Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
grade strength???
OK I'm going to be a human target for posting this but....

I have heard umpteen arguments about the definition of playing strength using live grades instead of published grades, when and how to use them etc. Some people are of the opinion that published grades are out of date too quickly or that published grades should be strictly adhered to with the problem that different teams/different clubs apply different criteria, some using published grades, others using live grades. Surely all clubs should use the same criteria

May I suggest that either the published yearly grade become obsolete or that its updated more frequently than once per year. That way it would be fairer as then we would be happier using the same criteria
How then do you grade a league? Not everyone puts the grading data in promptly as Dougie will tell you.

How do you modify the 200 up rule so it makes sense...
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Easy. have watershed dates either every six or three months in which games must be submitted for grading. Surely the Scottish event being graded around the yearly grade submission is an example of how this wold work. As far as the 200 up rule surely if the grades are upgraded every six months then the rule would be 100 up rule assuming it is still needed. I just feel that clubs should all have the same criteria either playing strength is defined eithe by the live or published grade, without ambiguity. If published grades have the charge of being inaccurate (?) then it should be universally acknowledged that live grades should be used and quoted
Perhaps Dougie or someone else can answer this, but do we know what the average fall/rise in grade is each year?

I imagine they must cancel each other out, but if the average fall for those whose grades go down is something like 5 points, then using the yearly grades seems suitable to me for most purposes.

If, however, the rise/fall is somewhere about 30-50 points or more, then perhaps there is scope for some debate?! Although, as Andy points out, perhaps that scope is very limited for practical reasons.
I agree with Andy Burnett. Maybe the answer is to acknowledge that teams captains have the leeway to use either live or published grades in a match and that is universally agreed and accepted (and put in writing).I genuinely dont see in grades being upgraded in June 30 (or thereabouts) and December 31st. but we must
have a level playing field.
Speaking as someone who has captained in both the Edinburgh and Central leagues, i can easily see your argument.
The Edinburgh league rule states:-"Any significant misordering relative to published gradings should be capable of ready explanation. Team captains should be prepared to justify any misordering to opposing captains or to Council on request." (Emphasis is mine)
Published grades to my mind would be those printed in the grading book, but could also include Live grades. There is also the possibility for argument about what is and what is not significant.
The Central league rule states:-"A player's last published grade is a
legitimate criterion for board order. No player may play on a higher board than a player 100
or more points higher graded."
Very specific in restricting board order within 100 points, but a team captain could argue that a live grade is also published.

The problem is that not everyone has access to live grades at a match venue, so when a situation arises, it might not be easy the check.
In practise, during Central league matches, if there is a misordering issue of around 50 points, no questions are asked. Between 50 and 100, then an eyebrow is raised, but i have still to see any objections.
In the Edinburgh League however, it seems that any misordering has to be justified in some way (as the rule states!), but there is an expectancy from other captains.

You might want to raise the issue with your league secretary in advance of the next AGM to seek clarification. It may be that they could come to some guidance for best practise during matches, perhaps it might be agreed that any misordering must be notified in advance of the match allowing the opposing captain the opportunity to check on any justifications given.
My personal opinion is that it can also be used to introduce some match tactics, and that any misordering up to 100 points is really no big deal.
so can we say that any captain has a 50/100 point leeway in any league/tournament I think the SNCL has a 50 point limit in place already Big Grin
I think each league has their own policy, the one that works for them.
We have to be careful in hindering good development, there is an adult player at my club who is currently playing >100 his actual grade. He doesn't play that often, so has little opportunity to get his grade up to the level where he performs.
Here's some unofficial stats for how frequently a given grading change occurred during seasons 2001-2013... this is a temporary link...

Maybe I can tweak these graphs further to make them more useful?!
Interesting! How did you select the data sets? I mean did you select only those players that had played a certain minimum number of graded games in the season, or is it just simply all garded players?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)