I recently read about a tournament over in San Sebastian, Spain that consisted of players playing two games simultaneously with their opponents (one as White, one as Black) over a standard time control to start (it was a knock-out event).
While this event was not rated as far as I can see, this seems like an interesting concept, particularly at the club level, where the Swiss System could be used to pair such an event over the course of a few weeeks at one “double round” per night.
My question is, if both games were played at a ratable time control, and if all entrants understood that the event was ratable prior to entering the tournament, could such a tournament be USCF-rated per USCF rules?
I’m pretty sure the answer to your question is “yes”. What you’re describing is commonly known here as a double-round Swiss. USCF already rates double-round Swiss events (though I’ve never seen one at anything slower than G/10).
They’re easy enough to set up with a pairing program. In SwissSys, you just have to make sure the section(s) of your events is/are set up as double-round Swisses. I imagine WinTD has the same capacity, but I’ve never tried to run one with that software. Even if you don’t have a pairing program, you can still submit it - when you fill out the crosstable, just be sure to report each game as a separate round.
Does the fact that both games in the “double swiss” are being played at the same time against the same opponent change anything in terms of the ratability of a Basque System event?
Let’s hope so.
A few decades ago somebody at the USCF office (I think it was Martin Morrison, acting as ED) wrote a disapproving letter to somebody who wanted to play in two sections of a CCA tournament. But Morrison didn’t really have standing to make such a policy, and his disapproval seems to have faded away over the years.
In more recent years, I was the TD for several Wednesday night quick-rated tournaments at a small club (now defunct) on Lunt Avenue. Frequently, we would get 5 players for a 4-round tournament. Rather than making it a 5-rounder, with everybody getting one bye sometime during the event, or keeping it as a 4-rounder, with all but one of the players receiving a bye at some point, I would ask everybody if they’d all be willing to play two games simultaneously.
This would make it a 2-round double-round event. In the first double round, the pairings might be:
A-B
B-C
C-D
D-E
E-A
– and in the second double round:
C-A
A-D
D-B
B-E
E-C
We would also double the time control (from G/15 to G/29), since everybody would be getting twice as much done in the same time.
After hearing the above explanation, everybody always agreed.
The table set-up was interesting. We’d arrange five 6-foot-by-30-inch tables (you could also use 30-inch square tables) into a five-pointed starfish pattern, with the tables touching corner to corner, the short edges forming a 30-inch regular pentagon in the center. Each player would sit in one of the V’s formed by the long edges of two of the tables, playing white against the opponent on his left, black against the one on his right. All clocks would face toward the center hole.
The thing about simultaneous games is fairness.
In the case of the above arrangement, as well as that Spain tournament you describe, all players would be playing two games at once, so no problem.
In the case of a single player, at his request, playing two games at once in a “normal” tournament, the player is bringing a disadvantage upon himself, so that really shouldn’t be a problem either (though, who knows, some rating-system purists might object). But you still might want to get permission from both potential opponents, in case one or both might feel uncomfortable (translation: afraid they might lose) with an opponent who is also playing another game.
The above scenario could happen if a player wants to play in two sections at once. It could also happen in round 2 of a single-section event, if a late-registering player wants to play all his games rather than taking a first-round half-point bye.
Bill Smythe
I wouldn’t think so. I have seen players in a multi-section tournament play two different games simultaneously, sometimes having to even shuttle between rooms. The USCF rated these events. I don’t see why there would be a problem with rating two simultaneous games played right next to one another.
One thing to watch out for is a strong player essentially playing himself as the weaker player mirrors his moves.
This is true - but if the strong player doesn’t recognize this fairly early in the game, I think he gets what he deserves. 
Very interesting! Wish I had heard about this when I was running a chess club.
I am sure my members would have liked it.
Well, I guess you could stretch 20B to say that one board is now recorded material that shouldn’t be used for the other board (or define the first board as a third party for 20E), though that may run into problems with two player who normally open e4 and normally play the Winawer French (as one example) from either side (both boards being the same could be quite legitimate).
20A would probably be a better rule to cite, though be a bit cautious in using it (such as in the aforementioned Winawer French possibility).