Yorkshire Chess Association


Year Book 2018-19 Contents



 Message from the President

Officers 2018-19

Annual Fees

County Match Fees & Petrol Allowance

Junior Contacts

YCA League Match Venues

Secretaries of Competing Clubs

Match Correspondents ‑ Woodhouse Cup

Match Correspondents ‑ IM Brown

Match Correspondents ‑ Silver Rook

YCA League Fixtures 2018-2019

ECF Game Fee Changes &c

Joining the ECF

Standard-play Grading Trends 2002-18

Notes on the YCA Grading List

Results Graded July 2017 to June 2018

YCA Grading List

Yorkshire Junior Reports

Correspondence Chess Report

U-160 Captain’s Message

2017-18 League Tables & Match Results

County Match Result Summary

English County Finals 2018

Recent Winners of YCA Events

Constitution and Rules

YCA League Rules

Index to Rules

Individual Championship Rules

Contact Details Index

Event Calendar 2018-19



ECF Grading Consultation, Stages 2 and 3


A short while ago the ECF conducted a consultation with members (as players) on possible future changes to the ECF grading system.  The outcome was essentially that a majority (of the 900+ who participated) would prefer monthly grading lists, and 4-digit grades (or ratings if “FIDE-speak” is to be adopted).  See https://www.englishchess.org.uk/grading-consultation-results/ for an analysis by age group and by membership category.  It was not clear whether 4-figure “numbers” was meant to imply a fundamental change in the calculation method, i. e. ECF-style to ELO-style.


The next stage, here unofficially called Stage 2, is a consultation with organisers.  The ECF's grasp of who to contact for this one may not be as complete as it could be.  If you organise an ECF-graded league or congress, and have not received an e-mail from the ECF Grading Manager, Brian Valentine, titled “Chess Organisers' Consultation”, then maybe you should send an e-mail to manager.grading@englishchess.org.uk asking that you be included.  The questions asked (see below) are ones which a non‑organiser might find tedious in the extreme, but about which an organiser might get quite exercised.


Thereafter, unofficially-styled Stage 3 will be a consultation with graders, so-called, who submit result data, in a prescribed format, to the ECF for processing.  (They don't actually perform grading calculations, so are not literally graders.)  Too eager to wait for the impending grader consultation, or unware of it, some graders have started a reply-to-all-style e‑mail discussion from which it is apparent, as might be expected, that practices around the country differ very widely.


For league organisers, the main impact of proposed changes would be the need to keep up to date with result entry.  Within Yorkshire, as all leagues are using the ECF's League Management System, from which can be called off a data submission file at any time, the impact for league administrators should be minimal.  If late results miss the boat, then they will be reflected in the next month's grading run.  The data submission file still should be checked as regards apparent “new” players, in which process an ECF grader is assisted by the supplied “checker” program in conjunction with the latest downloadable “master list” of players.  As all ECF graders potentially take holidays, it would be best if local leagues each had their own ECF Grader, as do Hull and Sheffield.


For congresses organisers, the impact would be that they would need to ensure results were processed promptly, unless they were happy to receive complaints that results from an end-of-month congress were not reflected in that month's grading list.  Again, the ECF Grader chosen to process the data submission could well be on holiday at the end of the month . . . .  There could also be a slight problem regarding selection of a specified month's grading list to regulate admission to grade-limited congress sections.


In case anyone is interested, the questions being asked of organisers are as follows:



Grade History: I understand that older grades are used for inactive entrants to decide qualification for rating sections.



Do you use old grades in some circumstances?



Is it necessary to maintain a history more than 5 years?



If you use a history would it be best held as existing grade or converted to the new system.


At present we have categories A-F to delineate chess activity. As all results are graded at present there are “shadow grades” used where players have less than 9 results in 3 years when assessing their opponents. The Board have decided that as many games should be graded as possible, so shadow grading will need to continue. The questions are about requirements for future categories



Are the categories A-E required in future?



Is the concept behind the current F category useful?



If we published “a number” after just one result, identified by some category, will this be a help or hindrance?



Assuming there is some lower limit (even 1 result, depending on the outcome of c) is there a requirement for category for “reliable grade” based on number of results (we are interested in the requirement, not the actual number at this stage)?


Both FIDE and the ECF have the concept of Active or Inactive players. Is there a use for this concept?


Clearly this is a big change for the Federation and there are many reasons why we would be safer dual grading for a short period. Are there things we should be aware of if the old and new systems run side by side for a period?


It would be helpful if we could get a list of league management software providers who we may need to talk to as our admin evolves. Could you provide us with contact details of the software provider that you use please?


Steve Mann