®| ® |
|
|
|---|
Last update: Friday June 3, 2005 9:44
BCF Council 29 September 2001
GRADING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
1. September 2000 Council Meeting
Last September when Roger Edwards was re-elected Grading Director, he made it clear that he would only continue as Grading Director provided he was allowed to revert to the use of pre-Chris Howell software.
In the morning prior to Council, the Management Board considered Roger's report and came up with the following points informing Council of its decisions:
Roger agreed to continue as Grading Director while the Grading sub-committee conducted its investigation.
Council accepted these proposals.
2. November 2000 Management Board
The Grading sub-committee resolved that it would be possible to operate a hybrid approach using both the "Howell" and the "Pre-Howell " (or "Patti") systems. This would have the benefit that additional checking of submitted Grading results would be possible without any essential change in the format in which local Graders are asked to submit results. Essentially, individual Grading results submitted are converted to a Grading performance (X Games, Y Points) with the first stage of the Howell software. The Grading performance data are then converted from Access to dBase, which is compatible with the pre-Howell Grading computation software.
The Grading sub-committee also made a number of recommendations intended to ensure the success of the August 2001 Grading list. The main philosophy was to head off the problems that were experienced in the 1999/2000 Grading cycle when everything came to a head all at once when it was far too late.
Despite the fact that the Grading sub-committee had endorsed the approach proposed by Roger Edwards, he in fact resigned the Directorship in October, citing abusive correspondence as the reason for doing so.
The Management Board made the following decisions:
3. Progress Since November 2000
3.1 Communications
Since November, I have provided a monthly progress report. This can be found on the BCF Website http://www.bcf.org.uk/grading/index.html and is also circulated via an e-mail Grading Forum run by Richard Haddrell. A list of amendments to the September 2000 Grading list was posted on the Website in April, while some analysis of the master list was provided in July.
3.2 Grading Team
We now have a Grading team including a paid officer, rather than a one-man band. This allows help to be provided to local Graders and problems resolved.
3.3 Grading System Improvements
The following measures have been implemented which, coupled with having a grading team, contributed to the success of this year’s Grading list:
Updated File Specification Documentation
The documentation defining the format for Grading submission files has been updated to correct errors and provide clarification.
Data Checker
A data checker for submission files was developed by Howard Grist and was provided to all Graders. In addition to Howard’s work developing the Data Checker, I should like to acknowledge the contribution of Richard Haddrell, who beta tested the program and wrote documentation for it.
New Player Checking
The August 2000 Grading list was bedevilled by players getting multiple entries due to them being erroneously identified as new. To obviate this, a manual checking procedure was put in place. This has resulted in a large reduction in the number of erroneous new player codes.
Feedback to Graders
This year, Graders were provided with feedback on what the central team thought had been submitted using elements of the Patti system. This was done except in the case of some events that were submitted after the deadline for submission of events.
3.4 August 2001 Grading list
This year’s Grading list was on sale on the first day of the British Championships. The list was the most accurate for several years. Finally, the list contained for the first time some statistical analysis of the previous year’s master list.
4. What Remains to be Done – Next Year
4.1 Grading System
The hybrid system, used successfully this year, is seen as a temporary solution. During this next season:
Data will be processed through both systems (hybrid and Grist) once a beta version of Howard's software is available.
The hybrid system will be used for the 2002 list, unless all members of the Grading team are confident that Howard’s software is ready to be used. The development of the central software will not impose any new constraints on the format in which local graders submit grading data.
4.2 New Player Checking
The manual checking process has proved very successful in reducing the number of erroneous new player codes issued. However, this part of the Grading system was not wholly satisfactory in that it typically took a month to conduct a check, when the enquiry related to a substantial number of players. This undoubtedly caused frustration to the Grader wanting the information. We will look into the feasibility of providing a faster response without sacrificing accuracy.
4.3 Earlier Submission of Congress Results
This season, there was once again a very large workload in the period just before and immediately after the deadline for the submission of results. We recognise that there will always be a significant number of results arriving close to the deadline, because the winter Leagues are in many cases unable to submit their data any earlier. The workload would be much more manageable, however, were it not for the number of Congress results, often from the previous summer, which arrive only a week or so before the deadline. Consequently, I propose to introduce an earlier deadline for Congresses from the previous year and I would ask Council delegates to support me on this measure.
5. What Remains to be Done – Longer Term Issues
5.1 Six Monthly Junior Lists
Due to the junior Grade increment, it is necessary to know when publishing a Grading list whether the next update will be after 6 or 12 months. This year’s Grading list was done on the basis of annual updates. Consequently, there will not be an updated Junior list in January 2002.
The view of the Grading team is that it is currently impractical to embark on six-monthly lists while we are using the hybrid system. Consequently, I propose to defer a decision on this topic for a year. If in 2002 the Grist software is operational, we can review whether to start six monthly lists from August 2003.
5.2 ELO based Grading System
I do not plan to give any consideration to moving to an ELO based Grading system (generating an ELO style Grade and/or using the ELO computation method) until the development of the central Grading software is complete.
In Conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank all the local Grading Officers, and in particular Union Grading Officers, for their contribution to this list. I would especially like to thank the central Grading Team of Roger Edwards, Richard Furness, Howard Grist, Bruce Holland and Dave Thomas for their continued hard work throughout the year. Finally, I would like to thank the Office at Battle, for their support during the year.
C E Majer
Director of Grading
14/8/01