For some reason, I’m not on the corrected version. My ID is 12936134 and my expiration date is 4/06. What gives?
You didn’t play in anything rated for that supplement. Only the January and June are cumulative.
Thanks. So, what do you suggest I do when importing the latest supplement into WINTD? Should I put the June supplement into WINTD and update with the August? Thanks.
By the way, I did play in a rated tournament in July. Does this not count for the August supplement?
Depending on how current your WinTD files are, you should load the latest annual list (or more, if needed), then the June list, and finally the August list.
Alternatively, there is a new Gold Master file which includes the August supplement data. That is actually a more inclusive file, since it includes EVERY current or former USCF member we have in our computer records, not just the ones whose rating has changed in the months covered by the supplements used.
The August supplement was prepared on July 2nd and includes only games through the end of June. That’s consistent with past practice. Games played in July and August (and rated promptly) should make the October supplement, which will be prepared in early September.
There’s a motion on the Delegate agenda to change the practice for rating supplements to include all events that have been rated as of the date the supplement is prepared. Based on recent experience, that will generally be the first weekend of an odd-numbered month.
Under this motion, any events held in the current month (ie, July for the August supplement) that had been rated by the time the supplement is prepared would be included in the supplement. Under present procedures, those current-month events are excluded from the supplement. (There would only have been a handful of July events included in the August supplement, because it was cut off at 11PM on July 1st, so very few July events would have made the cutoff.)
The reason this motion is on the advance agenda is to let people know about the change so they can discuss any potential effects. It has less to do with the process of preparing the supplements than it does with the other uses made of supplements, for example eligiblity for certain competitions.
I haven’t been using the Gold Master files directly because the early ones appeared to include the provisional ratings for people with fewer than 4 games. Are they now marked as unrateds? It doesn’t look like the August one had how many games the provisional rating included, so I don’t have any easy way to check.
As I recall, the August list closed June 30.
It appears to me that players with 1-3 games are shown as unrated (the field is blank), and that provisional game counts are present for those with 4-25 games.
If you just look at the first few hundred records in the file, which is in ID order, most of those players have established ratings. Some of them have provisional quick ratings.
I’m a bit confused. If this motion has been passed, will the October supplement be based on events rated no later than Sept 4 (1st weekend of odd-numbered month), or will it include all events rated in September?
And what’s the current status of this motion?
Thanks,
Zug
The answer to the first part of your question is that, since the printed supplement has to be in the hands of TDs by October 1, it can’t possibly include all events rated in September.
As to the second part, this motion never made much sense to me (you don’t need a Delegate motion for a change in office procedures), but to the extent I understand it, all it means is that the October supplement would not be cut off on August 31. If additional events have been received and rated before the supplement is produced (possible now with on-line submissions), they will be included in the list.
The run for the October Supplement will begin at around 11PM on Friday, September 2nd.
The motion on the advance agenda regarding the supplements was approved by the Delegates.
The effective date of that motion is for the December annual list, so unless it is decided to implement that motion early any September events that are rated by 11PM on the 2nd will not be included in the October supplement.
Incidentally, the reasons for making this a Delegate motion were because there were some who felt the Delegates had set that policy in the first place, but also because there are a number of uses of the supplements beyond deciding what ratings to use in tournaments for the next two months.
A number of invitational events (mostly scholastic) use peak published rating to decide who gets invited. Thus, a change to the cutoff policy could affect who gets invited and I felt it was only fair to give the Delegates an opportunity to discuss the policy before changing it.
While the last several supplement cutoffs have been very early in the month, future efficiency enhancements to the rerating process may enable the USCF to push that cutoff to later in the month.
Had that been possible for the October cutoff, it may well have included a number of Labor Day weekend events. That’s a big weekend in many states. Including some of those events in the October supplement could have an impact.