Agreed. This is one good reason why Basque games should not be rate-able.
Agreed. This is another reason why Basque games should not be rate-able.
Disagree. The word ‘compelled’ permits too broad a range of activities to be claimed here as the test or criterion for determining rate-ability.
For example, the ‘compelled’ criterion would permit those “chess boxing” games to be rated, which would be absurd.
Agreed. And sensible.
Excellent point!
Agreed. Valid analogy, good point.
The law of chess do not bother to say things like the following because common sense knows that writing such extra provisions is an unnecessary and potentially endless task:
A rated game cannot be played outside in the pouring rain.
A rated game cannot <Insert another far out circumstance or duty here.>.
A rated game cannot compel the players to maintain additional mental or physical burdens that are not germane to the present game.
The written laws of chess cannot cover all circumstances that twists of fate or human imagination can conjure.
.
I disagree. In Mr. Kosterman’s hypothetical, the higher-rated player is extraordinarily unlikely to permit such a result, for several reasons. First, the player will likely recognize such an attempt early in the game, and steer play accordingly. Second, even if the player does allow “copycat” moves for a while, the odds are virtually zero that he would play a blunder upon which he had just capitalized on the other board. Third, if the higher rated player does indeed walk into this strategy, well, he gets what he deserves by splitting the two games.
Again, I disagree. We already allow people to play multiple rated games in multiple events simultaneously, regardless of time control or venue.
We also have allowed people to play multiple rated games in the same section of the same event simultaneously. Back in the days of adjournment sessions, some players with two or three adjourned games stacked up would play them out simultaneously, to avoid having multiple adjournment sessions. In that scenario, the conditions changed during the game - but it was still permitted.
There is no prohibition against rating a simul, so long as USCF rules are enforced.
No, it’s not. The games would be played - and rated - under the same time control.
It would not be unreasonable to require such an event be held at a time control that was regular-rated only. However, if someone wanted to have a G/30 (or faster!) Basque tournament right now, they could.
If players can agree to play a thematic event, with any opening they choose, then why can they not play two rated games at once from the starting position in Rule 3C? Oh, wait…they already can.
I must again disagree. Simuls have already been rated, as Mike Nolan and others demonstrated repeatedly in this thread.
If someone wants to put in rules against rated simuls, get an ADM up for the next Delegates Meeting. (Spoiler alert: at this meeting, when said ADM is brought to the floor, I will plant myself at the “opposed” microphone and trot out a lengthy list of established precedents to illustrate why the ADM is a bad idea.)
I presume you are right in your claims regarding how the USCF rules have been officially interpreted or implemented.
I posted about what my sensibilities feel should be the proper way to handle these gray areas.
I believe it is a distortion of the Elo rating to give equal credit to a class player who draws the master who is giving the simul, as is given to the class player who draws the master in a regular 1-on-1 game.
I do not doubt that USCF rules have tolerated such distortions. Some distortions are okay, but others go too far, IMHO.
.
What really matters on the subject of ratability is whether the performance of players in a Basque system tournament is roughly equivalent to the performance in a regular tournament. The purpose of ratings is to predict outcomes of Chess games. Are there people whose Basque system performance is much better or much worse than regular Chess? If so, then using their performance in a Basque system game to predict their regular Chess performance wouldn’t be valid.
I did submit the question via “contact USCF”, but haven’t gotten any feedback. Neither an answer nor an acknowledgment that the question was received. I think someone who knows someone on the rules committee personally would have to ask them. Of course, another way to do it would be to hold a Basque tournament, submit it for rating, and see what happens.
In this thread I read there’s nothing in the rulebook that prohibits rating two games played simultaneously, so these games can be rated. I’m with you to that point.
If they were playing a single game at a time, this would be dual-rated. However, since they are each playing two G/45’s simultaneously, the time available, in effect, is G/22.5;d5, which should be quick-rated only, and therefore scorekeeping is not required. Or am I over-thinking this?
Again, let me repeat: What a player does with the time on his clock is (mostly) his own business, subject to certain limitations. (A player may not leave the playing area for more than 15 minutes without permission from a director (rule 20H). A player may not abandon a clearly lost position and leave his clock running (rule 20H1).)
Suppose a player finds himself with an easily won (or an absolutely dead lost) position in one of the games. The player then spends most of his time on the other game, giving just enough time to the first game to make quick moves. Would you consider that player to have overstepped the time limit if he spends more than 22.5 minutes on the complicated game?
As one who played two games simultaneously in my young and foolish days, I agree with Ken. In addition, the logic is splitting the time and calling it quick rated ignores that some of my thinking time in game a occurs while my game b opponents is on move. So even on the surface that logic is flawed.
Just imagine the logistics running a Basque tournament would require. For a forty player tournament, instead of needing 10 tables, you would need 20. From 20 boards you go up to 40 boards. More clocks, scoresheets. If more show up, you may run out of space and tables. Your rating costs go up. As an organizer, why would you want to do such an indeterminate event? As a player, who needs the stress and aggravation, especially if it is a short time control? If the organizer isn’t providing equipment, who wants to lug all of the sets, boards, and clocks around that they will need to use?
I don’t understand. At my tournaments most players already bring a set, board, and clock. If you have equipment and your opponent has equipment, isn’t that enough to play two games at once?
Perhaps, but in a regular tournament, if somebody doesn’t bring equipment, his opponent probably will, or somebody else will whose opponent has also furnished equipment.
As long as half the players bring equipment, there is enough.
But, with everybody playing two games, for each player who fails to bring equipment, there must be another who brings two, to make up for it. How likely is it that anybody will bring two boards, two sets, and two clocks?
Many higher rated players bring no equipment to tournaments. Sometimes not even a pen. They are too good to be encumbered by such tournament necessities.
The theory behind the rating system is that the games should have equal conditions for both players so the rating system is an accurate predictor. Now comes the debate if this is true when playing two games simultaneously. Not sure how I feel about this. Another consideration is how the simultaneous play affects the time control. Yes you have an hour in each game for a G60 control but balancing the times in both games gets interesting. I probably would not argue strenuously against rating it, but as it seems to be more fun rather then serious chess, I would prefer it not be rated. FYI, I have had players in a normal event want to enter 2 sections or schedules. I have refused this mostly on the basis that the other players have entered with the expectation of playing a serious game of chess. I would feel slighted and disrespected if my opponent was playing both me and another player simultaneously. Obviously this does not apply to the Basque system.
When I played two rated games at once in my youth, I was dead serious. I was still playing for the same prizes as everyone else. And only once did I fail to win a prize in at least one of the two events. To say my games should not have been rated is absurd. The tournament as a whole is ratable; the player who decides to play multiple games should get punished by the opponents, if they can, but not my not having the games rated.
