Assigning ratings to unrated scholastic players

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Here in the Phoenix area we have a fairly large chess organization that teaches chess to kids in the elementary schools. Also, their many, regular scholastic weekend tournaments during the school year on Saturdays are not rated with the USCF. Instead, this independent organization has its own rating system and rates all of its students independently from the USCF rating system.

When these players come and play in USCF rated tournaments, I may ask the students or their parents if they have a rating with this organization. Based on this information that I gather from the parents and their elementary school kids and from looking up their most recent rating on this organization’s web site from playing in these non-USCF tournaments, I use this rating and assign it for Swiss pairing purposes. Also, by assigning a rating it makes them eligible for class prizes.

A fair number of these players may have not played in any USCF event previously, but they may have participated regularly in their monthly Saturday non-USCF rated events during the school year. These scholastic players would be considered having “established” ratings, if these events were USCF rated. Also, more commonly might be the case that they may have played in some earlier USCF events and only have a provisional rating or even an established USCF rating.

In addition, there are quite a few of these students that might play only once or twice a year in USCF tournaments such as in the Arizona State Grades Championship, but might remain quite active during the school year while participating in their own scholastic program of playing regularly in their organization’s non-USCF tourneys. These students might be improving dramatically during the course of a year. Thus, their true strength, which might not be reflected in their USCF rating since last year’s state grades, might have increased dramatically. This true strength is being tracked and maintained independently by their independent rating system.

I believe assigning ratings for Swiss pairing purposes to these unrated USCF players is more equitable. These assigned ratings truly reflect their strength from recent play. It is far worse to allow these players to be paired as unrated players. In fact, after their first USCF tourney some of these kids might have a provisional rating in the 1400-1500 range. This indicates that their program is working quite successfully and effectively in teaching chess to the elementary schools kids!

In addition, we have a second non-USCF scholastic organization in the high schools in Arizona. This is a non-profit organization. It is directly in alliance with the high schools in Arizona. This is the Arizona Interscholastic Association (AIA). Generally, each high school fields a team and has a high school teacher that is assigned to coach and chauffeur the students to AIA events. These teams play against teams from other high schools within the state all within the AIA. The students in this organization are required to maintain their “amateur status” by not receiving significant cash prizes, similar to an amateur athlete that cannot accept cash or other forms of payment during his high school career.

The AIA maintains its own independent rating system, too. It uses these independent ratings in their Swiss style tournaments when high school teams and individuals compete against other AIA players in AIA events.

The same logic or rationale applies to this organization as to the former organization. A rating is assigned for Swiss pairing purposes based on their AIA rating. If these AIA players have never played in an USCF event before, but have an AIA rating only, then their AIA rating should be used for Swiss pairing purposes, instead of considering these players as NEW. On the bottom of page 114 and the top of page 115, the USCF rulebook defines NEW as follows:

28D6. No information on player available. There are players with no known results, ratings, or categories of any kind.
These players are unrated and should be indicated by NEW on the pairing and wall chart.

Instead of considering them as NEW, rule 28D5 allows me to make an assignment:

28D5. Assignments based on nonrated activity. Players lacking known results in USCF-rated tournaments and believed to have no foreign ratings or categories, but whose strength may reasonably be approximated from other play, such as nonrated club activity, tournaments, or speed games.

I, then, notify them that I am assigning a rating as per rule 28E3 on the top of page 116:

28E3. Notification. The director should notify a player assigned a rating, in advance of the tournament if possible, so the player will have this information when deciding whether or not to enter. However, such notification is not always possible, since the cause for assignment may not be evident to the director until the late-registration period, or even during the tournament.

Also, to improve on this process, I am considering going to a new form this year that these players will fill out. It will be a standard form for these scholastic players to fill out during registration that specifically asks them about any of their non-USCF ratings such as with the AIA or with any other third parties as I mentioned initially above. Originally, this was not much of an issue years ago, but as interest in scholastic chess continues to grow, I believe that this has become more of a perennial issue within our Arizona chess community.

I would surmise that the original intent or focus of this section in the rulebook was to handle the assigning of ratings to foreign players who were playing in their very early USCF tournaments before they have an established rating with the USCF. Nowadays the same logic and rationale now apply to these scholastic players that are mostly playing outside of the USCF, except for when they play in their annual events like the state championship tournaments. This is especially true with these younger elementary school kids.
It appears that the USCF decided on implementing these rules in this section because it was far more equitable and more just to assign a rating to these foreign players who are often times very experienced tournament players than to just let them play as NEW USCF players in their first tournament.

The rulebook doesn’t specifically mention anything about experienced scholastic players who have already played domestically for several years in an independent non-USCF organization. There is a correspondence or similarity between these special scholastic players and foreign players in the sense that they might both be very experienced tournament players who have played for years before joining the USCF and playing in USCF tournaments.

Just as with foreign players, it seems a lot fairer and just to assign ratings to these players from these organizations that are “foreign” only in the sense that they have their own rating system. These players from these independent organizations have players that are just as highly skilled and experienced chess players as regular USCF scholastic players, so it makes no sense to treat them as NEW when they play in their very first USCF tournament.

Quite a number of these scholastic players play in Swiss tournaments mainly within their own organization that are not USCF-rated, so there may be a long period of USCF inactivity between tournaments. Thus, since their independent ratings are available it makes more sense to assign a rating to these players that may be under-rated in regard to the USCF. With significant lapses between USCF activities, their rating through these independent organizations is a convenient way to assess their true strength and assign a rating that reflects their true strength for Swiss pairing purposes.

Here is a rule on page 114 in the USCF rulebook regarding nonrated activity designed for foreign players:

28D5. Assignments based on nonrated activity. Players lacking known results in USCF-rated tournaments and believed to have no foreign ratings or categories, but whose strength may reasonably be approximated from other play, such as nonrated club activity, tournaments, or speed games.

Since pretty much the same rationale or logic applies to these non-USCF scholastic players as to foreign players, the above rule could be used as a model or template that can be extended for a new rule for scholastic players from these independent non-USCF organizations:

28D8. Assignments for scholastic players based on non-USCF rated activity.

a. Scholastic players lacking known results in USCF-rated tournaments and believed to have no USCF ratings or categories, but whose strength may reasonably be approximated from other play, such as rated activity in non-USCF tournaments with a standard rating system should be assigned a rating for Swiss pairing purposes based on their non-USCF rating.

b. Scholastic players who have a USCF rating and may have had a recent lapse in USCF activity, but who have demonstrated superior strength, such as rated activity in non-USCF tournaments with a standard rating system should be assigned a rating for Swiss pairing purposes based on their non-USCF rating.

Also, there is the issue with NEW or unrated players from independent organizations being ineligible for class prizes. I believe they should become eligible for class prizes through assignment, too, based on their non-USCF play. I believe that this would be much friendlier to the scholastic player and parents. We in the USCF should try to be more inclusive and bring more scholastic players into the fold whenever possible. Without assignment, they would be considered NEW or unrated and ineligible for class prizes. Discriminating against these scholastic players unnecessarily is not very friendly. It is better to award prizes based on their assigned ratings. Here is rule 28D that describes players without USCF ratings and refers to section 28E for assignment:

28D. Players without USCF ratings. Players without official USCF ratings are eligible only for place (or top non-class) prizes and prizes for unrated players unless alternate procedures are used to assign ratings (28E).

Again, it seems wrong to consider these players as NEW and group them together with the truly inexperienced unrated players that are playing in their very first tournament ever! The former are considered unrated by the virtue of never playing in a USCF event and the later are by the virtue of never playing in any tournament. Doing these assignments seems like the best solution to this issue with the scholastic players who play mainly in non-USCF rated events.

Plus, with the larger sections as in the Arizona state championship tournaments, tie-breakers often play a decisive role in determining the order of awarding non-divisible prizes, such as trophies, medallions or certificates for the place prizes. It is much more equitable and just to calculate tie-breakers based on the assigned ratings than to consider these players as NEW. The same rationale applies for the under-rated players who have had a long lapse in USCF activity due to only playing in their independent scholastic organization. Using their most recent rating from an independent non-USCF play reflects their current, true strength much more accurately and is a much more rational method of deciding who wins the trophies on tie-breakers. This assigned rating makes these scholastic players eligible for any class prizes, too.

Also, there is the problem with the under-rated players in doing the pairings. They may have played in an earlier USCF rated event a year ago, but then for the majority of the year they only play in their independent organization’s events. Thus, their rating may have improved remarkably over a period of one year, but may not be reflected at all in their USCF rating. Since they are playing in non-USCF events with an independent rating system, their strength is being monitored and measured with this rating. Thus, it is easy to use this rating for Swiss pairing and prize purposes.

An assignment of their current rating from these independent rating systems is a good solution for the under-rated players, as well. Under-rated players often have a substantial impact on tie-breakers and alter the pairings substantially in the early rounds, such as is the case for unrated players .

Let’s take the hypothetical example of an under-rated player who is paired up and wins in his/her first two rounds. If this same player were assigned a rating that reflects his true strength, that would be much better. Let’s say that he is assigned a rating of 1650, based on his very recent, independent play with a non-USCF organization (instead of his most recent, but out of date USCF rating from last year’s annual state championship tournament of 1077).

Now, with his assigned rating and being highly rated enough, he might actually be paired down in the first two rounds. Let’s say that he still wins his first two games. The benefit is that he is being appropriately paired with players in the bottom half of the section. Later on, if he continues winning, he would most likely meet some of those same top-half opponents in the latter rounds that he would be, if he were paired down using his out of date, year-old USCF rating of 1077. Using his assigned rating is a better reflection of his true strength when he both wins and loses. As a result, his opponent’s tie-breakers will become better based on these assigned ratings. Thus, the tie-breakers will be more accurate.

CONCLUSION

It is important and beneficial for all the players involved in a tournament that all the ratings used for doing the Swiss pairings accurately reflect their true strengths, especially for players that might otherwise be considered unrated:

  1. Assigning ratings for these special scholastic players, who otherwise might be unrated players, is a solution that works very well.
  2. Assigning ratings works better for the scholastic players with a recent significant lapse in USCF activity because they played almost entirely outside of the USCF in their independent organizations.
  3. Assigning ratings works much better for indivisible place prizes that are decided by tie-breakers, as well as for eligibility for class prizes.
  4. Without assigned ratings, these same players might be considered NEW or unrated. It would be much fairer to assign a rating based on their independent play.
  5. Without assigned ratings, these under-rated players (who have had a significant lapse in their USCF activity prior to playing in a USCF tournament), do not accurately reflect their current, true strength. Consequently, they may have a significant and sometimes substantial impact on tie-breakers for both indivisible place prizes, and for class prizes. It would be much fairer to assign a higher rating based on their independent play that reflects their current strength.

I would suggest that we implement a new rule such as the one above rule to help clarify any issues with unrated or under-rated scholastic players from these independent organizations. This will be beneficial to both the regular USCF scholastic players and to these special scholastic players from these independent organizations.

Best regards,
Rick Smouse
12529202
(480) 390-9528
rick_smouse@yahoo.com

2

It was a long post so I may have missed something. Why is a new rule needed when the current rules already allow the action you want allowed?

One disadvantage of a new rule is that it might remove flexibility from the TD. As an example, there was an IHSA tournament where players had IHSA ratings in the 1400s and 1500s that were based on very few (maybe one or two) wins against roughtly 1000 rated players. Their actual strength was around 1000 (40-50% chance of beating another 1000) and if that was their old USCF rating then it was more accurate than their rating based on a relatively small number of IHSA games.

3

Thanks! Yes, I agree with your thoughts about IHSA ratings. Normally, provisional ratings are often times not a very good predictor of a chess player’s strength, whether or not they are USCF or IHSA ratings.

For example, if a NEW USCF player wins all their games in their very first tournament. The rationale is that we do not really know how strong that player is, either, so the idea is to estimate his/her rating by using the rating of the highest rated opponent plus 400. Let’s say this is a a 6 year old playing in his first USCF scholastic tournament. Let’s say that this is a list of his/her four opponent’s ratings:

235
578
1009
789

I ran the USCF rating estimator and his/her initial provisional rating comes in at 1409, based on the idea that he/she might be 400 points better than his/her highest rated opponent. I have serious doubts that this is a very accurate rating, either, very similar to the IHSA rating that you described. In my example, I would guess that there is very good probability that his/her established rating might come in around 1100 instead of 1400+. He/she might have just got lucky with that one player that had a rating of 1009. Of course, we really do not know until we have more data points on his/her rating graph to plot.

I am not familiar with IHSA tournaments or IHSA ratings.
Where would I go on the Internet to research them more?
Are they an independent chess organization in your vicinity?

Rick Smouse
12529202
(480) 390-9528
rick_smouse@yahoo.com

4

I, too, didn’t see that his proposed new rule would add any flexibility that isn’t already there. Rule 28D1 is pretty open-ended about what non-USCF ratings can be used to assign ratings. The only requirement is that there be some reliable way of relating the ratings to USCF ratings. And if a reliable conversion algorithm doesn’t exist, such rating assignments could be unfair, particularly for class prizes.

Bob

5

I should have said ICCA ratings for the IHSA. ICCA is the IL Chess Coaches Association. IHSA is the IL High School Association. The IHSA rules are enough at cross-purposes with the USCF having HS matches or tournaments USCF rated (primarily the IHSA rule stating that a player cannot be required to be a member of some other organization as a pre-requisite to representing the players school [violating that could result in schools being ineligible for HS conference and post-season play, players being ineligible to represent the school in any sport/activity, and/or coaches being reprimanded/fired] and the USCF rule requiring the players to be USCF members to have the games USCF-rated), so the ICCA came up with an alternative rating system that is initially seeded from USCF ratings for new players. The initial variation can be fairly high for essentially provisional ratings. My son was paired against a stronger player in his first HS match and won, and because his name was mis-spelled he ended up getting a brand spanking new ICCA rating 700 points higher than his (fairly accurate) USCF rating. I’m involved enough that I found that quickly and had it corrected, but others would not have even noticed the issue.

Here is the page with ratings (well it will be once it is updated - timely updates are an issue with many alternative rating systems)
theicca.wikispaces.com/05±+ICCA+Ratings

Here is the page with a WinTD player master file that can be used to import information
theicca.wikispaces.com/ICCA+TD+Files

The Chicago Industrial Chess League runs its own rating system and players are generally seeded from the higher of USCF, FIDE or (once clubs became eligible for it) ICCA.
chicagochessleague.org/gener … Report.pdf

6

Thanks very much, Bob! I had read over those rules earlier and may have glossed over the fact that 28D1 offers that greater flexibility. Here is rule 28D1, that Bob is referencing from the USCF rulebook. I have underlined the words that I believe Bob is referring to that offer this greater versatility:

  [b]28D. Players without USCF ratings. [/b]Players without official USCF ratings are eligible only for place (or top non-class) prizes and prizes for unrated players unless alternate procedures are used to assign ratings (28E), such as the following recommendations:
  [b]28D1. Non-USCF ratings verified.[/b] [u]Players who are known to have ratings[/u] or categories of other types, such as foreign, FIDE, [u]regional[/u], or USCF Quick (or if a Quick tournament, USCF regular), which can be verified.
   [u]It is recommended that such players not be considered unrated and that their ratings be used, adjusted if necessary to be consistent with the USCF rating scale. If a player has more than one non-USCF rating, the highest rating should be used.

[/u]

These ratings from this third party, which I normally use for assignment in my own tournaments that I run, are considered very reliable and based on the ELO rating scale (please see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system for more details) instead of the Glicko rating scale, such as the USCF ratings are based on.

Since I do not normally manage or direct our state championship tournaments here in Arizona, I would wish that these scholastic players from these third-party, independent organizations would not be considered as NEW or unrated when playing in what might be their very first USCF tournament, for example. They often times might have what would be considered very established ratings, if they had been playing in USCF-rated tournaments, but since it might be their very first time, for example, when playing in the annual Arizona State Grades tournament, this above rule, 28D1, is being largely ignored and they are normally being registered or entered in as NEW. Just as I was unaware of this particular passage in rule 28D1, it might be easy to explain why this particular rule is not being utilized. I originally may have thought that this rule only applied to foreign players and not to domestic players.

If you were the tournament director, would you enter them in as NEW or with an assigned rating,
as per rule 28D1? That is the question.

I agree that sometimes it might be hard to verify these non-USCF ratings, especially in the time span between registration and the start of round 1. Also, earlier I suggested a partial solution to this – They should fill out a registration form, which could be either written or online. In this form, it would ask the registrants whether they have a rating with this very well known third-party chess organization that teaches chess in the elementary schools in the Phoenix area, as well as running quite a number of non-USCF weekend tournaments. I would imagine that normally most all of the scholastic players register well in advance (a week or more) to avoid late fees, so for those players there would be much more time to verify their ratings.

Also, in the case that a rating is hard to verify, section 28H allows a tournament director the greater flexibility to revise ratings after a tournament has begun, if new information comes forward after round 1 starts:

28H. Revising ratings after tournament begins. The director for reasonable cause may revise the rating of any player at any time. If this results in a player being ineligible for the section he or she is playing in, the following procedures, 28H1-28H3, shall apply:

28H1. Removal. The player shall be removed from that section.

28H2. Reassignment. The director may offer the player the opportunity to continue in the tournament in an appropriate section, with half-point byes for games missed.
28H3. Entry fee refund.
a. If erroneous rating assignment is due to false, misleading or incomplete information provided by the player, including failure of the player to disclose a rating, the director is not required to refund the entry fee.
b. If the erroneous rating assignment is primarily a mistake by the director or tournament staff, the entry fee should be refunded. If the player is given the option of continuing in a higher section, it is still appropriate to refund all or part of the fee if the player has missed sufficient rounds to substantially reduce prize chances.

Best regards,
Rick Smouse
12529202
(480) 390-9528
rick_smouse@yahoo.com

7

I guess I don’t understand the use of NEW above. I only use NEW on wallcharts for players who have no USCF ID. The rating field is completely different.

Alex Relyea

8

Here is what the USCF rulebooks says about NEW in rule 28D6 on the bottom of page 114 and the top of page 115:

I am using it with this same meaning, a USCF player who has no known results or rating in USCF events. This was mentioned earlier in my first post, too. A player who has played in some earlier tournaments before any official rating comes out might be considered as unrated, too, but I usually assign a rating based on their latest Tournament History rating, so that they do not have to play as an unrated player.

Best regards,
Rick Smouse
12529202
(480) 390-9528
rick_smouse@yahoo.com

9

I took a look at the Win TD player master file for the top twelve players (that matched) from the list made available on September 17th by the ICCA president. The ratings look like they might correlate fairly closely with the USCF ratings.

Do you know what kind of rating system they are using?
Is it based on the older ELO scale or is it based on the more modern Glicko scale?

Here’s how their ICCA ratings compare with their corresponding ratings from the official September USCF rating list and their very latest ratings from their USCF Tournament History:

USCF ID ICCA USCF Sep. diff USCF Tournament History
no match 3222
1 12911424 2251 2062 189 2062
2 12887417 2193 2253 -60 2263
3 14557413 1940 2004 -64 2003
4 12921328 1932 1963 -31 1940
5 13365286 1914 1915 -1 1966
6 12852443 1890 1847 43 1847
7 13466120 1883 1771 112 1840
8 13477423 1869 1917 -48 1917
9 12921328 1756 1963 -207 1940
10 12907141 1745 1623 122 1623
11 14196175 1743 1871 -128 1871
12 14474822 1733 1774 -41 1790

I don’t see anything unusual in just this small sample of data, except just the normal variations most likely based on recently activity in an ICCA tournament or a USCF tournament.

Since all of these players have both ICCA ratings and USCF ratings, then none of them are NEW USCF members, so the idea of assigning ratings because they are NEW players would certainly not be an issue in this case.

The situation that I am describing in Arizona occurs most often with the younger K-3 elementary students who might be playing in their very first USCF tournament and might be considered NEW. In this case, one of the scholastic players might well have played for several years as part of their independent non-USCF organization and then he (with his parent’s urging) might decide to participate in the Arizona State Grades Championship for his very first USCF tournament.

Instead of marking him as NEW on the wall chart or standings, it seems much better to assign a rating based on his non-USCF activity using Bob McAdams suggestion of using rule 28D1.

Also, some of the parents or coaches might come up to you and urge that this kid should be assigned a rating prior to round 1 at the tournament site, or possibly maybe even earlier via email if they have noticed during the online registration that he is in the list of players in this K-3 section. They may personally know him and be able to verify that he is definitely from this organization that teaches chess in the schools in the Phoenix area.

In fact, it is possible in the email that they have provided you with his current non-USCF rating.

In this case, you might have to make a ruling on whether or not to go with this non-USCF rating.

10

Hold more rated beginners’ opens in your area. Your unrated players can get provisional ratings based on their performance against other less-experienced players, and you can use these provisional ratings in your scholastic events rather than have to make numbers up.

11

Hi Keith,

I appreciate your comments. That is a great idea! I am very much a dedicated USCF fan, too!

Actually, I already direct weekly USCF tournaments on Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. I was running weekly events on Mondays and Tuesdays, earlier, as well, but that proved to be too much. I literally run over 100 USCF events every year. It might be hard to fit any more scholastic events into my current schedule, unless I stop doing some of my current weekly events. I have already done about 165 events so far this year. I’ll probably go over 200 events by year’s end.

Also, I am a very active USCF player, too. I usually participate in over 100 USCF tournaments per year.

Actually, I have noticed from the posts to this topic so far, that there is some degree of skepticism in using these ratings from a third-party that are not USCF ratings. I would imagine that there is this natural tendency to assume that they are either unreliable or less accurate, but I have found often times that this is not true.

For example, often times these people that are maintaining their separate rating systems are vey serious about chess. I would describe them as very professional people. I have found that they are often times highly credentialed and educated professionals, such as software engineers, professors, or school teachers.

So far we have only talked about non-USCF organizations that maintain their separate rating systems in Illinois and Arizona. I would imagine that there are numerous chess organizations, large and small across the United States that maintain their own rating systems.

A prime example of another independent chess organization that maintains their own scholastic chess ratings is Northwest Chess. They maintain ratings for scholastic players in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. Here is a link to their web site:

nwchess.com/scholastic/index.htm

These people are very much chess professionals. Their ratings are just as reliable as the USCF ratings. They are carefully maintained by chess professionals. I believe that it is hard to say that their ratings aren’t any more reliable and any more accurate than our USCF ratings.

Yes, it is true that they have separate ratings from the USCF, but I don’t believe we should have this natural tendency to assume that they are less accurate just because they are not USCF ratings. Yes, their ratings are very transparent and readily accessible from the Internet. They simply do a very professional job!

Rick Smouse
12529202
(480) 390-9528
rick_smouse@yahoo.com

12

I don’t think there is any doubt that using ratings from other systems is not just OK but encouraged as long as the other system is reliable.

The issues with reliablity may not be readily apparant. Ratings within a closed, small pool of players will not be as reliable as those drawn from a larger pool. One also needs to consider the method being used to compute the rating. For both a single player and across the group as a whole, ratings figured from a small number of games are less reliable than those from a larger number.

But even if the other rating system may lack somewhat in reliabilty one might still consider using the strength information that it provides for tournament administration. One might not take the other rating straight up, but one could certainly adjust from it.

For example if the player is rated 800 USCF and 1595 other, and one was less certain about the quality of the other rating, then one might use 1400 for pairing and keep the player out of the U1400 section of the tournament.

But be prepared for some serious explaining about the adjustments you are making and do not spring those on the player at the last minute. Give them as much notice as possible as they may not want to play under that rating.

13

Hi Allen,

I appreciate your comments!

To me, assigning a rating is a much better idea than letting someone play as an unrated player, otherwise. For example, two weeks ago I signed up a new Romanian gentleman with the USCF. He played in his very first USCF tournament on Sunday on 9/2. We asked him if he had a rating in Romania. He said that he just had a rating at the club level, but not with the national federation. To be sure, I checked the Romanian Chess Federation web site. I could not verify that he had any rating. I assigned a rating of 1700 for Swiss pairing purposes:

main.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?201209023622

Actually, his true strength might actually be higher than 1700, based on his performance in his first two tournaments. In this first tournament of four games, he came in with a provisional rating of 2136. In his second tournament of four games, he lost 112 points and has a provisional rating of 2024.

In my opinion, this was much better than marking him as NEW on the wallchart and standings and then let him play as an unrated player. Also, this was a simpler example, in which I did not have to do any calculation to convert his foreign rating to a comparable USCF rating.

I agree. With ratings there will always be issues with reliability or accuracy of true strength, especially as you say when you have less data, such as with provisional ratings. Also, it is good to have a healthy skepticism in regard to a rating from perhaps a questionable source. However, instead of letting him play as a NEW player, as if he has “no known results, ratings, or categories of any kind”, even an estimated rating is better than no rating at all.

I agree. Let’s say that the 800 USCF rating is earlier and the 1595 rating from an independent source is later, then there is a good chance that he might be closer to the higher rating, so 1400 seems like a reasonable compromise. Similarly, in my example above, the 1700 rating was probably a “low” estimate of his true strength. He might actually come in around 1800 once he plays his first 25 games and has an established rating.

Agreed. I always try to follow process in my tournaments as per rule 28E3. Please refer to my previous post for the actual text of rule 28E3. This an important step in the process that should not be left undone. I know what you mean about doing some “serious explaining”. I have had to do some “serious explaining” on a couple of occasions, especially with the parents of scholastic players. Sometimes they will push for a higher rating when I want to try to assign a lower rating. I try to tell them that it is better to have a rating that is representative of their son or daughter’s true strength instead of a rating that is too high.

14 
I've seen no mention of the impact that the rating used has on the rating of that player's opponent when the event is rated. With small Open and Reserve section turnouts , we have scholastic and new players with a provisional rating being used which might be in the low 3 digits or for adults based on their age in 4 digits. If they play enough events then their rating may become reliable, but what does this do to their opponent? Has the Rating Committee studied this problem?
15

Well a rating assigned at the tournament level has no impact at all since the player’s actual USCF rating is used in the ratings system. But the player with the provisional or no rating at all has a much higher K used in the post tournament ratings calculation than the player with lots of games played. So the newer player’s rating will be adjusted much more than the established player.