14-10-2011, 11:21 AM
The comments above cover most of the issues regarding the current situation.
The junior additions we currently have are the result of analysis of how juniors performed on average in the course of a year. This was done several years ago and has not been updated recently.
The system makes some assumptions which are obviously not applicable to all players but are simply the best guess of what happens on average. It assumes adults do not improve and are stable from year to year and it assumes that juniors will increase by these average number of points.
So by all means these ideas could be tweaked to feed in junior points with a bias towards the end of the season. However you would need a date marker on every game (we dont have that currently on league and club championships). Adults do improve up to the age of about 35 and then post 40 its all downhill - on average. So a young adult addition and an older player subtraction may make the system more accurate (albeit not that attractive an adjustment to sell to the established regulars).
The drift figure which you see on calculations is meant to add back points which may have leaked out of the system. The 200 up idea is to adjust the most wrong grades quickly to a more appropriate level.
The twice a year or more processing has been discussed several times. You need answers to all the practical issues related to it before you decide the change is worth it.
Regarding whether tournaments use junior additions for entry requirements. That's entirely up to the tournament what it wants to use. The live grades rather than published are used by many junior events now.
It would be useful if there was output listing all games with actual and expected score. We could then see exactly how adults are performing v juniors. eg I just did a quick (manual) run through of all the adult games v juniors on the bottom two sections at Lothians - over 52 games the adults scored 27 but were expected to score 30.4. However that's a biased set of data since Lothians results were one of the tournaments where the perception of underrated juniors was identified.
What is needed is data for several full seasons with every game v juniors not just the good juniors who play weekenders.
The junior additions we currently have are the result of analysis of how juniors performed on average in the course of a year. This was done several years ago and has not been updated recently.
The system makes some assumptions which are obviously not applicable to all players but are simply the best guess of what happens on average. It assumes adults do not improve and are stable from year to year and it assumes that juniors will increase by these average number of points.
So by all means these ideas could be tweaked to feed in junior points with a bias towards the end of the season. However you would need a date marker on every game (we dont have that currently on league and club championships). Adults do improve up to the age of about 35 and then post 40 its all downhill - on average. So a young adult addition and an older player subtraction may make the system more accurate (albeit not that attractive an adjustment to sell to the established regulars).
The drift figure which you see on calculations is meant to add back points which may have leaked out of the system. The 200 up idea is to adjust the most wrong grades quickly to a more appropriate level.
The twice a year or more processing has been discussed several times. You need answers to all the practical issues related to it before you decide the change is worth it.
Regarding whether tournaments use junior additions for entry requirements. That's entirely up to the tournament what it wants to use. The live grades rather than published are used by many junior events now.
It would be useful if there was output listing all games with actual and expected score. We could then see exactly how adults are performing v juniors. eg I just did a quick (manual) run through of all the adult games v juniors on the bottom two sections at Lothians - over 52 games the adults scored 27 but were expected to score 30.4. However that's a biased set of data since Lothians results were one of the tournaments where the perception of underrated juniors was identified.
What is needed is data for several full seasons with every game v juniors not just the good juniors who play weekenders.