. The 4th figure has no statistical validity. Also, at the time, printing costs were cheaper with 3 figures rather than 4.
The whole matter of the methodology of calculation is a completely separate issue. I personally favour the system FIDE use. That is because I strongly believe that if we had more regular grading lists per year, then more chess would be played. The players agree with me and there is a great deal of evidence around the world.
You note I did not call it the Elo System. So many changes have been made to his system (some by me) that he would resent the term being used.
Stewart Reuben Stewartreuben@aol.com
rjh: If the Webmaster may stick his oar in:- I don't understand why an "Elo" system is more suited to frequent publication than the BCF one is. One objection to frequent publication, with English chess, is that so much of it is played in leagues which do not get reported until the end of the season. Is this the case in other countries? If so, what is their practice?
From Lester Millin
8.8.03
At the recent June 21 SCCU AGM, discussion took place regarding "Vice Presidents". I was in favour of the view that there should be 2 categories. Honorary Vice Presidents are elected for services to the SCCU, Vice Presidents could apply to become a VP at a cost of £ ?? made payable to the SCCU.
My views on grading have always been the same. Tournaments for Juniors under 11 should only be graded as RP grades irrespective of the time limits. This does not mean that young children are unable to get long play
grades. It just means that they have to play in under 12 tournaments or above, or in adult graded tournaments. Many of the ideas given in the Bulletin [and on the Website!] - on grading (adding 200), are too confusing.
Best wishes,
Lester Millin lmillin@patrol.i-way.co.uk
From Tim Spanton
1.8.03
Scott's grading ideas [below] are interesting but once you start messing around with a system by making exceptions for this and that reason you end up with anomalies that distort the system even more. The FIDE system is a prime example of this with extra points at one stage being awarded for being female (unless your name was Polgar), and players allowed to choose whether their games in the Olympiad should be rated. Anyway, what's wrong with negative grades? Life isn't all about being told how wonderful you are, and a negative grade would certainly give an incentive to do better.
Tim tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
rjh: One point that's been suggested to me is that young children don't understand the concept of negative numbers. (It's also been suggested that they don't understand "½" until they've done Fractions, but I can't believe they don't know what half a cake is.)
From Scott Freeman
30.7.03
Hi Richard
I have just read your article [see Grading page 28.7.03] on negative grades, etc. I am obviously aware that CCF has probably played a big part in that as we are believers in getting everyone onto the system early in the hope that they will start to show an interest in their annual grade and keep them playing chess. I also don't like the idea of loads of different junior grading systems across the country. The disadvantage to us is that players who could represent us in the Under 14, Under 90 event end up with grades too high to use when in reality, they are of the right standard to play.
The idea of adding 200 points to everyone's grade makes good sense to me. It will throw everyone out for a year or two but because it is a nice round figure, it will work. The thought of being graded 300 really appeals to me! It will also affect the conversion formula from ELO and send out the mathematicians again! What I would then like to suggest is that where a tournament is specified as a junior event, that the computer adds 30 points on or takes 30 points off for winning and losing (instead of 50 as for adults), and that the 40-point rule become a 25-point rule. Obviously, exceptions could be made for major junior events such as the BCF Schools' final and the British Championships, where the event is of sufficient category that it should receive adult status in terms of the way it is graded.
My idea is that grades can heavily fluctuate for juniors, either giving them much too high a grade if they never play adult events or else ending up with too low a grade too quickly. Not sure what to do with the idea from now on, but it has to be worth considering.
I would be interested in people's views.
Kind regards
Scott chess@ccfworld.com
From Kevin Clark
13.7.03
Dear Richard
Re: Neutral Venues for BCF Stage Knock-out Matches
Perhaps a consolation of my county team being knocked out at the quarter-final round, for the first time in 7 years, is that I’ve had to go through the process of finding a neutral venue only once this year. Do other captains recognise this sequence: your team is drawn against a county from afar, & having looked up in a road atlas for the mid-point between our counties, you remember a venue in the area you’ve used before. Only this time it’s already booked for a spring fair or a wedding reception. You then rummage through the BCF yearbook for phone numbers of county officials in the target area, & are passed from one phone number to another and so on until the bloke you really want to talk to about local venues is away on holiday. You discuss with the other captain, who knows a friend of a friend who can book a place, & you end up playing in a dingy hall. All this has to be done in maybe as little as 3 weeks, in addition to the matter of actually raising a team and getting them there.
A lot of this hassle could be avoided if a register of suggested venues for chess events were compiled in an accessible place (perhaps on the BCF website?) including the phone number of the booking secretary & any other useful information offered by the host county. Obviously, this would need initial input from CCAs, & occasional upkeep, but perhaps after the appointment of a new national controller, can we look forward to a new era of co-operation, rather than conflict? Or am I hoping for too much?
Kevin Clark kevin.clark2@ntlworld.com
Herts
From David Roberts
9.7.03
Cyril Johnson's attack on Bernard Cafferty [8.7.03 below] is both shameful and complacent. It is not the people who complain of the shortcomings of BCF arrangements who are responsible for driving away "those who are, or were, prepared to do anything for the BCF", but the inadequacy of those arrangements in the first place. We are all sincerely grateful for those who give up their time to organize these competitions, but the good will and earnest efforts of the organizers does not always compensate for the shortcomings. Bernard is simply voicing the disquiet felt by many others who are more reticent about complaining. Instead of disparaging him, he should be listened to.
Perhaps we are stuck with inconvenient venues, uncomfortable playing conditions, inadequate provision of toilet facilities, rudimentary catering arrangements. Perhaps chess-players are too stingy to fund their sport in such a way as to remedy these failings. If that's so, then we shall simply have to grin and bear it. But let's not kid ourselves that everything is perfect. Don't shoot the messenger.
David Roberts david@paragraph.freeserve.co.uk
From Kevin Thurlow
8.7.03
Dear Richard
Mr Johnson accuses Bernard Cafferty of not checking his facts... [But] Mr Cafferty's letter quite clearly states what the venue was like 3 years ago... [and] raises a legitimate concern... Does Mr Johnson really think the sneering tone of his last sentence is at all helpful?
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
Redhill (Champions of Surrey)
From Cyril Johnson
8.7.03
Richard
May I reply to the statements made in the OPEN FORUM. It is a pity that Mr Cafferty makes statements without checking the accuracy of his statements. Ratcliffe was visited in 1998. Since then, the school being aware of the comments which were made, have built a new changing room block adjacent to the Sports Hall. With reference to the gentlemen who walked from
Oakham. My phone number was known to all the captains and I would have arranged for him to be collected by transport which I had standing by for such a purpose. If anyone has a problem, they should contact the controller who usually has a remedy waiting. I am hopeful of getting substantial sponsorship for this event if we can continue to use venues such as Ratcliffe and Uppingham. I would like to thank all those who helped make Uppingham such a success, which the vast majority seem to have enjoyed. The moans of a minority whose activity is minuscule is probably the noise that drives away so many who are or were, prepared to do anything for the BCF.
Cyril Johnson cyriljohnson@yahoo.co.uk
From Tim Spanton
6.7.03
Re this item about BCF Management Board Meeting [see BCF page 28.6.03].
"2004 Counties Championship Finals. the venue will be Ratcliffe College, in Leicestershire, marginally more accessible by public transport than this year's venue being 'only' 1½ miles from the nearest railway station."
Only 1½ miles is good. It took me more than 1½ hours to walk the six-plus miles from Uppingham School to Oakham rail station last night.
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
London
From Bernard Cafferty
6.7.03
I was appalled that Ratcliffe College was chosen again for 2004. When I played there three years ago, I found that the assembly hall was bigger than Uppingham's, so not so crowded, but I only found three male toilet cubicles in the vicinity,and no urinals - perhaps they were in other buildings, but we were not directed to them.
Bernard bernard@cafferty1941.fsnet.co.uk
From Trevor Jones
1.7.03
Richard
It just occurs to me that this might be of interest to you and/or readers of the SCCU Bulletin or the SCCU web site...
By agreement at Guildford Chess Club, I am currently running our Club Championship open Swiss (to produce 3 top players to join 1 other in our 4-player knock-out to determine the final Club Champion) on an experimental grading performance system.
Grading performance using the normal 40-point rule is computed after each round, bringing in games scored at the person's own grade to make up to 3 games when less than 3 games so far. This is then used both for pairings and for determining the final placings. Since everybody's performance is typically different from everybody else, everybody is a floater, so I don't actually worry about floats, but the idea is to minimise performance differences in the pairings subject to no repeat pairing of players and a limited consideration of colours although not generally worrying about colour-sequence, but just the totality of colours. Byes will be scored as wins against a low player (i.e. +10 points) and defaults as losses to a high player (i.e. -10 points), although these are minimised by last-minute emergency less satisfactory re-pairings where reasonably possible.
So far we have had 5 out of 7 rounds and most (but not all) people's comment in the pub afterwards is that it is working out quite well and is better than my previous system using percentage scores and trying within reason to minimise grade-differences (within approx %score levels). [I used to pair round 1 with 1st quarter v 2nd quarter, etc]. The feeling is that the system is probably NOT ok to produce a single winner but will be ok to produce the top 3 for the final play-off. You only have to play in 5 rounds including the last round or else each of rounds 1 to 6 in order to be eligible for the play-off. There are currently 24 participants, but a few extras can be added as we go (even if too late to play enough rounds).
H.Trevor Jones htjones@raildev.fsnet.co.uk
67 Guildford Park Avenue, Guildford, GU2 7NH
From Chris Howell
29.6.03
Dear Richard,
A Howell Hat-trick?
In case you haven't been notified [I hadn't: rjh], Hastings & St. Leonards beat Lewes 3½-2½ in the McArthur Cup Final to win the official Sussex team event. (The Mid-Sussex league is semi-independent of Sussex CCA).
This means that I played in the winning club teams in Surrey - Redhill won
the Surrey League Div 1 trophy, where I was the top scorer for them; in Kent - Maidstone won the County Cup, where I certainly wasn't; and now in Sussex, all in the same season. Is this unique/interesting/publishable??
Best wishes,
Chris C.Howell@tesco.net
rjh: I don't know whether it's unique. Can anyone beat it?
From Jeff Goldberg
18.5.03
Let me put Jonathan Melsom's mind at rest. Neither the players from Juve or AC Milan are required to pay their own fare money.
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Jonathan Melsom
16.5.03
Given recent concerns about SCCU counties having to travel to the Midlands to play the county final, I note that UEFA require 2 Italian sides to travel to Manchester.
Jonathan Melsom
Bucks
From Tim Spanton
15.05.03
Dear Richard
A minimum grade for calculating averages [see below] is a great idea. Let's also have a maximum grade. Better still, why not give everyone the same average grade? This would make calculations even easier and would make for perfectly matched teams, at least according to grades. It could also solve the financial crisis in that there would no longer need be grading divsions for team events so one set of prize money (or rather trophies) would do for all.
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
London
[rjh: The controllers' idea, as I expect Tim knows really, is perfectly reasonable.]
From Kevin Thurlow
12.5.03
Dear Richard
I enjoyed the clear report on the recent BCF Council Meeting. These meetings are not usually a hotbed of clarity, so writing a clear report is an achievement..... I see that the previous increase in 'Game Fee' again did not bring any more money in. The latest increase will presumably have the same effect. I recall Harry Lamb annoyed the crowd on top table by publishing figures which showed this trend a couple of years ago. The reasons for selecting 36p (divisible by 2 and 3) seem rather bogus, if they were Council's reasons - it is surely rare to grade half a game, and once you grade 50 or 100 or whatever, you only need to round to the nearest penny anyway. 59 games in a club championship comes to 59 x 2 x GF/3 pence. A game fee of 34.57p would not cause any additional problems.
On a different matter, in item 7, the controller was reported to be 'annoyed' when a team fielded a player graded 6 in an event based on average grade. Why? It is entirely within the rules, and if the rulemakers do not like it, well, they could always try writing rules which are unambiguous. Of course that is also a product of creating bizarre rules, based on grading, when grades mean less than usual as fewer games are graded, because people do not want to pay more money..... Or did the controller mean that lower graded players should not be allowed to play?
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kevin.Thurlow@lgc.co.uk
Redhill
rjh: I don't think that's what the controller meant, though it wasn't stated. The controllers are considering an effective minimum grade for next year, but people graded lower than that would still be allowed to play. They'd just take the minimum grade when calculating the average. I think.
From Bernard Cafferty
18.3.03
Richard,
Can I claim a record over the length of time it took me to get to the venue for Sussex's last match of the season last Saturday at Bourne End? I have in mind a journey made on a clear spring day, not in mid-winter with ice, snow and blocked motorways etc.
There were no trains out of Hastings that day, due to weekend engineering work, so I had a choice of a bus to Eastbourne or to Robertsbridge to start on the journey. I duly left home early, at 8.35am, got my ticket and departed Hastings on the 9.08am bus to Robertsbridge. I got to Charing X at about 11.35am and took the bus to Paddington. There was an unfortunate and unanticipated delay of 25 minutes at Marble Arch, which turned out to be a marshalling point for another anti-war demonstration/march in Hyde Park. The traffic must have been backed up all the way along Oxford Street and beyond.
As a result, I did not leave Paddington till 12.38pm, and the scheduled hourly train from Maidenhead to Bourne End was 15 minutes late departing due to engineering problems on the main line! I arrived at Bourne End at 14.05pm, so making it a five hour journey from Hastings Railway station. Above and beyond the call of duty? No wonder captains are finding it hard to raise teams.
Bernard bernard@cafferty1941.fsnet.co.uk (note new address)
From Gareth Ward
12.2.03
Richard
I was interested in Nick Butland's comments [19.12.02 below], which mirror some of my (less severe) problems running the Berkshire u125 team in the Chiltern League. The Berkshire League contained 13 clubs last season. 3 of these support neighbouring counties , 5 only ran 1 team, and 2 of the clubs dropped out this season. Hence Berkshire can only select players from 6 "large" "clubs" (Crowthorne, Camberley, Reading, Maidenhead, Met Office, & Berks Junior CA) and 5 small ones. This is more clubs than Bucks have, but nevertheless I've fielded only 13 players in both 16-board away matches. We also have big grading mis-matches; Hants average about 116, Oxon 108, Berks 100, and Bucks 90.
I have dropped hints to Nigel Dennis (who runs it) that the Chiltern League has slight over-capacity. There are several Berks players under 125 who easily make the 20-board u170 side, but have to ration their Saturday chess, so will not play for my team. The Chiltern u170 tends not to have many defaults, but the sides are all-ability, down to 60 grade in some teams.
I do not agree with Gary K that you should set the capacity of your chess events without reference to the demand. There's not a one-way street to less chess. One hopes Judith Polgar's recent success in Holland will lead to more female players. The grading list statistics point to a 25% decline in Chess for the last 3 years, but how much of that was caused by the technical difficulties with the grading software? (See your webmaster's wonderful article "graders are in revolt" of 1.4.02.)
I do think we are failing to reach all the good players who might play chess. I only looked at the SCCU site today (first time in months) because the Berkshire webmaster had referred to me someone looking to play County Chess. Possibly for Berkshire but main qualification seemed to be his father played cricket for Berkshire! I emailed him advice but (before having seen Nick Butland's article) copied it to Roger de Coverly for moral support. I suggested he might find a home in the upper reaches of the 4NCL, and would be board 1 in many counties.
Gareth Ward gareth.ward@metoffice.com
Berkshire Chess Association
rjh: My wonderful article is now hidden in the Grading page of last year's Archive. Former Directors of Grading should read the article in conjunction with the date that went with it.
From Gary Kenworthy
28.12.02
Solutions in general [see the previous four letters]
One solution: don’t dilute the main event, create special events. Cups matches, alternative competitions, training events and special beginning and end of year events, plus social activities.
To make chess attractive, over other competitions and increasing leisure activities, it must be tackled at all levels of administration, especially at national level. The attractiveness of your event over the proliferation of weekend chess events, as cited by David Smith, is another challenge.
The main problems with chess are that it is amateur, amateur, amateur with poor communication and poor finance. Naturally there is a lot of burnout and resignations. Administrators need to create believing and commitment; do their jobs well, listen and be pro-active. Press the flesh, encourage new memberships. Whether at club or county level you have a 20%, and in city areas 30%, attrition rate each year on your team. Without action there will be stagnation. Just pure administration equals decline. A bad administrator can destroy an event. The SCCU has been lucky and well organised, and that is a reason why its teams do well. The aberrations outside the SCCU are caused by counties who have a plucky organiser who causes success before he/she burns out with the lack of infrastructure supporting them from behind.
I have heard many an argument and solution. I noticed that if you go to 6 boards, then to 5 boards, then it’s a carload of 4 and then the team and then the club disappears. Go from 20 to 16, and rapidly to 12 and then disappearance, as per the NCCU counties and parts of the WCCU. Temporary solutions make it easier for temporary expediency, but ultimately that organisation will fail.
I remember when Surrey had problems. On one occasion a Surrey chap was explaining about all their defaults and saying, “But on paper we are the strongest County”. Surrey has pulled through, though some wanted them out. How many times have Middlesex defaulted because they “do not have players”? It’s the set-up, the infrastructure to make things succeed; you need proper foundations.
Teams did not like playing Sussex once, because they were easy meat and easy to thrash. Sussex junior teams were refused entry to SCCU competitions because they were so weak, despite the efforts of Peter Barton and the ARC Young Masters at Westergate. The administrators thought about this and came up with the neat solution of “Minor Counties” (Rural counties)- bravo to the admin people.
As a county match captain of Sussex I was initially very depressed and always had to make scores of phone calls for the last few boards. (The truth is whatever the number of boards, the last boards are always the hardest, and so reducing the boards is a false solution. This is true of any level, strength and size.) Also, we kept getting thrashed, quickly going 13-1 down once.
Times have changed. Paul Watson now has one of the loyallest squads in history. I did not moan, I obtained comment and information. I analysed. I sought solutions and sought new players and auxiliary events. I found that Sussex university had a soon-to-be IM there for three years and he had never been asked. I found three more such titled players dwelling in the County.
The solutions are multi-pronged. The best solution I found in Yorkshire was having a junior policy. But several policies are the best bet. These in turn only work if there is co-operating infrastructure. Having good juniors and having good players in the County is pointless unless there is integration. Using the entire county is important. This is a county competition we are debating.
As a Bucks resident, a Bucks captain once asked me to play, and she was achieving impressive results at the time. Before that, when I first arrived in Bucks I had a curt conversation with a Bucks official who seemed very proud that they wanted nothing to do with junior chess in their county. (South Bucks is very active.) I offered to help; he replied that they neither had anything to do with the north of the County. You live with the internal infrastructure of your territory; if that’s at fault fix it. This is a common problem at many levels and many places. Solve the internal problems and then you get results. It’s also great to have the memories of such success; at the time there were plenty of times when I thought why should I bother.
Stick at it Nick! Artificial rule changes are not the way.
Gary Kenworthy gkenworthy@4thenet.co.uk
Bletchley, Bucks
From Roger de Coverly
28.12.02
In reply to David Smith 27.12.02 SCCU Forum ("I cannot see how the introduction of 'guest' players would have any result other than to distort the true strength of the competing Counties"):
Increasing ("distorting") the strength of competing counties is actually the point of the "Guest" players suggestion. The introduction of perhaps two wild cards per match ( players not otherwise qualified) would increase the pool of players for counties which didn't otherwise have the numbers or strength of players to compete on level terms in the Open section. In
particular this would enable players only qualified for Berks or Middlesex the opportunity to play Open county chess which is presently denied. It cannot be good for the continued health of the competition for 175+ players to meet 130 players (or defaults) on a regular basis.
In the 4NCL 8-board matches one wild card is allowed per match who subsequently becomes part of the squad and is not eligible to play for other teams in that season.
Roger de Coverly rdc@rdc200.fsnet.co.uk
From David Smith
27.12.02
Now that Christmas has passed, may I hope that Santa has granted Nick Butland’s plea [19.12.02] and delivered him some bright and shiny new players for his Bucks team. I do think however that he exaggerates the effect of last year’s rule change re eligibility, as the situation it was designed to cover is actually quite rare in practice. [rjh: The Rules are on the Site if you want to refresh your memory. It's Rule 11(iii).] As a former Match Captain, I do have a great deal of sympathy for Nick and other captains struggling to raise teams but, as Nick rightly says, there is a wide variety of alternative routes to qualification and, if the Counties Championship is to remain a meaningful event, I cannot see how the introduction of “guest” players would have any result other than to distort the true strength of the competing Counties. In my opinion, a far greater problem is the proliferation of weekend events in recent years, particularly the rise in one-day “Rapid-play” events. The problem of defaults in general is not confined to the Open section and a glance at any chess calendar will show the wide choice of events available every weekend to all standards of players.
For the benefit of all may I explain further the reason for my request to Nick (and also to the Cambs Captain v Essex) that their Counties fulfil their fixtures despite having to field a greatly depleted team. In the qualifying events for the BCF Counties Championships proper, each Union which has seven or more teams completing their fixtures WITHOUT DEFAULTING A MATCH (my capitals) has the right to nominate three entries to the National Stages. The SCCU has eight competing teams but Oxfordshire have already defaulted a match which means that a further default by any other County would cost us a qualifying place in this season’s BCF Open event.
Sadly, like Nick, I do not have a ready solution at hand to resolve these problems, but if the Counties Championships (including the Grading limited sections) is to remain a viable and meaningful event it is up to all players to give priority to the matches over and above other competing events in which they might otherwise wish to play.
David Smith davidandjanesmith@cwcom.net
SCCU County Match Controller
South Woodford
From Jeff Goldberg
23.12.02
In answer to Tim Butland's problem, why don't Bucks and Berks merge? They can be called "Berks with Bucks".
OK, it was just an idea.
Jeff Goldberg towerbridge@ntlworld.com
From Nick Butland
19.12.02
Dear Santa,
Please can I have some more chess players to play for our county team...?
Thank you,
Nick Butland (Bucks)
* * * * *
Some of you may have read the item in Chess magazine, by David LeMoir, reporting on the resurgence in Norfolk fortunes which led to their winning the Minor Counties' championship this year. There are quite a number of us plodding away in the lesser counties, trying to achieve similar things. I am beginning to think, however, that recent changes to eligibility rules ostensibly intended to curb Cambridgeshire may hurt counties such as Bucks far more seriously & very soon.
Consider our county set-up. Our league contains 17 sides, derived from just 6 clubs. Of those 6, 2 are affiliated, but actually outside our boundaries. Players from Berkhamsted choose to represent Hertfordshire (logically enough), though with Berkshire not competing in the Open championship, Slough are useful contributors. A third club, High Wycombe, has an impressive bank of juniors but their strongest player is graded about 150.
So far this season, the league has had 6 active players graded above 170. This means it's not an entirely level playing field when taking on e.g. Kent, whose board 16 against us weighed in at 176. Bucks have actually beaten Kent (& reached the BCF semi-final) in recent years, but a few retirements & players moving away have changed the picture, given the very small pool.
We have benefited from other eligibility criteria; at least quarter of our side qualifying via earlier residence or birth. The difficulty with these rules is that the grading list provides no help in assessing who else I might be able to ask. I could go along to the next 4NCL weekend & mechanically work my way through my list of favourite GMs to see who we might sign, but I would probably soon be shown the door! So apart from nagging away at anyone graded 150 & higher in the county who would prefer to see their family at the weekend, there is a distinct limit to the recruitment potential.
I recently turned out a side where we struggled (as usual) to field 16 players. I had to turn down an offer to play from a 180-grade player who represented us only 2 years ago, as he no longer satisfied the criteria for eligibility. He was effectively replaced by a 120-strength player, who, to his credit, achieved a noteworthy draw on the day. Again, we scraped a bare 12 players to travel to Cambridge, at the express request of the SCCU Controller, but lost the first 10 games to finish. Two of our players who spent 9 hours of their day to travel to be trounced by players graded 50 points higher than themselves are to be applauded for the triumph of dedication over common sense!
The steady decline in the number of players means that we may be able to continue for a few more seasons, but full teams for away matches remain an aspiration rather than a likelihood. One of our players has suggested a scheme for a limited number of "guest" players to be allowed & this would help. We don't particularly relish a free-for-all, but it is galling to turn people away & yet not be able to raise a full side, particularly when those players reside in counties which do not field a team in the Open Championship.
I don't have any devastatingly simple solution to these issues, but I would encourage the BCF to look at the problem - it would not seem to benefit the chess world if another county were to wither away. We are an endangered species; it remains to be seen whether enough people want to see us saved. In the interim, I would be delighted to hear from anyone who thinks they might be eligible for Bucks & is not playing county chess elsewhere.
As a native Devonian, I will conclude with the (possibly mythical) story reflecting the county's poverty on the rugby field. It was reported that a player, who had been a regular with another county but fallen from favour, had been selected for Devon on the strength of having left his boots behind after a club match in the county. Food for thought?!
Nick Butland nick.butland@acco-uk.co.uk
Bucks match captain
From Tim Spanton
10.11.02
A central venue would not be so bad if (a) it were near a train station, (b) it had sufficient playing space, (c) it had adequate toilets. This year's venue failed on all three scores. But then who's perfect?
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
From Gary Kenworthy
9.11.02
Richard,
[See Bernard Cafferty below]
Mainly some historical notes on central venues for county finals:-
In the Jonathan Rogers article in the November issue of CHESS the packing could have been eased by removing one row out of the main hall. [rjh: I have not read the article but I guess that "packing" means playing conditions were cramped. They were.] Cyril Johnson is a listening man and is associated with making improvements. He got the job because of many initiatives, including the way he so well overhauled the County rules. I assumed people think he placed every chair himself……. wonder why there is a lack of volunteers for so many posts…. Cyril and his wife did a lot of the cooking, cleaning and tidying-up themselves. [An aside I remember as the Barbican captain of the lack of volunteers in setting up tables and chairs etc, an exception was a one Mickey Adams who arrived early and set the tables up… not bad for a Super GM!!).
Finding your own venues in the past was not always easy, especially since County chess was more active around the country, hence as a captain I often had to play, say Devon or Cornwall one round and Durham or Northumberland the next. Now it is not so active. Neither is there fares equalisation anymore. The county rules were a mess and changed piecemeal every year. Further, some county captains were unfit for office, [politeness for a public column (rjh: Gary's, not mine)] especially when intermediate neutral venues were needed. I see their spectre again... It was not easy those glory (gory?) days.
As a captain I refused to play at central venues, despite BCF controller and Director threats, unless there were certain conditions (see below). In fact two years running I played my finals in Guildford and not Birmingham.
I agreed with central venues when there is (a) a sponsor, (b) results on the day, (c) a dignitary, (d) reporters and press and (e) a prize fund. When we did not have results on the day, adjudications, accelerated finishes and quick-play finishes in their infancy and without arbiters then there was little point of a finals day. The infrastructure of the late 80s and early 90s meant that central venues worked. [It was a pre-requisite for the 4NCL- then 4*NCL to be precise]. The conditions are such that late chosen, flexible regional venues, selected by qualifying teams profiles, should be the order of the day because of the current SCCU domination and inbalance.
When I was Sussex captain it often took me 4 or 4½ hours to get to the home venue, it is because of the 150 mile Sussex coastline, the radial routes out of London, the lack of east west transport, except on the coast, hence my sympathy to Sussex players. Few would once go as far as London or just beyond. It is more rural and more distant with frequent rail engineering works. Thus the swing at Sussex preference for rail is misjudged. Overnight is a serious option; especially national club (some teams used to fly) and I encouraged players to do it during sponsored days.
Note: Leicester twice played Sussex at Highbury in 1981 and 1982.
I support the flexibility over the final venue, which Cyril himself backed and then ran into reasonable shouts from NCCU teams. Nota Bene. I doubt if Essex would have won at a London venue with so many titled Kent players then becoming available. [rjh: Actually I think their unavailability was not because of the Leicester venue but because they were in Peru or somewhere. But the point is taken.]
Gary Kenworthy gary.kenworthy@btopenworld.com
Bletchley
(a great chess venue, J13 &14 M1, MK West coast intercity, the new Norwich to Bristol cross country route opening within a few years, and free chess friendly Open University venue.)
From Bernard Cafferty
8.11.02
Richard,
Two recent events lead me to raise again the question of the July county finals venue. They are:
(1) An excellent report by Jonathan Rogers in the current, November, issue of the Euston Road magazine, dealing with the Essex-Kent final of July 2002. JR describes the continued unfair treatment of SCCU teams over
seeding and the repeated East Midlands location of the final match. I applaud the sentiments in this report.
(2) I have recently had a sight of the report of the Director of Home Chess, Cyril Johnson of Leicester, at the BCF Council meeting at Leeds on October 26th. In describing the finals of July 2002, the Director comments that he had had a representation from a Sussex player that it had cost him nearly £30 to travel to the venue, who blamed Mr Johnson for this. The response was: "Speaking as the Leicestershire Treasurer, if he had played for us, he would have been charged £2.50 for travel. I do not consider that I can be blamed for the decision of a county to allow its players to choose the dearest way of travelling to matches."
My comments on this outrageous statement:- Do counties have the power to insist on how players get to matches? At the 2001 final, also in Leicestershire, about eight of the Sussex first team travelled by rail and then taxi. The preference for rail also applies to our SCCU matches, as our players come, not from a single centre of population, like the City of Leicester, but from four, five or even six different centres, many miles away from each other. Some older players find the journey to Leics so fatiguing that they choose to increase their expense by travelling on the
Friday and staying overnight in a B & B.
Could I ask, if we are to compare Sussex and Leics, as Mr Johnson has done, when did that Midland county last travel to a match as far away as South of the Thames, or even just to Gtr. London? I recall that in the
BCF-stage in both 2002 and 2001, the £2.50 shared-car facility was not enough to enable them to field a team, even at a neutral venue - Leics were drawn away against Kent in 2002 and scratched. Ditto in 2001, when they were drawn away against Essex.
The failure by the BCF to heed the repeated requests of SCCU players for flexibility over the final venue is a clear case of officials ignoring grass-roots opinion. It is high time that a petition was launched by SCCU
players giving notice to the BCF that in the event of yet another final between SCCU counties in July 2003 (quite a likely prospect), the two counties will arrange the fixture at a mutually convenient venue.
Bernard Cafferty 101466.453@compuserve.com
Hastings
We apologise for the delay in publication of the next three items. Two of them have suffered the deletion of a whole paragraph, for reasons which we hope their authors will understand.
To Open Forum from BCF Grader Director
7.11.02
Richard did me the courtesy of copying Kevin's letter to me [below] so that I would have the opportunity of providing an immediate response.
I am sorry that Kevin thinks me unhelpful, but then I didn't think that the SCCU Open Forum was a help-line. If Kevin should care to be specific as to what assistance he would like then, if it falls within the remit of grading, I would be happy to assist.
I am seriously perplexed and concerned by his allegation that I failed to respond to four emails from the same person. While I would not claim to be perfect, I do respond to communications sent to me (last month I
sent out about 80 emails - I just checked) and while I might slip up occasionally I cannot imagine being so remiss as to not to respond four times. Consequently, I would ask Kevin to condescend to correspond with me directly and tell me who this ex Grader is so that I can find out
(1) what happened to his communications and was anything ever done about them;
(2) whether I owe that grader an apology; or
(3) whether Kevin owes me an apology.
Chris Majer chris.majer@mbda.co.uk
Grading Director
From Kevin Thurlow
3.11.02
Dear Richard
I wasn't going to comment on Chris Majer's thoroughly unhelpful letter of 25.9, but I note he repeatedly invites people to e-mail him direct. I hear from an ex-grader that he emailed Chris Majer FOUR times, and never once got a reply. So what's the point? My comments are not intended personally - I realise that failure to answer correspondence is BCF policy!
best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
From Ken Norman
3.11.02
Richard,
In view of all the problems with the BCF v ELO conversions. Perhaps the BCF should return to the previous grading system. I would be happy with a grade expressed as 5a.
Ken Norman ken.norman1@virgin.net
From Chris Majer
1.11.02
Michael
[see three letters down 28.10.02]
Unfortunately, people frequently take me seriously when I'm being flippant. No apology was necessary.
I recognise the benefit of mass communication, but relying on me to read a website probably isn't the best method. I will add the 4NCL to my list of emails to be sent.
regards
Chris CEMAJER@aol.com
rjh: Chris doesn't comment on my postscript to Michael's letter, so I take it my facts were right.
From Bernard Cafferty
29.10.02
Richard,
Thank you for the report of last Saturday's Council meeting. It is very informatve, but item 12, of great interest to SCCU teams, is rather short on background.
One would have liked some information on the course of the discussion, and also the voting figures (approximate, since I understand it was by a show of hands). Were any new arguments put forward to convince waverers?
Or, was it just a case of inertia? My understanding is that the interested parties (i.e. the SCCU and West of England) were in favour of the proposal to have flexibility. Would I be right in thinking that the opposing votes come only from the Midlands and the North, some of whose counties rarely qualify for the finals?
Best wishes,
Bernard Cafferty 101466.453@compuserve.com
Hastings
rjh: Oh, all right, I've added some detail to the report.
From Tim Spanton
29.10.02
Surely the important point about grading-to-rating conversions is how
accurate they are. My BCF of 152 converts to 1816 FIDE under the old system
and 2010 under the new. My actual FIDE is 2005.
Tim Spanton tim.spanton@the-sun.co.uk
From Michael Yeo
28.10.02
Dear Chris
Thank you for your response.
I (and I suspect many others) rely on the SCCU website to keep in touch with many chess matters including grading issues. Commenting via the SCCU website has the advantage that it communicates with thousands (well, hundreds anyway!) rather than just yourself. I find your continued expression of surprise surprising and apologise for any offence caused.
The 4NCL website that my e-mail to Richard referred to contained the following statement:
"Following the British Chess Federation's announcement in August that it was to introduce a new formula for conversions between FIDE ratings below 216 and BCF grades, the 4NCL Board decided to implement this policy in the National Chess League. It has since transpired that the new formula was only envisaged for grades above 200. Indeed its impact on lower grades would be alarming, especially for a team with a mixture of Welsh ratings and BCF grades. After further consideration, together with input from a number of captains, the 4NCL Board has decided to revert to the original conversion formula, namely (BCF x 8) + 600 = FIDE equivalent, for all players."
I believe the derivation of the new conversion formula to be flawed, in particular because of the floor of 2000 on FIDE ratings. There are numerous BCF players who do not possess a FIDE rating because it would have been below this floor. Had these lower ratings been published, the derived conversion formula would have been a lot closer to the previous one.
As Richard has commented, "an organisation may adopt whatever rules it likes for the internal administration of its tournaments. The BCF formula applies only to grading." I believe the 4NCL have made a sensible decision. However, I am still puzzled by the reference to grades above 200. Your response confirms the intention to apply the formula for grading down to BCF 150 = FIDE 2000. I do not think your suggestion of purchasing a grading list would help me!
Regards
Michael michael_yeo@new-forest.org
rjh again:
Look. BCF grades below 216, and FIDE ratings above (or, more correctly, not below) 2000. The reference to grades above 200 becomes much less puzzling once you notice that the BCF never said it. It appears to be just the 4NCL's (frankly rather strange) misreading of FIDE 2000. (The 2000 isn't part of the formula. Chris's table stops there because there aren't any FIDE ratings below that.)
The formula is:
For BCF > 215: BCF x 8 + 600 = FIDE
For BCF < 216: BCF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE
Really it's more appropriate to put it the other way round, as a conversion from FIDE to BCF, because that's its only official use. It's a BCF grading formula, for converting FIDE-rated players when the BCF grades their games. (Note that it applies specifically to FIDE ratings and not national Elo ones.) Naturally it doesn't apply to the FIDE rating process; FIDE has its own regulations for that.
I accept that all this has never been made very clear. Not until three days ago, when it was clarified at the BCF Council meeting (see BCF page).
I'm inclined to agree the 4NCL's decision was sensible (if not entirely for the reasons they give!). Michael's last-but-one paragraph is surely right. Indeed the FIDE cut-off at 2000 is the reason a new formula has been thought necessary. Where a national Elo system lacks this cut-off, there's presumably no reason to change. Not that reason, anyway. Whatever the merits of the new formula when used for its intended purpose, I agree it goes wrong if you use it for other purposes and go much below 2000. (I hear, incidentally, that the FIDE cut-off is already down to 1800 in the October list.)
Your turn, Chris. I hope I've got the facts right at least.
From Chris Majer
27.10.02
Dear Michael [see below]
I confess to surprise at the number of people that have recently sent
comments to the SCCU website regarding grading rather than contacting me
directly. It seems a strange way to communicate.
As Richard Haddrell correctly states, the Grading list contains a table showing the minimum conversion as BCF 150 = Elo 2000. Consequently, I am at a loss to know what you are talking about.
If you have questions about the new conversion perhaps you would like to contact me directly - or alternatively try buying a grading list.
regards
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com
Grading Director
From Michael Yeo
26.10.02
Richard
I don't know if you have seen the announcement on http://www.4ncl.co.uk/ regarding the wonderful new formula produced for converting between FIDE and BCF ratings (that you may gather I was deeply sceptical about!). Were you aware that it was only supposed to apply to BCF grades above 200? (and if not, why not?!) It begs the question as to why such a formula was thought to be necessary in the first place, given the very narrow range we now learn it was supposed to apply to.
Regards
Michael michael_yeo@new-forest.org
rjh:
(1) I hadn't, but I have now.
(2) I am aware, as 4NCL appears not to be, that it applies only to BCF grades below 216. The formula has been published in the BCF Grading List, and also on this site in the Grading page 24.7.02.
(3) An organisation may adopt whatever rules it likes for the internal administration of its tournaments. The BCF formula applies only to grading.
(4) The whole thing, with a 4NCL mention, came up at the Council meeting in Leeds 26.10.02, which this site hopes to report very soon. No one agreed about anything at all that you'd notice.
From Jeff Goldberg
7.10.02
Re Chris Majer's letter of 25 Sep, if the BCF don't immediately know who is eligible to play for England then why on earth bother producing a list which is almost certainly going to be wrong?
Wouldn't it be better just to produce an accurate list of the top X players in the whole list who played more than Y games? If there is any purpose of a list of top grades eligible to play for England then it can be produced later after proper consideration.
(Sorry Kevin, four times in a row!)
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Neill Cooper
30.9.02
Richard
A submission for Open Forum NOT on gradings ...
Open team events
After a gap of many years our old school chess team has got together again
(mainly thanks to www.friendsreunited.co.uk), even though most of us had
not played chess for years. We'd be interested in finding one-day chess
events where we could enter as a team, but there seem to be very few
opportunities. The national lightning team event obviously died many years
ago. We played in the "CCF Challenge Shield" at Coulsdon, which is the
sort of fun event we are looking for. Can anyone advise me of other such
events, preferably in the South East where most of us are based, which
teams can enter?
Yours
Neill Cooper 01883 624052 bcmnsc@cplusc.co.uk
Castles Junior Chess Club http://www.cchess.org.uk/
ps Many thanks to Chris Majer for answering my grading queries.
From Neville Belinfante
30.9.02
Dear Richard
I have seen the correspondence on the SCCU website concerning the
Grading of the British Championships [see Chris Majer two letters down: "Regarding Gary's comments"]. The cross-tables showing the grading performances and champion RB Ramesh at 150 were indeed produced
by Tournament Director and 150 was the default grade assigned by the
program to ungraded players in the absence of other information.
This default grade had no effect on the running of the tournament,
because it was run as a FIDE rated event, and so the BCF grades had no
relevance. I can assure everyone that before the file is submitted for
grading, more realistic estimates will be given to all the ungraded
players.
Yours
Neville Belinfante Neville@belinfante.demon.co.uk
Phone: 01494 711208 - Fax: 0870 052 1369
http://www.juniorchess.info/index.htm British Junior Chess News
From John Hodgson
27.9.02
A few comments on grading, none of which are intended as a criticism of the hard work and dedication of the BCF grading team themselves:
(a) 90% of players wish to see the BCF Grading List made freely available on the BCF website. A small point perhaps, but please can the "players" be described as "customers" since this may clarify for whose benefit the grading list is produced.
(b) The Grading List statistical digest refers to a loss of revenue should grades be made freely available. It would be useful to quantify the proposed increase in game fee (or other method of funding). Without an estimated cost nearly everyone (at least those with internet access) will vote for an improved service.
(c) The FIDE rating website is constantly being improved and now provides much more than the current international rating list. It shows detailed results for each individual, the games played in each rated event, and the rating change after each event. It even shows a projected rating before the full list is published; this allows mistakes (in theory at least) to be corrected prior to publication of the list. If financially affordable this could be included in the BCF's vision for an improved grading system.
(d) I have no strong preference for the FIDE scale and methodology as against the BCF though I suspect in the long run the FIDE methodology will prevail. The most important requirement is that the grading be accurate, its detailed calculation visible, and mistakes readily corrected.
John Hodgson JHHodgson@aol.com
94 Kings Avenue, Woodford Green, Essex IG8 OJG
From Chris Majer
25.9.02
Dear Richard
Having not read the SCCU website for some time (shocking admission), I
read it last week but have only just time to compose this email. I see
that there has been a "let's bash the BCF" session and also some debate.
Someone can always try sending me an email directly, who knows I might
even know the answer!
Dealing first with the top 100 players. The explanation lies in the
way the list is generated. The last job of the Grading Database
Manager just before the list goes to the printer is to produce the "Top
......" lists. The Grading database software itself has no knowledge of
who is, or is not, eligible to play for England. Consequently, with
his flag hovering the Database Manager produces a list and then
steadily removes obvious Russians and other foreigners (including
Scots, etc) with BCF Grades. In some cases it may not be obvious as to
the eligibility of players and so they are left in. Do doubt we can do
better - a job for the next database manager. On the other hand,
anyone who thinks they can do better would be welcomed at Battle on the
appropriate day and they would even get a sneak preview of their Grade
(not for publication of course).
Dealing next with the points raised by Kevin Thurlow:
(1) Firstly, I think that it is misleading the public to imply that a
single Grade constitutes a list and therefore a retraction is in order. [rjh: I think this is my footnote. It was a joke.]
(2) I may be able to explain the difference in Kevin's Grade by
revealing (I hope Kevin will not mind) that only 62 of his games
reached the BCF in time for the printed list. This discrepancy could be
attributed to one of 4 reasons:
a) one game was not submitted by a results officer;
b) the computer can't add;
c) Kevin can't add;
d) I can't read.
I leave the readers of the SCCU website to choose the most likely
explanation or alternatively await volunteers to assist with the search
for the missing game. Kevin could of course pay a fourth time to find
out what was actually received by the BCF.
(3) I am disappointed that the BCF managed to get Kevin's Grade correct
once, but am perplexed by his statement. When Grades are inaccurate
this is usually due to incorrect information, either because results
are not sent in or are mis-attributed. Kevin suggests that the BCF has
managed to get the wrong answer from the correct information - this
would be a significant achievement that I find hard to believe.
Computers are usually better than humans at simple arithmetic.
(4) Finally, I hope the SCCU website material is not copyright; because
I wish to quote Kevin as follows: "the BCF efforts look positively
brilliant."
Regarding Gary's comments:
[On the Ramesh figures], I think this is the first time that there has been a suggestion of an investigation before the Grading results are even submitted. As the Grading file that will come to the Grading team is an output from Tournament Director, I think it’s unlikely that it will go wrong, whatever information is on the website. [rjh: I did suggest that the Ramesh figures might not be official. The only thing is, if I remember rightly the figures published looked rather as though they'd come out of Tournament Director. Whatever program it was, it had been given some silly shadow grades to use and it had believed them. It shouldn't have. Perhaps it wasn't Tournament Director.]
Elo conversion: We had data for 211 players with both BCF grades and
Elo ratings that were up to date. The fact that FIDE have a cut-off on
ratings at 2000 distorts their ratings and is the fact that one doesn’t
end up with a linear conversion. As I understand it, Scottish and
Italian grades show a similar skewed effect. On a point of
information, I have actually played in an Elo tournament in Italy this
summer and on the basis of personal experience the new conversion has a
correct although adverse effect on my grade.
Policy on Grading of games: I didn't think there was any mystery on
this point. It's explained in the introduction of the Grading list.
The only point not explained is that some “foreign events” are Graded
automatically either because of agreements at the time of Game Fee, or
because there are so many Members playing in them (it's easier for
the central team to Grade the whole event rather than try to sort out
lots of players).
Ciao
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com
Grading Director
From Chris Majer
20.9.02
Dear Mr Cooper [see below]
I have just found your comments on the Open Forum Page of the SCCU Website and would like to respond:
The notice regarding the enforcement of the admittedly dormant charge for permission to copy the grading list was originally sent out with large organisations in mind. This was because if a large organisation copies the grading list there is a significant impact on sales. The charge is prorata for the size of the organisation, the charge for a county being typically £15. On that basis the charge for a club would be less than £1. Obviously, there is no point in attempting to collect such a small sum and had you contacted me through the BCF Office as per the instructions I would have been happy to give you permission to copy the list at no charge, because you had bought a copy of the list.
[rjh 23.9.02, after later correspondence: Neill had contacted the Office as per instructions, and they'd told him £15. Chris has apologised for the misinformation and confirmed that there will be no charge.]
We do not as a general rule provide electronic copies of the list, again because of the impact on sales (this was I think either a BCF Council decision or a BCF Council recommendation about three years ago). However, if you will give me your assurance that it will only be used for producing your club list, then I will send you an electronic copy.
Regarding your final comment, I can confirm that corrections, comments and other matters can be sent direct to the Grading team by email. I will clarify the instructions on the BCF website to make this clearer and will clarify the situation with the BCF Office as they seem to be under a misapprehension.
Regards
Chris Majer CEMAJER@aol.com
BCF Grading Director
[rjh: The SCCU will oppose the copyright charge at the BCF's October Council Meeting. See the SCCU page 6.9.02.]
From Neill Cooper
3.9.02
Richard
A note on grading for Open Forum:
As someone who runs a junior chess club I was pleased that this year over
20 of our members have grades. I'm not so pleased that I need to pay £15
to the BCF to publish a list of the players' grades, when I have already
paid for the paper copy. And I still cannot have an electronic copy of the
grading list (much easier to search), even though one exists.
I am willing to help the BCF - by supplying children's Dates of Birth and the present schools of our members. But when I tried to email them with more important information (that two players' grades were combined), I was requested to "put the query in writing and send it to the BCF office". Is it not possible for players to email the graders (via the BCF office) with helpful information?
Yours
Neill Cooper bcmnsc@cplusc.co.uk
Castles Junior Chess Club http://www.cchess.org.uk/
Whyteleafe Surrey
rjh: There has been opposition to the copyright charge, and the Director has told me he will put it to Council in October. (See the Grading page.) As for the email bit, I'm surprised. I should think half the graders in the country talk to the system by email.
From Gary Kenworthy
31.8.02
Eligibility.
Hmmm. More sensible points from Jeff (fresh from the British Open - see point 4) and more useful points from Kevin. About time someone lowered the debate!
(1a) On "Misc Direct Members' results". When George Smith was the International grader I used to send him in the European Club Cup results from abroad. Turns out there was a submissions form for this; he then used to send me spare forms.
(1b) There was some standing instruction at some stage, to the effect of “it is the duty of..” the player playing abroad to submit his results to the International grader for inclusion into the BCF list. It was clearly spelt out it was the player's responsibility and “the BCF shall not be responsible...”. This I know was regularly done, especially in pre-direct-member days. Now the results go via the “BCFgrader” as per Mr Keevil’s excellent website.
(1c) I have also submitted my results, played abroad, for this year, as a direct member.
(2a) On the top-20-women list, it is worth pointing out that anybody playing in events like the 4NCL is frequently seeing the listed names. So instead of countries you have Guildford, Barbican, Wood Green, Mindsports, Beeson Gregory, and Athenaeum etc. When I was a Barbican official I looked up Ingrid Lauterbach's ELO not under Germany, but England, the country she represented.
(2b) Further, if you are Scottish born and live in Oxford or London then you are not going to be listed. It is about eligibility to play for the BCF ("England"ish). On the opposite foot, Carey was born in Hampshire and previously represented England... I could continue through the list!!
Bruce did omit Christine Flear (nee Du Roy) who is French born and bred and a resident of France, despite living in Oadby (Leicestershire) for a while. As Howard Grist points out, she is listed!
(2c) My wife plays chess but she is Russian and not eligible for anything and treated like an alien refugee in all that we do.
(2d) Meanwhile James Cobb (Aylesbury and Bucks resident), and Howard Williams (Kew in Surrey for some 30 years, I believe) are more Welsh than some born and bred in England representing Ireland and Wales... Well it's nice to play in the Olympiad etc.
(2e) Anybody mentioning Brian Kelly (Limerick and Belfast), struggling to be recognised by the Irish selection committee to represent his home country?
(3a) Eligibility is often affected by the definitions within the rules. Cambridge (University players only) and Cambridgeshire (EACU) are very distinct and are/were defined as NON–INCLUSIVE, i.e. you cannot be a member of both, an SCCU definition in 1983 [Rubbish. - rjh] for the EACU formation. That was madness, which I bitterly opposed at the time because I could see problems of having what was in effect club eligibility in a county eligibility tournament. Bad precedent, bad rule.1
(3b) Another example. I remember the special dispensations within European Chess Federation for the likes of the European Club Cup where the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and West Germany had special exemptions on the rule limiting the number of teams per country. I wrote, and actually got the rules changed!!, pointing out that none of these countries actually exist!...
(4a) Jeff’s point about the British Open, on players not eligible for England but being their champion. I assume Ramesh will not be listed with a 212 grade in the top 100??
(4b) Did you know that the British was seriously being looked at to be played in Calais to avoid paying VAT - I kid you not!2 The Commonwealth bit, and a circuit of events, was reinforced by the FIDE definition of playing at least three players from foreign countries in order to qualify for a title norm. That is now all history because of the rule that national championships are exempt from the foreign players rule, so we could go back to getting norms without artificial work-arounds that are no longer applicable.
(4c) The converse was when Brian Russell Eley won the British in 1972 and demanded to play in the BCF team. A debate ensued! The BCF had great pleasure in ruling, and setting a precedent, that winning the title does not allow you to automatically represent your country.
Thus we need a ruling on what is BCF eligible, National Title eligible, yes, it does need sorting. The moral of all this: look out for Russells playing in the Marakesh Open [as mentioned in Kingpin] and then wanting to play for the England Ladies team [Jeff's worry] and be exempt from drug testing?3
Gary Kenworthy Gary.Kenworthy@btopenworld.com
Bletchley, the home of the digital computer
[rjh: Weren't the Babbage/Lovelace ones digital?]
1 We can't possibly say "Rubbish" to a correspondent without saying why. But this whole paragraph is rubbish. The Cambridgeshire team in the SCCU Open competition represents Cambridgeshire. It does now, it did in 1983, and presumably it always did. If they choose to have a University match captain and draw mostly on University players, that's their affair. The eligibility rules are the regular BCF ones, as applied to the county of Cambridgeshire. The SCCU definition saying Cambridgeshire and the University are distinct, and you can't be eligible for both, is a myth.
2 Gary tells us this idea has been quashed.
3 We don't understand this either.
From Kevin Thurlow
25.8.02
Dear Richard
I agree with Jeff Goldberg for his last two posts - I think this is three times in a row I have agreed with him, which is a bit worrying. I think Mike Gunn is right as well on the rating conversions. How many results were used to create the new formula? Also, 150 BCF = 2000 FIDE? Some 150s might have scored over 2000, but what about those who scored less than 2000, and were thus excluded from the FIDE list? You can get any result you want if you exclude results you don't like. Anyway, the method of calculation is entirely different, so I don't believe any simple formula will compare the two systems.
Best wishes
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
From Nick Butland
25.8.02
Richard,
2 points, as briefly as I can:
1. Chess is, for the vast majority of the players in this country, an
amateur "pursuit", or sport, as most of us like to think of it. The same is
true of football, but the game has far more money tied up in it. How many
paid or full-time officials does the BCF have? - compare with the FA,
Premiership, Nationwide League &c. Many of us will have made the
acquaintance of our local grader & know that he or she is a volunteer who
contributes many hours with the aim of doing the best possible job in the
circumstances.
If we want a professional set-up, then there needs to be a radical rethink as to what we pay for the privilege. But unlike the football spectator, Fred & Joe down the club don't want to pay £15 to watch someone else play chess - what they want is the chess equivalent of a kick-about themselves. We get what we pay for, which is not a lot & probably more than we deserve.
2. I, too, am puzzled by the "top 100 players qualified for England", which
includes recent national champion of Wales & European team championship
board one James Cobb. But if anyone knows what the rules on eligibility are, I'm sure we'll all be interested to hear.
Thanks,
Nick Butland nick.butland@ntlworld.com
Aylesbury
From Howard Grist
23.8.02
Richard,
Answers to your questions [two letters down], in reverse order:
The BCF's policy is that games are graded if the results are sent in and Game Fee is paid. Additionally, Direct Members both Full and Standard can have their games included if the event does not pay Game Fee. These rules apply to both the Peruvian Masters and our own SCCU county matches.
I am unable to vouch for the 'Events Graded' in the current list, but neither do I see any reason for the compiler of the list to lie about its contents. I am not aware of any untoward manipulation of this list in recent years, although I am aware of some mistakes. The most significant omission that I noted from this year's events graded was the "Misc Direct Members' results". This would imply that no results submitted by Direct Mambers were included, but I do not actually know whether this is the case or not.
Foreign events included in this list. These are the Bunratty Masters (Ireland), Guernsey, Jersey and the Monarch Assurance on the Isle of Man. Other events slightly off the BCF's patch included were the events at Dyfed, Newport (Gwent), Merthyr, Monmouth, West Wales, and the Welsh Championships (all in South Wales).
Howard howard.grist@btinternet.com
rjh: I had no wish to suggest untruthfulness, but I know oversights occur and I didn't know the policy. I'm sure the BCF have published it somewhere. I'll look for "Misc Foreign Games" next time.
From Jeff Goldberg
23.8.02
Did Howard [below] really use the word "logic" in respect of the Top 20 Women List? Logic is to the BCF what milk is to orange juice. Personally I think we should be grateful that at least the top 20 women are all women (as far as we know of course).
Here's some more BCF Logic. The British Champion is not British and he doesn't reside here either. He's Indian and, I'm sure, proud of it. OK, this is not completely new, but at least when Sultan Khan won the Championship 3 times it was before Indian independence, so in a sense India was British. Now it's just ridiculous.
I don't mind at all that Commonwealth players can play in the tournament, and are eligible for the prize-money (although several British professionals do) but surely they should not be eligible for the title of British Champion. Is it really tenable that our National Champion is not, in any sense, of our Nation but is deemed to qualify by virtue of our colonial past, now more than 50 years ago?
Wake up BCF, this is the 21st century. Sort this anomaly out.
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Howard Grist
22.8.02
Richard, Bruce,
In reply to Bruce's letter [below] on the exclusion of certain British women from the top 20 in the current grading list:
It should be noted that the BCF's list covers chess in England [rjh: - and Wales and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and it's not limited to English players]. The top 100 players list on the previous page states that 'These are the top 100 players qualified for England'. It is not unreasonable to infer that the 'qualified for England' restriction also applies to the other lists. The next question is what does 'qualified for England' mean? Well, one thing to take into consideration is their FIDE country of affiliation. The first 11 players that Bruce mentions can be excluded on this basis. Maria Yurenok is listed under England on the FIDE list, Galina Utyuzhnikova and Ingrid Lauterbach are not listed.
However, it has to be said that this logic does not help explain the presence of Christine Flear who is French, or indeed, the presence of, for example, Frenchman Arnaud Jossien and Welshman Howard Williams in the top 100 list. I would agree that there are some errors in the top 100 and top ladies lists, but they are rather more accurate than Bruce would have us believe.
Howard Grist howard.grist@btinternet.com
rjh: I'd have liked to see the criteria spelt out. On a parallel tack, I'd have appreciated an explanation of what foreign games have been included. Do Joe Bloggs's games in the Peruvian Masters go in (a) always?; (b) if sent in by Joe Bloggs?; (c) never? I don't think "Events Graded" includes anything from outside the UK. Can we take this at face value? What is the BCF's policy?
From Bruce Birchall
22.8.02
Richard
BCF GRADING LIST
The published top 20 women list omits 14 women above 150 who are resident in these isles, ie:
Scottish: Elaine Rutherford, Heather Lang, Helen Milligan and Carey Willman
Welsh: Debbie Evans-Quek, Abigail Cast, Annie Powell
Irish: Suzanne Connolly
Former Soviet Union: Ketevan Arakhamia-Grant, Meri Grigorian, Zhanna Lazhevskaya, Galina Utyuzhnikova, Maria Yurenok
German: Ingrid Lauterbach
Yet Jana Bellin (Czech originally) is in there. So the list's xenophobia, if that is what it is, is inconsistent. Does Jana get in because she is a naturalised UK citizen perhaps?
Maybe it wants to just list the top 20 who live in England. Then it should say so. [But some of these do live in England! - rjh] It would seem reasonable to omit Irina Krush and others who live abroad and only play occasional tournaments here, but to omit 14 who actually live here does not present a true picture of who the top women are. Ingrid has more than once played as a representative of the BCF and yet she is, to read the list, not one our top 20 women! Weird!
Bruce bhbirchall@hotmail.com
From Per Lea
21.8.02
Today Kevin Thurlow referred me to this very interesting discussion forum
(BTW: I am one of the 10 players he needs to score 13 points against in the
ICCF email Jubilee. But then I need to score about 3 points in my only
remaining game - against Kevin - to be promoted to the next stage. CC is
for the fighters....).
The discussion on World Cup venues has ended a long time ago, but Jeff Goldberg's tongue-in-cheek entry 21 Feb reminded me of an incident involving Bobby Fischer. In a tournament in Yugoslavia, he was scheduled to play one of the local heroes on the same night the two top football clubs were set to play an important league game. How to avoid the clash: reschedule the football game - which was promptly done! The YFA realised that with such an important chess game on the agenda, nobody would attend the football game anyway.
I can't give any more details about this incident, I do not even remember where I heard or read about it. Maybe there is something to be found in that treasure of chess anecdotes - The even more complete chess addict? Or maybe someone else can fill me in?
Best wishes,
Per Lea per.lea@matforsk.no
Måltrostveien 6B, N-1430 Ås NORWAY
From Jeff Goldberg
19.8.02
Re recent correspondence:
Could I suggest that Kevin's new ICCF grade might be better calculated by asking Carol to take one from the top row, two from the middle and the rest from the bottom?
Jeff Goldberg ilfordchessclub@hotmail.com
From Mike Gunn
16.8.02
Richard,
Doesn't the new ELO/BCF conversion formula [See Grading page: for players below 216, BCF x 5 + 1250 = FIDE] indicate that there is an inconsistency between the two systems? Fundamental to the two systems is the idea of 200 Elo points (or 25 BCF points) representing a difference of one class in terms of chess strength (a player exactly one class above another scores 75% in a series of games).
Now consider the case of a BCF player graded 150 who plays 30 games in a season and scores 75% against a field of players with an average grade of 150. In the BCF system his grade next year would be 175 (increase of 25). Under the ELO system the method of calculation is not as straightforward, but consulting the table in Stewart Reuben's book (for
example) one finds that a percentage score of 76% corresponds to a
rating difference of 202 points. Thus if sufficient games are played at
this level, one would expect the player's rating to go up about 200 ELO
points. On the other hand, the new conversion formula would suggest
an increase of only 125 points.
Perhaps I need to borrow Trevor Jones's copy of Elo's book (or just stop worrying about this sort of thing).
Mike Gunn mike@wxyz.demon.co.uk
From Gary Kenworthy
12.8.02
Huh. Kevin [below] has only to get 13/10 (!?) to maintain his grade. Take a thought for winning the British, look at the results of the winner from the BCF website.
RAMESH,R.B.... 150 d
w47+ b10= w26= b78+ w32+ b11- w9= b4+ w7+ w24+ b8+ 8½ 11 2330 212
Of course the fault is normal if you get a shadow grade of 150, and therefore you get a 212 result.
Had the same problem many times. Four years ago I scored 100% in four competitions. My best performance on my detailed printout was to gain one BCF point, the other competitions my grade went down(!). I strongly believe it was a case sometimes of ..huumm... he must be a strong player, call it 200.. which then took me down.
Made the mistake of getting 100% in too many events last year, so I knew there was a chance my grade would fall - but, it has already been agreed that it will be corrected.
Least it is improving, there is a lot of very hard volunteer work done; when done by hand twenty years ago 1000 BCF points disappeared off my total, taking me down from 217 to 194.
I prefer the everybody-has-membership (G Walsh) approach, with an apportioned amount for payment for grading and the grades are free on-line.
regards
Gary Kenworthy gkenworthy@4thenet.co.uk
Bletchley, MK
rjh: Can that Ramesh performance of 212 be official? No self-respecting computer program would allow you to have a shadow grade of 150 if you scored 76% against opponents graded 223 on average. (Graded more than 223, if you do justice to the other "150" among them.)
Perhaps they did it by hand. Perhaps they did Gary's tournaments by hand.
From Kevin Thurlow
11.8.02
About Grading
Dear Richard
The exciting new BCF grading list is out! The unpaid “results officers” have doubtless worked hard, and now they will have to field all the complaints when it’s probably not their fault. Last season I played 63 games at an average of 189, so the published figure of 1871 is about as close as you would expect. (Results from Surrey and Civil Service were correct.) There has been speculation as to why grading list sales are down, with “bootleg” lists getting the blame. I used to buy the list eagerly every year, but after BCF needed four attempts to get it 90% right the other year I gave up. My published grade has reflected the submitted results once in the last 20 years, so what’s the point? I pay “Game Fee” solely to get the games graded - there is no other reason. Some people might think the BCF has a cheek demanding payment again, to see the published list, and yet again for you to publish a local list, but “copyright” does apply, as with any other work of fiction. However, there might be a loophole. Book reviewers are allowed to publish extracts of the books they are reviewing, so if you produce a document stating that “the grading list is available, but just look at the figures they have produced for my club members…”, you might avoid the copyright argument. Alternatively, you could just report the BCF to Trading Standards, saying the list is not of “merchantable quality”. However, look on the bright side, the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) rating list makes the BCF efforts look positively brilliant.
I never realised that some British events were rated by ICCF, but in 1998 I was given a rating of 2300 based on 12 games. Without playing again, I dropped to 2299! I then scored 2/2 and was slightly puzzled to drop to 2275. Round about this time, I entered an ICCF email event, and made a reasonable start. I calculated I needed 8.5/10 to retain the rating. When the next list appeared, I had scored 5/6, (including a win over a 2350), and the new rating was 2228. Now I was really puzzled. Study of the regulations revealed that you needed to play 30 games for a “fixed” rating. But here was the really interesting thing. Until you play 30 games, you are treated as a new player. So every time you play more games, they start from scratch and calculate your expected score against the average of your opponents. So, when I won one more game, against an 1800, my new rating would be…. 2223! This seemed crazy. What made it worse was that ICCF treat unrated players as 1800, and the games count for rating. Now for an email event, it is reasonable to suppose players might have chess software, and it has to be said that even if you just believe Fritz, you will do better than 1800! Since then, I have drawn with an “1800” (with a US rating of 2200), so the rating will plummet. What makes it worse is that every time they recalculate the rating, they use the games I first played back in 1988. I emailed ICCF to express some concern, they ignored me, so I emailed again. This time I got a reply from Gerhard Binder (head of rating) saying that his English was not good enough to explain, so I should contact somebody else. So I sent a third email, just under a month ago, and guess what? No reply. So ICCF equals BCF in that respect. Meanwhile, I have recalculated my required score in the ICCF event. I need 13/10 to keep my rating, but that drawn game seems to have messed that up. One of the 1800s has 8/8 so far...
Kevin Thurlow Kjt2300@aol.com
Redhill
1 We risk the BCF's wrath by copying this.
Earlier material (lots of it) is in the Archive.
Back to top
Back to SCCU home page