Chess Scotland Noticeboard

wllmherk · Knight Joined: 28 Jun 2009 Posts: 10

would you kindly name names Geoff ?

Graeme Forbes · Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject:

Paul Denham · Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:43 pm Post subject:

I think this is a great topic Geoff has raised.

I would be in favour of a slightly different approach.

If a player's grade is sustained above a certain banding.

e.g. if 1000-1200 is a band and 1200-1400 the next. If a player stays above the 1200 mark for two seasons on the trot, then I would advocate that that player from then on would no longer be eligible to play in sub 1200 tournaments regardless of where their grade goes from there.

WHY? They have demonstrated a playing strength and understanding of the game over a period of time which exceeds the sub 1200 band so won't develop further.

To support this I would advocate the approach suggested several years ago by Dan Heisman that once a player has reached a certain grading band (supported by norms) that they never lose that band and can only gain a higher band.

e.g. in US system if you reach 1600-1800 and get 3 "norms" at that you are automatically a class B player and can never go back to being a Class C player. You can gain norms for the next band up (e.g. Band A) but you can never slip down the scale. It kind of takes away the grade as equalling current playing strength argument , replacing by banding which is more about level of understanding/peak of ones playing strength. Heisman argued the approach to avoid the situation he felt as ridiculous in US junior chess where juniors didn't want to play certain games as their grade could suffer.

Bands would probably have to be fairly wide (perhaps wider than the 200 used in US). Could be 300 e.g.
1000-1300
1300-1600
1600-1900
1900-2200 etc

In such a system grades (as we know them) would continue to be published as a marker of playing strength ... probably every 6 months.

Such a system may have some pitfalls but it would make some players of all ages less sensistive to where their grade is this Thurs vs the previous Thurs and for some I think that is no bad thing.

Such a system wouldn't overly punish those whose playing strength drops naturally with advancing years and (vested interest here!) it would avoid the fear of a heavy grading loss that came with impending fatherhood

Link to Dan's article on "Encouraging Tournament Participation" below;

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles176.pdf

Paul

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject:

Hi Willmherk

would you kindly name names Geoff ?

These guys are friends of mine.

Cheating???

Having the balls to keep on doing it is a better way of putting it.

No. I want to give them a Chandler Cheesy Grin.

I've started another ball rolling - let's see where it stops.

This forum has been laying dormat for months I'm back to kick up some dust.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

I think for banded tournaments to be possible, then there has to be a regular updated and published rating list. This would have to have the club organisers and the leagues onside for this.
The reality is all this costs money and I would have to be convinced that we have the funds available to make this idea possible.

Of course players playing strength improves constantly during the playing season, but the rules unfortuneately do allow for the idea that Geoff suggests. Even league rules do not allow for an improving player to move up their team.

The idea of Geoff could be possible if there was a regular grading list published but I do not think that it is possible at this moment in time

I would state that I am expressing a personal opinion here.

Steve Hilton
Home Director
Chess Scotland

Graeme Forbes · Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject:

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Was thinking about this and maybe some congress would like to try it. We ran some junior tournaments where the players were placed in the bands according to their current grade (not published) at a certain cut off date (normally the morning of the tournament). I realise it would need to be a few days before for a big congress for adults, but what about doing it that way?

Graeme Forbes · Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject:

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

May I just throw something into the mix?

Are guys who win tournaments on a regular basis at the same level creatively manipulating their grade or is there a simpler reason for their consistently good results? I suggest that there is and that is because they are better tournament players than their grade in leagues seems to merit. You may say...but surely he should have the same consistent grading performance at both league level and tourney level! In my opinion tournaments require the player to have a wider range of openings, a few nice opening traps up their sleeve which can gain quick wins and get longer breaks between games, they often also have better time management skills than their average opponent allowing them to use the clock as their ally and their opponents enemy but above all they can hold themselves together better when the pressure is on. Most people I am sure will agree that a generally good endgame technique is also a major asset especially in the later rounds when it is usually all or nothing. Some prospective winners have been known to celebrate their winnings at the local hostelry counting and spending their money only to realise that they get gubbed in the final game. This list of reasons may be endless and I welcome additional contributions, I am simply suggesting that tournament level requires a different type of game, approach and attitude to be consistently successful particularly at the u1650 grade bracket.

Robin.

Paul Denham · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:45 am Post subject:

Robin,

Good posting.

From my own perspective I think there is a noticeable difference between tournament play & club play;
- no of games per day (usually 2 vs 1)
- no of days consecutive play (usually or 3 vs 1
- Format of play - Swiss vs single game
- Attitude towards spending a weekend in a hall playing chess

and can see why some people are better than their published grade in tournaments & why conversely some "bomb" at tournaments.

Paul

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

The last couple of posters understand that it is horses for courses.

The reality in the challengers, with the odd exception, is that most people are not too far apart in playing strength. The difference between 2/5 and 4/5 is not necessarily about playing strength. In the past I have scored 2/5 even though I thought that I did not play too badly and 4/5 when I have not played so well. Little things like my opponent making a mistake, or better time management on my part. Even getting a good draw and missing the very best players.

Small factors like who had more to drink, mood, disturbed night sleep, feeling tired, under the weather, feeling alert and on the ball, having a couple of quick games conserving energy, having a couple of long games and feeling sapped, having your type (or not) of opening played against you. This list goes on and is endless.

Personally, I find matches more tiring, as I have had a busy day before hand. While at chess weekends my wife can take on some of these things and I have more to give.

I have won a very small number of U1900 tournaments, but have never had a grade surpass, or even come close to 1900.

The argument here should be not who has won tournaments, but who has been very much better. Should my grade drop 200 points, should I, or anyone else be allowed to enter a tournament at the new level? Personally, I do not think so, but that is an opinion among many.

Using current grades for tournament banding's sounds ok at first. However, if someone fancies playing in an U1600 at say Perth and needs to lose some points. This can be done by playing poorly at Dundee and if this is not enough, they could do the same at Glasgow until their year grade is low enough. Once they had got the right in year grade, they could stop playing tournaments until Perth. Grade manipulation is much easier if it can be done on shorter time-scales, as the benefit is closer at hand.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

AMcHarg · Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject:

Completely agree with John McBride. Exclamation

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

I know of no evidence that players in Scotland are manipulating their grades in order to win regular prizes at lower levels. Who are these players?

OK - next issue is that players once they have improved shouldn't be permitted in an event of a standard they have already won. Well the grading system at the end of a season will reflect the fact you have improved and you wont be permitted to play in some events which were available to your old grade. So if you really have improved you'll only get one season of easy events.

However adults are assumed to be stable - why should you not be permitted to play in events appropriate to your established level (even if occasionally you manage to win one).

As you get older you dont get better - sad but true. So if the banding people had their way you are stuck in higher graded events even if your current strength would permit you to play in lower sections where you had a chance to win.

Then there is the point made that if we had regularly updated lists then this would provide a more accurate allocation of players to tournaments. e.g. rather than one list in August we have another complete new list in January and then we make all calculations based on that January grade.

We already have updated grades every Wednesday. Some of the earlier comments dont seem to be aware of this. If tournament organisers want to use them then they can download the grading program and use latest grades for player allocation rather than published grades. Calculations will still be made using start season grades but in terms of player allocation to events this could be done right now.

The vast majority of adult players will be within 100 points of their published grade - the very few high risers are picked up by the current system and could be reallocated to a section more appropriate to their strength. e.g. last season just 7% of graded adults with at least 10 results had changed by 100 points (also includes the high fallers) by the end of the season.

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:31 pm Post subject:

Quote:

"I know of no evidence that players in Scotland are manipulating their grades in order to win regular prizes at lower levels. Who are these players?"

You should stick around after the tournament instead of going home.

I've recently been told the name of a few players I never realised were
also so lucky. (I only concentrated on the Majors).

The records are there, go back and look at the winners of these
tournaments. (not the Open's - the minors and the majors).

You will see the same names again and again and again and again.

How can you keep winning or coming 2nd in lower graded
tournaments year in year out since 1985 and not get get any better.

This guff about a league player and tournament player is guff.
I think you will find the trend would be reversed if there was money
to be won playing league chess.