21-06-2013, 01:16 PM
Quote: think a good idea would be to look at which player has improved the most in the last 12 months (i.e. grade rise). It's maybe more credible to suggest that a player who has risen 120 points in the last 12 months is playing better Chess than someone who has only risen by 10 points
No! No! No! This has been a common mistake in past selections when this season's new stars are preferred over last seasons.
It is their grade that gives an indication of their strength not their change in grade. If Player A grade jumps up in one season by say 150 pts and then by just 10 pts in the following season and ends up with a grade of X then you know that they are probably worth that grade. If Player B that went up 10 pts the previous season than 150 pts this season to end up with a grade of X, they will almost certainly played fewer games at that level than player A and therefore there would less confidence in their grade of X. So often a rapid rise one season is followed by a small rise or indeed a fall the following season.
Quote:different journeys to getting those grades, but I'm not sure I agree that we can assert one to be stronger than the other purely on preference of one of those records over another.
I am NOT asserting one is stronger than other. That is exactly the point. My point was that by selecting only a subset of results one will favor one type of player over another. One needs to be aware of these differences and try to understand whats going on with the specific player. It might be a sign of strength or weakness: if the latter it might be something that needs work on.
I am also in favor of the Sean's proposal - I think the principles/aims are definitely correct. I think its incredibly hard to think of objectively fair ways to do selections, as human beings have a built in bias to look for evidence that supports our own ideas.