For an upcoming class tournament, my local affiliate is requiring that players have at least a 4 game provision rating. Is it okay to have an additional section for brand new unrated players? Will USCF be able to rate the section of unrated players?
Certainly you can have a separate rated section for unrated players. You can also have a separate unrated section. You need to make sure you comply with the requirements of the flier and USCF game rules for all sections. I suspect you really are asking a different question as this seems too easy to answer.
The ratings will be more accurate if there is someone in the section who has some kind of pre-event rating, of course, but it is possible to rate events where everyone in the section is unrated. (Most of the instances of this I’ve seen have been in very isolated groups of players, such as in a prison or at a school that is just starting its chess program.)
If the requirement for that section is that they not yet have a PUBLISHED rating, it is possible that they could have a rating of 4 or more games, but one that isn’t published yet.
As a reminder, only a published rating is considered official, though TDs are permitted to use unofficial non-published ratings information, providing they’ve advertised and announced this. Personally, I think that’s as likely to cause problems as solve them, because unofficial ratings taken from MSA could change several times between when the organizer looks them up and when the event begins, even on a Saturday morning. I can envision someone’s parent coming up to the TD and saying, “Why is Joe listed as 350? I just looked him up and his rating is 466. He shouldn’t be competing against my Jimmy for the Under 400 prize.”
If the organizer checks MSA during onsite registration to ensure that players have no tournaments listed there, including fewer games than it takes to get a published rating, it’s still possible that some prior event could show up, either before or after this event is submitted, and the events would be put into chronological order at the next rerate.
Thank you both – we just wanted to provide a section so that we are not turning people away that do not have enough official games for one of the class sections. We are still letting some people in the class sections if the MSA page shows at least 4 games. For those that don’t, they can at least play some rated games. This may not be the best way for them to start working on their rating, but a few anxious people would rather start now than wait for the next tournament. I really appreciate your quick responses.
Somewhere somebody must get an initial rating assigned to them: uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200710193781.9
Wonder how that's changed in 11 years?!
The answers to all your questions are in the Formula, Grasshopper.
math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/rating.system.pdf
For a recent example of an event where all of the players were unrated, see section 9 of event 200710193781
Doesn’t the Chicago Open have an unrated section every year?
I think a number of CCA tournaments like the World Open, Chicago Open, Foxwoods, etc have an Under 1000/Unrated or Under 800/Unrated section.
I know most tournaments allow unrateds only in the Open or lowest sections. What I was thinking of is that with the Chicago Open, I think they have a separate section just for unrated players.
–Fromper
The ad for the 2007 Chicago Open on page 82 of the April issue does not list a separate Unrated section. It does say that unrated players may enter any section but places limits on how much they can win except in the open section.
2008 does.
I’ve never been to the Chicago Open, but I’ve looked into it a couple of times, since I have family in Chicago. I know I remember seeing this in the ads in past years, which is why I mentioned it. I guess they changed it this year, then changed it back for next year.
No one is “unrated”.
But, some players have ratings based on 0 games…
I know a Master like that.
I don’t think CCA generally combines unrated sections with low-rated sections. It would defeat the whole purpose of low-rated sections.
A better idea is to allow unrateds only in the upper section(s), or to have a separate unrated section.
Bill Smythe