I had to manually reenter an entire tournament into SwissSys, and in doing so I had inadvertantly put in the score of one game as a draw rather than a win. I submitted the tourny and it’s been rated, now one of the players claims he won the game (I’m waiting for his opponent to verify, but I remember the game and am pretty sure his claim is correct).
So can I ask the USCF to change the socre of one game, or do I have to resubmit the entire tournament?
Here’s the notice that’s been posted on the MSA home page for several weeks regarding corrections to rated events.
Until we get the online rated event editing program ready (there are some security issues holding it up as well as a long list of other high priority tasks), TDs can send corrections to Walter Brown, wbrown@uschess.org.
Walter will need the same information listed in the checklist below.
Corrections to rated events
One of the things the new USCF ratings programming has been designed to facilitate is making corrections to events after they have been rated.
Note: The USCF only accepts corrections from the Tournament Director for the event, as the TD is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the rating report. Players who want to report corrections should contact the TD or the sponsoring affiliate, not the USCF office.
Within a few weeks, TDs will be able to make corrections to their rated events using a new online editing form. In order to enter those changes quickly (or if sending corrections to the USCF office), here’s a checklist of the information that will be needed:
* The 12 digit USCF event ID and event name
* The section number and name
* The players' pairing numbers
* The players' USCF IDs and names (If an ID appears more than once in the crosstable, correctly or because of an ID error, you will need to provide enough information to uniquely identify the pairing # that needs to be changed.)
* If player IDs need to be changed, list the correct IDs and player names
* If game results need to be changed, list the results as originally reported and the corrections needed
A general question on game result corrections (not specifically related to the technique for making the change):
When should results be corrected? If the players mark the result incorrectly, prizes are awarded based on that marking, the tournament is rated based on that marking, and then they come to the td with a correction 3 months later - should the result be changed? From a ratings standpoint, we certainly want the most accurate results as they happened over the board. But from a td/organizer point of view how concerned should we be when the players mark the result incorrectly. (Assuming no attempt by either of the players of fraud.)
There was a somewhat similar question discussed on the newsgroups which relates to the question of when players agree on the result by marking it and then discover later that they were incorrect: Player A plays a move resulting in stalemate. Player B resigns and they mark up the result as a win for Player A. Weeks later they discover and agree that the final position was stalemate. Should that result be changed?
I think that a statute of limitations is debatable when it comes to this sort of thing.
HOWEVER, IMO, whatever happened at the tournament is done once the tournament is over. Prizes, awards given at the tournament are given and should not be taken back. If the players made a mistake, they made a mistake and have to live with it. I know that may not seem fair, but once the tournament is over, … its over. Players need to be more aware of thier scores DURING the tournament. Coming to a TD 3 months later seems ridiculous to me, I’d say sorry bud live with it.
Some may say that if it the error was 1 or 2 days after the tournament, before the final results had been submitted to USCF, one may change the scores(to preserve OTB ratings). I’ll leave that up to the TD/Organizer… i say if its over, its over. But the prizes, awards should definitely not change.
If the TD/Organizer made a mistake thats when the situation gets even more debatable, but you’re not asking about that.
The key here is that the players originally had an agreement thier original agreement and result stands. Its the same principle when someone says you are in checkmate, you look at the board and agree that you’ve lost and the game is over, and 5 minutes later a friend says, “you know, you weren’t really in mate.” The original decision stands - you lost.
In the interests of historical accuracy, I think obvious errors should always be corrected, regardless of how long ago.
For example, recently we changed an event from 1995 because one of the IDs was for the wrong player. (This was an event mistakenly involving a GM, the crosstable was obviously in error based on reports of the event, possibly even including an article in Chess Life.)
Should that result in a ratings correction? I think that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, especially for events that are well before the rerating ‘window’. (In this case, the GM whose ID was used in error was given a small adjustment, but at this point the rating for the corrected player for that event has not been adjusted, and probably will not be adjusted)
In general the TD should be the one to decide if the correction is proper, but a decision on ratings impact is something that the USCF office should make.
As a followup to my post on what information is needed to make a correction, Walter needs to know EXACTLY what changes to make.
The more complete and better organized that information is, the easier it will be for Walter to make the changes quickly.
Recently I saw an e-mail from a TD who said something like this:
‘In event XXXX change player #1 to YYYY, USCF ID ZZZZZ.’
OK, class, what’s wrong with the above report?
The biggest problem is that the information provided does NOT clearly identify which player to change. The internal crosstable records may not be in the same order as the crosstable on MSA.
What is needed is the current ID and name of that pairing # along with the corrected ID and name. (The names are needed to ensure that there isn’t another ID error being made.)
In another recent correction report, an ID incorrectly appeared more than once.
In that case, Walter needs to know which instance of the ID is the incorrect one. Again, the pairing numbers on MSA may not match up with the internal representation of the event, so it may be necessary to report the total score or possibly even the opponents of the pairing # to be corrected to make sure the right one is changed.
I tend to agree. But the argument against that view also makes sense:
Possibly we need a rule that the reported result becomes official at some point.
Similarly there is the question when you discover there was a stalemate many moves earlier. The time to go back to the illegal move (which escaped stalemate) may be long gone, but the game was over. So do they play on or is it a draw?
Imo, it doesnt matter that they “missed” seeing the stalemate. Both players did not see it, and neither of them called a TD over to verify if there was a stalemate. If they kept playing, they must continue to keep playing.
Key word here is possibly. I’m not a huge fan of making too many rules that describe define every single possibility. At some point as TD’s we have to take it upon ourselves to use sound judgement. I’m not sure if we need a rule for this, maybe we do, maybe we don’t, but its definitely debatable.
I’m not too sure but I think that it can be infferred from the rules that the reported or “agreed to” result is the official result… ugh… now i have to go look at the rule book again…
I had a situation in a game of mine where I called mate, we agreed on it, and reported it as such. When I went over the game that same day, I learned it wasn’t mate on the move I called it, but would have been another move later. The TD rightly said it would have been mate, I would have won, and there was nothing more to be done. I questioned it only because I wasn’t sure at the time if we’d have to replay from that point.
Could be. However, I had one situation ina scholastic event where the two players agreed they had a stalemate and shook on it. They were in the process of resetting the board when one of the players noticced it wasn’t a stalemate. They called a TD who said since it wasn’t stalemate (after they showed him) they should set the board back up and finish the game. They did, and my student lost. This was the result that was recorded.
My student immediately came to me and told me what happened. We appealed, saying that since they had already agreed to the stalemate, that should stand. The chief TD agreed after talking to both players, and so it was changed.
How long does it take for a correction to go through? I sent in a correction for one the tournaments I directed, I sent it about a month ago or a little more. (The correction was one game, a game it showed me winning but I actually lost.) Still no change to the record in MSA.
How, exactly, did you send it in? Was all of the requisite information provided? (See the checklist earlier in this thread.) To whom was it sent? How was it sent?
Were you listed as the TD for the event in question? The USCF only accepts correction reports FROM THE TD, not from players, parents, friends, etc.
I sent it by email. I was the TD for the event. I sent it through the “Contact Us” section, and I got a reply in two days that it would be forwarded to whoever takes care of corrections. But nothing has happened as of yet.
I would suggest you send it again, this time to wbrown@uschess.org. (We need to redo the contact page, it doesn’t reflect our current organization chart very well.)
Be sure to provide the following information:
ok, thanks. I have sent a new correction notice.
Eleven days later, no correction at MSA, no respose to message.
Walter’s at the HB tournament in Minneapolis this week, where he doesn’ t have access to the USCF database or even to his e-mail.
OK, it’s been a month and a half and I’ve sent the e-mail four times both to msafeedback@uschess.org. I’ve never received a response and obviously the correction hasn’t been made. Below is a copy of the message sent:
In tournament 200503135371 the score for one of the games is
incorrect. In section 1-Open, round 1, the game for #3 MICHAEL C
JOHNSON (12836501) vs #6 J KEITH RIGGS (12934004) is currently listed as
a draw, but should be corrected to score a win for MICHAEL C JOHNSON
(12836501).
Walter’s on an indefinite leave of absence.
There were over 700 e-mails in his inbox, it will take some time to get to them all.