Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonI've noted the rapid progress of that player myself. His ECF grade is 150 (135 last season before the inflation) and he's lost just one game out of 118 on this site. Must be a correspondence chess specialist or maybe he's avoiding playing strong players on this site (I haven't checked his game history).
I'm surprised to see somebody much weaker than me OTB up at 2200 and in the top 50 on the site but that's another matter.
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonThanks. I was interested to see what you meant by an average player, I would have thought 1900+ to be well above average.
166 new ECF. I think I would have been about 150-155 under the old grading system.
[Edit: I think that translates to about 1980 elo but I'm not exactly sure about conversions after the new ECF grading changes]
See my profile for link to ECF grading page.
Originally posted by SchumiAccording to the data on English players presented here http://www.bluehorizonweb.com/blog/2008/03/grading/ecf-grading-statistical-distribution/ (based on the "old" ratings), Jonathan's being a bit modest; a 135 ECF would place him above about 70% of English tournament players.
Thanks. I was interested to see what you meant by an average player, I would have thought 1900+ to be well above average.
Originally posted by SchumiWell I just about scrape into my club's second team in the London League - and we're far from the biggest or strongest club in the League.
Thanks. I was interested to see what you meant by an average player, I would have thought 1900+ to be well above average.
Perhaps given the numbers of people who live in london - and who work there - the average is a little bit higher than elsewhere.
I think Jonathan is both right and wrong. Right subjectively to the extent that (ECF) 150 is an average club player in an environment where the 'observable' range is, say, 120-220. But wrong objectively because the distribution of registered players by grade places the vast majority of below 150, making Jonathan well above average.
Originally posted by atticus2Do you know what the figures are for London? I certainly don't feel well above average.
I think Jonathan is both right and wrong. Right subjectively to the extent that (ECF) 150 is an average club player in an environment where the 'observable' range is, say, 120-220. But wrong objectively because the distribution of registered players by grade places the vast majority of below 150, making Jonathan well above average.
Anyway, in the context of the present thread I think the point I'm making is still valid - it's relatively easy for an experienced OTBer to reach 2000 without breaking sweat or using a computer.
If somebody like me was to reach 2300 though that would be another story.
That's my point. In London you (probably) aren't well-above average, merely above average. The 'optical illusion' occurs because you judge yourself alongside those you know. In fact, the greater probability is that you've chosen 'those you know' because they are a stronger (chess) peer group rather than those you've 'rejected' as weaker.
But in fact, stepping outside personal experience, and gazing back in on the data (as if a stranger to it), you can see that you are in fact 'surprisingly' high up the ability distribution curve. Put bluntly, as is my habit, there is an enormous mob of incompetence out there 😛