®

British Chess Federation

Grading Strategy Paper

June 2003

1 Scope

This paper is essentially that presented to the March Meeting of the BCF Management Board (MB), differing mainly in that what were then proposals to the MB are now the agreed strategy.

2 Introduction

With the introduction this season of new central Grading software and improved processes for handling results data, it is inappropriate to look at these aspects at this time. However, there are two issues that should be reviewed as follows:

a) the media and substance for publication of Grading data.
b) timescale issues.

This paper looks at these aspects and in particular explores the options for where we should go on Grading in relation to the appropriate use of IT and also the threats posed by the FIDE rating system.

3 Grading Surveys

The table at the end of this report shows the results of the various grading surveys conducted to-date. The most important conclusion from the various surveys is that there is a need for the BCF to continue to produce a printed list (this view was particularly expressed by some tournament organisers). This is a significant constraint on our future planning. Another pertinent point is that there do seem to be people who would like to see the Grading list made available on CD-ROM. Finally, the purchasers of the Grading list would seem to wish to stick with the current BCF system (methodology) as is.

4 Options for the Future on Grading Publication

Historically, the BCF has produced a printed Grading list annually.

Currently, FIDE:
1) Make their rating list freely available on their Website;
2) Publish ratings every 3 months;
3) Have a stated objective to increase the lower limit of the FIDE rating system downward to provide what should be effectively a universal rating system.

Plainly there is a threat to the BCF that FIDE ratings will take over from BCF Grading. This is a potential threat to the BCF, as Grading is perceived as the only service that it provides. Consequently, it is important to identify what things can be done in the future to make the Grading service better.

The following options for the BCF Grading system are seen as follows, each of these will be discussed in more detail below:
a) do nothing approach (i.e. continue to produce a printed list annually);
b) continue printed list plus produce a CD-ROM;
c) make Grading list freely available on BCF Website;
d) provide an additional Direct Member (DM) only service on the BCF Website;

4.1 Do nothing approach (i.e. produce a printed list annually)

Last year, we made about £350 on the Grading list on a turnover of about £7000 (these numbers take no account of BCF Office time). This financial year we should make a profit in excess of £1000 on the printed list. However, this improvement is due primarily to a reduction in the print run. This is now at 900 compared to about 1300 about 10 years ago. Furthermore, there are about 150 Grading lists that are freely given to Graders/other BCF organisers. Consequently, the reduction in Grading list sales is from about 1150 to 750.

The above analysis suggests that there is a long-term threat that it will become uneconomic to produce the Grading list due to fact that the commitment to provide free is likely to remain the same while sales of lists decline.

A further drawback with doing nothing is that it confirms the negative stereotype of the BCF as perceived by the chess public – unaware of what people want and slow to respond to change.

4.2 Continue printed list plus produce a CD-ROM

Several years ago, Chris Howell tried the experiment of providing a free Grading CD-ROM with the printed Grading List. At the time, Council took the view that this was a bad idea because it allowed people to copy the Grading List easily - thus perhaps reducing sales. Since then, Council has taken the view that Member organisations can freely copy their parts of the Grading list.

Instead of providing the CD-ROM as a “freebee” with the Grading list, an alternative strategy would be to sell the Grading CD-ROM as a stand-alone item. An advantage here is that the prices for CD-ROMs would be less than for printed copies. Additionally, it would be possible to include additional information such as previous Grading lists. Finally, much smaller print-runs would be economically viable for a CD-ROM. On this basis, we should try the experiment of producing a Grading CD-ROM for sale. However, this season we have a new Grading team, new Grading software and the British Championships are one week earlier than usual. Consequently, the experiment of producing a Grading CD-ROM has been deferred one year.

4.3 Use of BCF Website

There are two options for use of the BCF Website

4.3.1 Make Grading list freely available to all on BCF Website

FIDE publishes its rating list on their Website, so why do we not do the same? Publishing the BCF list on the BCF Website would make the Grading Team’s task easier. It removes the deadline imposed by the printer and provides a solution to the problem posed by Grading corrections. If we ever wish to move to publishing more frequent Grades (not popular with Graders) at present, then it would not be practical to sell printed lists. Thus publication of the Grading list on the BCF Website would be a necessary first step.

The current view is that in the long-term we may need to use the BCF Website as our main means of publishing the Grading list. However, while we can make a profit from printed Grading lists and while we have a commitment to maintain a printed list, it is sensible to continue with a printed list.

4.3.2 Use IT or BCF Website to provide other Grading Information

An additional aspect is that is worthwhile to maintain a list of all events received for Grading so far, this will help to highlight events not submitting results for Grading and also let players know what’s happening. This has already been started and is updated regularly on the BCF Website.

4.3.3 Use IT or BCF Website to provide additional DM only services

If our overall strategy as a Federation is to grow Membership, and as Grading is one of our main assets, then we should look for ways to encourage membership by providing a better Grading service to DMs. Note: this topic is really a Membership issue rather than a Grading issue. If we did not implement any of these ideas, there would be no impact on the smooth running of the Grading process. Currently, the service provided to DMs is that we Grade their games from non-Game Fee events (see below) and provide Grading print-outs of a DM’s results either freely or at reduced cost.

The question arises what additional services could be provided to DMs? The following have been identified:
a) early notification by email of Grade;
b) facility to look up Grade on BCF Website;
c) facility to monitor Grading results during season before publication of Grade (i.e. you could confirm that your results from a tournament had gone in, and also see your Grading Performance to-date).

Of these we are implementing “a” for this summer’s Grading list. “b” would require some work but could probably be done for next season and finally “c” would be a longer-term objective that we might try after we’ve done “a” and “b”. At this stage, we do not have costs to set up option “b”; the BCF would need to form a view as to whether they would see this as a worthwhile DM service and what cost would be affordable. Incidentally, one member of the Grading Team thinks that “b” may not be worthwhile because it is not what your Grade is in absolute terms, but how it compares to your team mates that is important. An alternative approach might therefore to provide a service to look-up Grades for Corporate VPs.

5 Other Grading Issues

In this section, some other aspects are addressed that although not linked to the Grading publication strategy are also under review. The main topic is what should we do when?

5.1 Publication of the Master List

The Master list contains more extensive information than the Grading list and also contains late results and corrections where mistakes have come to light after publication of the Grading list. In recent years, we have gradually been pulling back the date of publication of the Master list. However, the date that we are currently achieving (early December) is half way through the chess-playing season. It is too late to influence eligibility for leagues, and leaves the Graders with the frustration of having to wait for 6 months before they can start work. It is also worth noted that if we ever wish to move to more frequent Gradings, then these changes are necessary as currently we are still making changes to Grades six months after they are published!

Ideally, we should bring the date of the Master list back to September. This would be early enough to allow for corrections to be taken into account for league eligibility and would also allow the Graders to start work after the summer break. To achieve this, it is necessary to remove the “blockers” (processing of late results), necessitating some changes in the way of working. These are addressed in the following sections. Note that we would continue to correct errors in a player's Grade after the publication of the Master list (as we do at present).

5.2 Late League and Congress Results

This year we have introduced a deadline for event results of one month after the completion of the event. This reduces the end of season rush and should allow the Graders to know that their result has been processed. Given these improvements, it is intended that late results submitted too late for the printed list are not included in the Master List, but instead are included in the following season’s results. (Some might think that historically we have been too lenient with Graders that did not comply with the published deadline).
This new policy is being implemented this summer.

5.3 DM Printouts and Grading of DM Games

Currently we publish the printed list, take a well-earned rest; address any corrections from the first batch of complaints; and then send out the DM printouts. Finally, after feedback from the DMs, the Master list is published. The benefit here is that the DM printouts are more accurate, because of the initial feedback. However, allowing two periods for feedback before producing the Master list slows down the whole process.

Instead, it is intended to bring the date for the production of DM printouts forward, so that as soon as the Grading list has gone to the printers the DM printouts will be produced. It should be possible to get them ready by end of July. A benefit from an earlier publication date would be to allow the possibility of correcting any errors in time for the start of the season.

As part of the same theme, DMs have been asked to submit their games from non-Game Fee events before the end of the June. In the case where a DM discovers after publication of the Grading list that he has a non Game-Fee event missing, then this would be addressed but only in the following season’s Grades.
This policy has been started for this summer.

5.4 Grading of DM Games

The following policy will be applied for Grading of DM Games from non-Game Fee events:
* The BCF will continue to be Grade members games from non-English events;
* The BCF will not Grade members games from non-Game Fee paying English events.
This policy will be applied from June 2003.

It is to be established, whether there is a better method for the BCF to obtain members games from non-Game Fee events (e.g. conversion of FIDE performance ratings).

6 CONCLUSIONS

1) There is a continuing need to produce a printed Grading list for the foreseeable future;
2) The experiment of trying to sell the Grading list on CD-ROM should be tried, but the trial should be deferred for one year;
3) We should continue with the BCF Grading system (methodology);
4) DMs should be provided with their grades via email prior to the publication of the printed list;
5) The Grading schedules should be revised such that the Master list can be produced in September,
6) DM print-outs should be produced in July,
7) A DM only service for checking ones Grade should be set up, subject to a being able to find someone to do it for a suitably modest budget,
8) A policy for Grading of DM games from non-Game Fee events has been established and will be implemented for the 2003/4 Grading season.

Well you’ve heard what the Grading Team thinks and is doing– but what do you think? If you have any comments, questions, or feedback: please email me on cemajer@aol.com.

Chris Majer
30/6/3

Notes: The first survey was conducted amongst players via the BCF Website (238 responses) and also amongst Graders (7 responses by mail, 20 by email
out of approximately 100 graders).
The second survey was conducted amongst players at the British Championships and amongst purchasers of the Grading List (105 responses).