Well the new grades are out. The new system is meant to allow for a perceived grading deflation which has taken place over the last few years, and also for the fact that juniors tend to be undergraded.
My new grade is 181, compared to 173 in the old system. A junior who belongs to my club, James Foster, has been adjusted from 139 to 175!
Some players, for example David Tebb and Northern Lad, have not changed at all.
My first impression that the grades of the lower graded players have been adjusted far too much. I predict that there will be grading inflation over the next few years as the stronger players strip away the grading points of all these players who have been increased artificially high.
"...all these players who have been increased artificially high."
Not before they have spread their high grades around like a pox amongst
lower graded players. It's going to be 10 years before ECF grades
trully reflect a player's ability.
I think the idea was to stop lower rated players all tending further and further towards zero - with it becoming more difficult to differentiate between them.
Like if you took a 20 grade and played him against a 50 grade I would say it is about 50:50 as to who would win, whereas the higher player should statistically have a better chance if the ratings were accurate.
Also some of the older players who have reached a plateau but been knocked off by the hordes of rising stars will get the chance to reclaim their points now and get the ratings they deserve.
I moved up quite a bit to 163, but I have always thought that in an ideal world I would be around 160 anyway.
"...all these players who have been increased artificially high."
Not before they have spread their high grades around like a pox amongst
lower graded players. It's going to be 10 years before ECF grades
trully reflect a player's ability.
Originally posted by Fat Lady Well the new grades are out. The new system is meant to allow for a perceived grading deflation which has taken place over the last few years, and also for the fact that juniors tend to be undergraded.
My new grade is 181, compared to 173 in the old system. A junior who belongs to my club, James Foster, has been adjusted from 139 to 175!
Some players, ...[text shortened]... rs strip away the grading points of all these players who have been increased artificially high.
I had hoped to get back up to ECF150 which = 2000 but thought I'd need to do it OTB but now I'll be ECF149 by doing nothing this year so revised target = ECF165 or 2075. I'd like to make ECF170 in 2 years but just like I failed to reach 2100 here I feel that is a step too far.
Originally posted by Dragon Fire I had hoped to get back up to ECF150 which = 2000 but thought I'd need to do it OTB but now I'll be ECF149 by doing nothing this year so revised target = ECF165 or 2075. I'd like to make ECF170 in 2 years but just like I failed to reach 2100 here I feel that is a step too far.
I think you could make 2100... right now its just beyond the bend.
Well I dreamed of being a hundred player but it's an empty prize now it's just been given.....what have I got to aspire to now. Does anyone know what a 100 player has jumped to so I can set a new target.
And at the risk of banging on about something that'll never change couldn't they have just have switched to an elo system comparable with the rest of the planet or do we Brits always have to be different.
I was planning to go in for one of the week-end congresses in the under 80 section with a chance of bagging a prize...I guess it's all relative so my chances must be pretty much the same. Mind you I've been told there are some wily old players who haunt these congresses who know how to put up a fight.
This is ridiculous, I don't understand this new grading system!
I've gone from 126 (old system) to 151 (according to the new system)!
This just does not make sense. There is a player at my club who is way way better than I am (he's about the equivalent of 2100 Elo)
Last year: Me 107 Him 175
According to New grading: Me 151 Him 164
How does that work?! If we played a 100 game match, he would comfortably slaughter me in about 99 of the games (I may be lucky and get one draw). How can it be that the new system is an accurate reflection of a players strength??! How is it possible for me to jump from 126 to 151? Does it mean if I don't play any games this season, my new grade will be 151?
Also, how will this affect the sections in various congresses? Surely a lot of the people who were in the minor section (U100) will now be over 100, and so on up the grading ladder. So now surely there will have to be many new sections, like U130 being called the 'minor section' instead of U100?
From reading Chess magazine I get the impression that the ECF is run from Hastings by a bunch of out of touch old timers who are resistant to change.
Curiously the most damning evidence from my point of view was the ECF's response to the magazines critical article. Arriving the following month and inserted as a flier between the magazines pages the response was a long winded befuddled tome promising such dynamic initiatives as - holding a meeting where these issues will be discussed and the like.
On reading this any skepticism I may have harbored with regard to the original article evaporated and I imagined the editorial team of chess magazine having a good old chuckle.
The new ratings are used to calculate next years grades but are not actual ratings for this year - your original rating still stands until the end of the year.
Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex The new ratings are used to calculate next years grades but are not actual ratings for this year - your original rating still stands until the end of the year.
I know, but they are included on the grading list for reference: it still doesn't make any sense to me 🙁 I like the old grading system!
Originally posted by skims This is ridiculous, I don't understand this new grading system!
I've gone from 126 (old system) to 151 (according to the new system)!
This just does not make sense. There is a player at my club who is way way better than I am (he's about the equivalent of 2100 Elo)
Last year: Me 107 Him 175
According to New grading: Me 151 H ...[text shortened]... have to be many new sections, like U130 being called the 'minor section' instead of U100?
I think you misunderstand.
Pretty much everyone's grades will go up because of a perceived deflation of grades over time.
The deflation has apparently been worst for the lower grades.
People over ECF 200 or so won't see any change at all because it doesn't affect them.
It should even-out to some extent in a few season's time but yes, to go from ECF 41 to ECF 78 as one player in my club has done does seem ridiculous.
Some of the changes I am reading about are insane. It seems some people graded 130 now can go to 160, others 145 and others remain the same. How that is possible is beyond me. I now have no confidence my grade actually means anything let alone my comparative strength.
I think its time the ECF moved across to the ELO system. They can convert the grades using 1250 + 5 X ECF or what ever other stupid formula they decide and them apply the ELO formula thereafter.
Maybe then we will all get grades that actually reflect performance instead of some arbitary figure having no bearing on reality.
New ECF grades
01 Sep '08 22:15
Back to Top