Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Derek Howie · Bishop Joined: 21 May 2010 Posts: 28 Location: Glasgow

There are a number of ambitious juniors, often still at Primary School, who have progressed and are generally playing adult congresses. Unfortunately they may be put off playing in junior tournaments due to the potential adverse effect on their grades, even if they are successful. For example I saw one player drop quite a few grading points even though they got 6/7 in a recent CFK.

I would therefore propose that juniors could be able to have a one-off election that would allow them to be graded as adults from then on, meaning that junior tournaments of 25 or 30 minutes would be treated as allegro tournaments for them and would only affect their allegro grade. They could play in junior tournaments knowing that only their allegro grades would be affected, whereas other juniors who have not made this choice would be unaffected as they would be treated as normal.

Those who have made the election could be detailed as being a J10A instead of a J10 in the grading list so that they could be easily identified. It could be limited to players having a current grade of, say, over 950.

This would have the following advantages:

- allow ambitious juniors to support the junior circuit more without damaging their main grades, which will mean that the tournments themselves should be more successful

- allow the juniors to play their peers at an age when they should still be mixing with their friends regularly and to increase their enjoyment even more than at present. We should be encouraging them to play more chess rather than less.

- having higher graded players playing in more junior tournaments should act as encouragement and inspiration for other up-and coming juniors

I presume that the current grading system would not be able to handle this change but can the reprogramming of it be looked into as anything that encourages the expanding of Junior Chess should be investigated?

DMB · King Joined: 08 Mar 2007 Posts: 267

An interesting idea but as you suggest we are stymied at the moment by inability to make any changes to grading system arithmetic. It will certainly be considered when in a position to re-program.

I thought that most CFK events were already set up such (or had been) that the top event was allegro rated and the rest were main list. Therefore any player who doesn't want to "risk" their main list grade could pick the allegro section.

Playing the devil's advocate worst case this voluntary choosing of how you want games treated might mean that some juniors may be overlooked for selection because they either had or had not elected to be allegro rated. "Please can I unelect coz that means I go higher than my pal". A better way to go might be to take out any voluntary element.

What would happen to juniors who had made the election to be allegro rated in a main list section if they subsequently fell below the arbitrary level at 950 or whatever. It's fairly unlikely because of the inbuilt boost from junior additions but programming changes need what if thoughts to be identified and answered in advance. I guess that new season they revert to being "unelected".

Currently the grading system has 1577 juniors J11 or younger (including all j??) who have recorded games this season (or are carrying games into this season). Only 4 of these players have a published rating over 900. 1026 of these juniors dont have a current published main list grade.

For many juniors, especially those outside the central belt, the main grading problem is racking up the 8 gradeable games to get any sort of grade. This is classed as a problem on the assumption that getting a grade is desirable for young juniors and promotes their participation in the game (albeit if most depart the moment they hit age 12.) Getting a grade is meant to (promote their participation etc) but that wasn't always the universal feeling from junior organisers.

AMcHarg · Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:22 pm Post subject:

Scoring 6/7 and losing grading points means that the player was playing against opposition which was significantly lower graded than them. Some juniors are improving so rapidly that their published grades are nothing like their live grade and therefore they are not being 'protected' by the 400-up rule correctly. (I think?)

For instance: a player graded 900 playes 7 games against players all graded 500 then the grades used are all 500, but if the player in question has an actual live grade of 1200-1300 then the assumed grades of the opposition for calculation purposes should be 800-900, but aren't.

Removing any practicle implications would this not be helped by publishing grades more frequently, such as every third?

I've always found that it's easier to play higher graded players and increase your grade than it is to play lower graded ones, despite the more difficult games and consequently fewer points; the grading system still seems to benefit those who play up rather than down. Is this a flaw or an unavoidable result of things?

Just a few thoughts. Smile

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

"For many juniors, especially those outside the central belt, the main grading problem is racking up the 8 gradeable games to get any sort of grade. This is classed as a problem on the assumption that getting a grade is desirable for young juniors and promotes their participation in the game (albeit if most depart the moment they hit age 12.) Getting a grade is meant to (promote their participation etc) but that wasn't always the universal feeling from junior organisers."

I have been thinking about this one, going back to when I was a junior (a considerable time ago!) I really wanted to get a grade and be on the grading list. I was fortunate that a local Ayrshire adult team (Dreghorn) was relatively new, progressive and had some commited organised people in charge. They were prepared to take a chance with me and pitch me in on top board in the Ayrshire second division without a grade. These days that is unlikely to happen. What about this idea? We must have loads of juniors in the same boat as I was. We must have loads of adults who don't really care too much about their grade, would like to help juniors, but will try their best against any opponent. We are always crying out for more training and possibly training weekends. Can these needs be combined to provide juniors a grading opportunity, adults an opportunity to help juniors and most of all training for all concerned? If we can identify regular (weekend and possibly residential) venues could this be a step in the right direction?

Robin.

Donald Wilson · Queen Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143

Robin,

That's an interesting idea. I've decided to give up competitive chess (this year's Stewarton Allegro will be my last event as a player) but I'd be happy to play serious graded games to help juniors - I'd be trying to win, of course, but if I failed in that objective at least I'd have the consolation of knowing that my lost grading points were going to a good cause.

The format I have in mind is a training day where juniors start with a full-length graded game against an adult of a strength of 1500 or so, followed by serious analysis of the game (taking anything up to two hours) with the adult, then a talk by a top player. The analysis might involve looking at games containing similar ideas or positions, and the talk might include themes emerging from the day's games.

There are venues (Airdrie and Grangemouth come to mind) where it would be easy (and inexpensive) to hold a number of one-day events of this kind. Full-weekend, and possibly residential, venues are a bit trickier - Dolphin House at Culzean Castle is one, but it's not ideal for players from the north or the east coast.

AMcHarg · Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:31 pm Post subject:

Interesting ideas.

Why don't we try to establish if the wider Chess Scotland community would be willing to do a training 'talk' to a group of juniors at a venue each year. If there were enough volunteers then we could have one per month without anyone having to commit to more than one per year?

We don't need masters to do training, just appropriately highly graded players. For instance: I'm pretty sure a 1500 would be able to transfer a lot of knowledge to a group of <500s. The most important thing is not Chess knowledge, but the ability to convey that knowledge in a child-friendly fashion. This would mean frequent fun and enriching training experiences at low cost.

Perhaps the above is already done but I haven't seen any adverts asking for volunteers? Cool

Derek Howie · Bishop Joined: 21 May 2010 Posts: 28 Location: Glasgow

Derek Howie · Bishop Joined: 21 May 2010 Posts: 28 Location: Glasgow

Derek Howie · Bishop Joined: 21 May 2010 Posts: 28 Location: Glasgow

On the issue of training, there are the fairly regular training sessions set up by Michael Hanley in Bothwell, which covers the West of Scotland. I think that they are great, although I understand that the one last w/e was not particularly well attended.

I like the other ideas being put forward as well. Donald's idea of playing a game against an adult and then having it analysed would help the kids who don't have coaches and I'm sure that they would get a lot out of it.

Weekends may not be practical, particularly initially, but one-day events should be possible.

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

Donald is on the right lines here I feel. The weekend format that I suggested earlier is probably not practical initially and too expensive on a regular basis but could come into play at some stage in the future. The one day suggestion fits better. Another point to bear in mind is the strength of any "coaches and analysers". As a ball park example if a 1000 rated junior played a serious graded game against say a 1500 rated adult player, was analysed afterwards by the two participants and then looked over by a player of approx 2000 standard, then surely all would gain some benefit. I am sure there must be plenty of 2000 graded players who would be happy to do this for basic expenses (or even free!) for an interesting and worthwhile opportunity to put a foot on the coaching ladder. I am going to add a further suggestion that I have come across on my travels. The Spanish juniors in the Benidorm international had a professional WGM coach (I think she was Ukrainian). At the end of their game the top half of their carbon copy scoresheet was handed in to the controllers and the bottom half was handed directly to their coach to go through with them individually. Can we implement this approach albeit at a much lower level plus should we have carbon copy scoresheets for all junior (graded) games if at all possible? I am sure that there must be plenty of 2000 graded players out there who wish to help juniors and what a wonderful opportunity this could present for them.

Robin.