Junior Grades?

[David G Congalton]

Chris,

he has been taken out more times than jordan.

Robin.

Is that the country or the other Jordan?

[Andy Howie]

So how do you deal with a rolling grade in a league situation which takes place over months?

All games would need to be dated.

Which is fine but not all captains or players have access to their grades so they don't know what their rolling grade is...

[Gary McPheator]

So how do you deal with a rolling grade in a league situation which takes place over months?

All games would need to be dated.

Which is fine but not all captains or players have access to their grades so they don't know what their rolling grade is...

If you offer the online grading system to all rather than just to members then that would not be the case as at least someone at a club should have internet access. An inclusive approach rather than an exclusive one is more benefitial in my view.

[Andy Howie]

If you offer the online grading system to all rather than just to members then that would not be the case as at least someone at a club should have internet access. An inclusive approach rather than an exclusive one is more benefitial in my view.

So what then is the benefit of membership? Should we follow the ECF model and kill chess up here for good?

[Douglas Bryson]

"A rolling grade should do away with the need for junior additions if you set the number of games to be used at an appropriate level."

OK so two juniors graded 1000 play 30 games each other over the course of a year and each score 15. An in-running or a once a year calculation will still make them both 1000 at the end of the year - if there are no junior additions. However we already know that juniors by virtue of being one year older will on average have improved. Without bonus points in one form or other you will suffer deflation. Will a rolling grade system work any better than current system if you dont somehow feed in points to reflect junior improvement?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://australianchessclub.yuku.com/topic/500/Under-rating-is-a-fixable-problem?page=1">http://australianchessclub.yuku.com/top ... lem?page=1</a><!-- m --> - there's some OZ folk in similar discussion.

[Andrew McHarg]

Maybe juniors should just start at 2000 and then their grades can be adjusted accordingly as they play games. Would save a lot of adults a lot of headaches.

I disagree with Gary that the grading data should be made open to non-members. There would be scope to make the live grades available without making all the data available (quite easily) - if that's the approach which was decided upon.

=)

[Gary McPheator]

If you offer the online grading system to all rather than just to members then that would not be the case as at least someone at a club should have internet access. An inclusive approach rather than an exclusive one is more benefitial in my view.

So what then is the benefit of membership? Should we follow the ECF model and kill chess up here for good?

Perhaps the question CS should be asking is what is the benefit to chess in Scotland rather than to only the membership. I believe it was hoped the new upgrade to the system would see an upturn in membership. As this does not seem to have come about I suggest that it would be good for all to benefit.

As regards your ECF comments, firstly I have never advoctated following their model and secondly even if I had chess hasn't died south of the border, so why would it here?

"A rolling grade should do away with the need for junior additions if you set the number of games to be used at an appropriate level."

OK so two juniors graded 1000 play 30 games each other over the course of a year and each score 15. An in-running or a once a year calculation will still make them both 1000 at the end of the year - if there are no junior additions. However we already know that juniors by virtue of being one year older will on average have improved. Without bonus points in one form or other you will suffer deflation. Will a rolling grade system work any better than current system if you dont somehow feed in points to reflect junior improvement?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://australianchessclub.yuku.com/topic/500/Under-rating-is-a-fixable-problem?page=1">http://australianchessclub.yuku.com/top ... lem?page=1</a><!-- m --> - there's some OZ folk in similar discussion.

An interesting read Dougie!

I agree that a rolling grade would not give an accurate reflection of the strengths in the scenario above, it isn't perfect. But neither is the current system, as if you substitute an adult for one of the above juniors then the junior will still be graded 1000 while the adult will have an increased grade.

With regards to deflation, I believe it could be dealt with by drifting adult grades. As adult grades are more stable, it makes sense to keep the points they have in the system at the same level while letting the junior points fluctuate. A weekly drift would be better and more inkeeping with a rolling grade than an end of season adjustment.

I accept that junior grades may still lag behind their true strength if they play a lot of games against their peers, but I think that having up to date grades will mitigate this and be a fairer system.

[Mike Scott]

Gary,
I agree: DB's example is an entirely false situation. Most juniors a. play a lot of games (especially those improving alot) and b. do not often go ballisitic year after year and as a consequence the grading sytem quickly self corrects.

[Gary McPheator]

Mike, you make a good point, juniors do play a lot of games. I believe this to be the main reason for juniors improving at the rate they do. A rolling grade would help the system correct itself quicker than it does at present.

[Hugh Brechin]

Dougie made a deliberately exaggerated example, but the point underlying it is that a lot of juniors play a lot of their games against other juniors. In general, these players are improving fairly rapidly, but many of them will not be doing so relative to each other. Among its other uses, therefore, the junior addition makes sure that young players are not effectively penalised for playing against their peers.

I really don't see why any of this is an issue. On average, the junior addition is about right. There are players whose strength is above their added grade, and players whose strength is below it, because if there weren't it wouldn't be an average. There are always going to be outlying cases, like those provided by Kai or Clement this year, because the results of chess are not entirely predictable. Every grading system throws up quirks because people sometimes put in performances you wouldn't expect, one way or the other (hence why we had Tom Donohue wandering around providing awful value with a FIDE grade of about 1750 for a while), or their playing strength changes dramatically.

Occasionally we all have to play against people who are underrated, which should happen roughly as often as we get to play against overrated players (which here includes juniors who aren't improving, who you automatically get extra credit for wins against, as well as older players like me whose ratings appear to be dropping). We just don't notice the latter as much, perhaps partly because losing to somebody who doesn't come up to your waist is more memorable.

On a further note, I'd also like to add that I think it's completely ridiculous that this thread has reached a full 3 pages while nobody on this board saw as worthy of comment the fact that Calum MacQueen came within one draw of an IM norm in Slovenia, or the fact that Neil Berry faced both Van Wely and Smirin, and came pretty close to drawing in the latter instance. I mean, it's great that we're all happy to talk about the consequences of playing against underrated juniors, but it would be nice to keep at least half an eye on what they might be aiming for.