Classical or Quick for a Quick tournament class prize?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Have been thinking of this problem for a week, without finding a perfect answer too the question. As there are not that many quick tournaments, if it is a quick tournament: the prize money have been designed for 1st, 2nd, 3rd as a prize award. My question, if it is designed for the class as a prize award. It sounds like a simple answer or in fact should be understood with anyone. Let me say why it is a little more complexed.

For pairings during a quick tournament, most directors would use the classical ratings for pairings. The reason, as a number of players would not have a quick rating; or if they do have a quick rating, it could still be provisional or more outdated then their classical rating. If we take this fictional player, Bob Biship with a classical rating of 1850, and no quick rating; would it be fair for Bob Biship to be able too win the under 1000 / unknowed prize. If we take this fictional player, Kate Knight with a classical rating of 1390 and a quick rating of 1475; would it be fair for Kate Knight to be able too win the under 1400 prize.

If the director use the classical rating for pairings, or use the quick rating for pairings: some players difference could be the difference of a few points or hundreds of points. If one players rating is 1990 classical and 1100 quick, then there are 40 players in the tournament. This would give a strange pairing order for this person: or in fact a problem with how the major upsets would happen during the tournament if the quick ratings are used. If the director use the classical ratings for pairing as it is more rational: then how could the director use the quick rating for the class prize.

Is it ethical for a director too use the classical ratings for the pairings in a quick tournament, then use the quick ratings for the prize awards in the class prize. In most case studies, during the flyer the organizer and director would inform the players that the classical ratings are used for pairings. Have never been told what rating would be used for the awarding of the class prize.

2

In my opinion, no. You can use Quick ratings, regular ratings, or some combination of the two for pairings as long as you announce it and do it consistently, but the same ratings should always be used for pairings and prize allocation.

3

Doug,

TDs may assign ratings to rated players as well as unrated players, based on their experience with or information about the player, as per 28E.

If a player has a substantial rating difference between their regular rating and their quick rating, the TD has the right and responsibility to assign a rating, based on 28E.

In short, you could use the player’s regular rating (in the case of a difference of your example, 1990 regular and 1100 quick), or you could use some other arbitrary rating, such as half way between the two. This may be justified where the player doesn’t play quick chess well, but is an A player at slower time controls. I would suspect that this wide difference would be the result of a provisionsl quick rating, however.

There is no specific rule (Quick vs Regular rating) that I can find to clarify this valid question. However, I think that 28E is valid and should help make your decision.

If you have class or under prizes, whichever rating system you use for pairings should also be used for prize eligibility. See 28F This rule also gives you the right to exclude the assigned rating from prize purposes, however. I think this would most often be used for unrated players who have been assigned ratings, but are still eligible for place or unrated prizes only.

4

28E1. Rating level The assigned rating shall not be lower than the player’s last published USCF rating, or its foreign or FIDE equivalent, adjusted if necessary, if the player lacks a USCF rating.

This is the problem with Kate Knight: her established classical rating is 1390 a class D player; her established quick rating is 1475 a class C player. Rule 28E1 would force the director to use her “quick rating” not her “classical rating”; if there is a under 1400 prize: the director cannot have her be able to win the under 1400 prize. If Bob Biship classical rating is 1850 and have no quick rating, then rule 28E1 would make Bob Biship unable to win the unknowed rating prize.

This gives a little problem withrule 28E1, as a number of directors would state they will use classical rating for pairings in a quick tournament. If Kate Knight came to a tournament, the director would be lowering her rating below her last published USCF rating. With pairings, if telling the players they would paired on their classical ratings – as a director could be in error with rule 28E1 as her quick rating is 1475 and would be lowering her rating below her last published rating.

The statement to use only the classical ratings for the pairings in a quick tournament, would only work if and only if all the players classical ratings are higher then their quick ratings. That theory will not always work with every player, so the theory is in error and some new theory needs to replace the old. There is no designed theory for this problem.

5

First off, Doug, here is a quick spelling lesson:

to – a preposition, as in “answer to the question”.
to – an infinitive, as in “to use the classical ratings”.
too – means “also”, and that’s the ONLY thing it means.

Absolutely not, in my opinion. All kinds of problems could arise.

Use the same rating for both pairings and prizes.

Which rating to use, however, is an open question. I guess the default would be to use the quick rating if the player has one, otherwise use the regular rating. Any other method should probably be announced in all pre-tournament publicity. I have seen a few different schemes announced in TLAs for some of the larger quick events. Some organizers just use regular ratings for everybody (except, I suppose, when a player has ONLY a quick rating). Others use the higher of the two. Or I suppose you could use the average.

But for each player, use the SAME rating to make pairings that you use to award prizes.

Bill Smythe

6

Players who do not have quick ratings in a tournament use their regular rating.

This is for any time control below 30 minutes. When you go above that, you use their regular. This is for prizes also. If you switch this around, I, as a player would kick a fit.

I don’t see why you have to complicate everything. This is a reason why I’ll never make a trip up to Michigan to play in your tournaments.

Yes, please get English for dummies at your local book store. Your posts continue to be hard to read.

7

Bill:

First off is having a closed mind to a problem. Having the organizer write up some theory: having a theory not based on a sound universal rule only begs the question of needing one. Rule 28E1 was not designed for supporting two different published USCF ratings. There needs to be one and only one sound and universal rule for all directors. If the ‘classical ratings’ are used, then having a quick rating is not important. In fact the quick rating would be pointless, as it would not be a factor for pairings or prize money. If the quick rating is used, then a player having a classical rating as a class A player would be able to win some prize money like the under 1000 / unknowed prize.

It does not matter that much what system could be used. It is a question for finding a sound system in the official rules of chess. As the spirit of the rule 28E1 does make a simple answer much more of a problem.

8

???

9

When you attack the prose of the statement, then you’re not opened minded to the question.

10

But understanding the question properly demands the prose be understandable. A simple question asked simply is easier to understand than one taking three or four paragraphs.

I do, however, contend that yours is a valid question. If announced ahead of time, I see no reason why a TD can’t take the classical rating, cut it in half and use that as a provisional quick rating if the player has none. Then base prizes using that provisional quick rating only. That would be fair, I think, to those who already have a quick rating,and to the player who has only a classical rating,since they are an unknown at the time of the quick tournament.

I think a very good case can be made to say a player with no quick rating might be expected to perform at half their capability in a G/5 or G/10 tourney.

On the other hand, I would expect a G/29 tourney would cut the classical rating in about a fourth to be used as a provisional quick rating and for purposes of prize distribution.

Radishes

11

Bill:

If you have a G/10 event, with a player with a classical rating of 1250 and a quick rating of 2020. If you use the classical rating for pairings and prize fund, the player would have a right for the under 1400 prize, even have a right for the under 1600 prize, the under 1800 prize and the under 2000 prize.

If you have a G/90 event, with a player with a classical rating of 2020 and a quick rating of 1250. If you use the quick rating for pairings and prize fund, the player would have a right for the under 1400 prize, even have a right for the under 1600 prize, the under 1800 prize and the under 2000 prize.

If you have a G/90 event, how can you have a rational reason to use the players quick rating and not their classical rating. There is no rational reason to use the quick rating when there is a classical rating. If you have a G/10 event, how can you have a rational reason to use the players classical rating and not their quick rating.

There have been a number of quick tournaments that use the classical ratings for a quick event. Would a director have a ethical problem too give a prize award for a quick event, as in a under 1400 prize, for a player that has a quick rating at 1425 that is published. Only to give such prize because their classical rating at 1325 that is published, for a quick only tournament.

12

Uhhhh G/10 is NOT Classical

Uhhhh G/90 is NOT quick

13

In that case my published classical rating is 1422, in you’re idea in a G/10 event my provisional quick rating would be 50 percent of my classical rating or 711. If the quick event being G/29, in you’re idea my quick rating would be 75 percent of my classical rating. Since having a quick rating of 1500 as my rating floor – then would not be able to use this theory.

14

Much of this seems to be missing the point. It is grossly unfair to award prizes on the basis of a rating other than the one used for pairings, because did not receive pairings appropriate to that rating. Now, you can certainly come up with arguments that some hypothetical prize distribution system is “better” – relatively few players have “Quick” ratings, they tend to be pretty inaccurate, etc. But when you strip away the irrelevancies, this boils down to an arbitrary decision by the TD. I don’t think any TD should have that much power. I’m certain that most players would stay away from a tournament run in that manner.

15

Let me try to explain this. It could be knowing the problems of finding a persons quick rating during the 1990’s. Or in that fact, not that many players did have any quick ratings during the 1990’s. Number of directors would just use the classical ratings in total bulk for pairings, without even looking at a persons quick rating. There are still some directors that only look at the persons classical ratings for the pairings of the tournament. Even today, the new players are more able to get their classical ratings established faster then they can get their quick rating established – making the directors bias too use only the classical ratings. Even if a player does have a quick rating, the feeling would be that the quick rating is not as current or the true rating of the player. For a number of players, the difference between their classical rating and their quick rating is vast. As the amount of time a common player has been in a true quick tournament (G/5 to G/29), will only be a small percentage of their total event history.

As only a few directors today would use the total balk for pairings, with the classical rating in a quick tournament. Yes, it could give a better break down with the first round pairings if the classical ratings are used. Would take care of the problems of the upsets in the first round, if there are a number of upsets it makes the rest of the tournament un-equal with points and ratings after the tournament. If the tournament has a number of players with old quick ratings that has not changed in years, then have a number of active change in their classical ratings: the rating difference between them can be in the hundred of points.

Lets try this as a case study, say you’re a director of a quick quad at G/10. If having a player with a classical rating of 2050 and published, and a quick rating of 1025 and published, the quick rating has not changed since 1995 but the classical rating has change every year since then. Say for example, the director use the rating of 1025. Finding the other three players, finding three players that do not have a quick rating but do have a classical ratings of 1050, 1100, 1125. The director would need to use rule 28E or to be more clear rule 28E1. Most directors and most players, like the players with the rating of 1125, 1100, 1050 would feel this as being unfair. This is the reason some directors would use the classical ratings in total bulk then the quick ratings for pairings.

Most or all the quick tournaments, with my personal memory have been in a quad. If it is in a swiss, the prize money are for the 1st, 2 nd or 3rd ect. This is the problem that I’m looking at. What if the director use class prize then place prize. The director would need to use the quick rating for pairings, only use the classical rating under rule 28E1 if and only if the player does not have any quick rating. If that is the case, then there would be a number of upsets during the first round, and should have upsets for each round after that. This would happen if the quick rating is so much out of date. If the director use the classical ratings for pairings of a quick event, then if a player is a class C player for classical and a class B player for quick. Would not the player then have the right to the class C prize for a quick event, even that the player has a class B quick rating. If a player has a class B classical rating and a class C quick rating, would it not be rude for the player not be able to win the class C quick prize when they have a class C quick rating, only able to win the class B prize.

This is my idea. If you have a quick rating, and you are in a quick tournament, only the quick rating will be used. It does not matter how old or how out dated the rating is. If and only if the player does not have a quick rating, then the classical rating will be used. Rule 28E1 would be used and the player cannot have a rating less then that rating. Now, there are a number of quick tournaments out in the nation that use the classical ratings for the pairings. This could be the reason for the place prize then having a class prize. It is very unclear, what rating to use during a quick tournament. The rules of chess does not give a strong statement on this question.

16

Lets say a player has a class A rating for quick, and a class D rating for classical. If the organizers use the classical ratings for pairings, then has class prize for the tournament. Then the class A player would have a right to win the under 1400, under 1600 and under 1800 section.

What is more common, a player has a class D rating for quick and a class A rating for classical. If the organizers use the classical ratings for pairings and prize money. Then the class D quick rating player would need to win the under 2000 section, then would not have the right to win the under 1400, under 1600 and the under 1800 section.

True, the quick ratings can and are out dated, and not the true rating of the player. This was the reason to have the quick ratings be dual rated for the time control of G/30 to G/60. If it was not for this, the quick ratings would be in worse shape then they are today.

This could be the reason when a organizer has a quick tournament, the prize money is given out as a place prize. As a number of players quick rating has not change in years. There are a number of active players, they have been members of the federation for decades, and have always been members of the federation since the start of the quick ratings. There are a huge numbers that still do not have a quick rating, if they do the quick rating is so old. There quick rating was gained when they first started to play tournament chess, after a number of years there true rating has change from one class to the next.

If someone today is a 26 year old master with a classical rating of 2250, and the last time the quick rating was changed, was when the player was 7 years old and the quick rating is 610 at 7 years old and still current at the age of 26. It is not the problem of the director or the organizers, the master never did anything with the quick rating. The rating department has this rule, once rated always rated.

17

I agree. This has been my policy in the few Quick tournaments I’ve run. (Though there is certainly an argument for making some adjustment, such as using the higher of the two ratings under some clearly specified circumstances.) The only point I wished to make was that, whatever rating you use for pairing, you must use the same one for awarding prizes.

18

That would be strange, if the director used the higher of the two ratings for pairings and prize awards. If a player classical and quick are in the same rating class it would not be a problem for the prize award. It would be a factor for a player if their two ratings are different, like one rating class, or having a rating difference by a large factor.

The reason for the assignment of the quick rating if the person does have one. Then the assignment of the classical rating, even if the classical rating is higher then the players quick rating. The rating department will only rate the event as a quick event with whatever quick rating the person does have. If a players classical rating is say 1600, and the player does not have a quick rating of any type. How the rating department takes that as a factor is something only the rating department can explain.

In my final judgement, if someone comes to a quick tournament will only use the quick rating. If the rating difference is large, like a person having a classical rating as a class A player and having a quick rating as a class D player. It is not the problem of the director or the organizer, that the person in question never was active in their quick rating. In the end, the quick rating will be used to rate the event.

Lets say having a quick event in a quad, and someones classical rating is 2000 and quick rating is 700. If building a quad, would it be fair to have it with players of 2030, 2020, 2010, and 700 (2000 used as assignment). The players with a 2030, 2020, 2010 as their quick rating would be risking their ratings. As the rating department would be rating the event with whatever quick rating the players has, not what the director gives as assignment. If building a quad, would it be fair to have it with players of 730, 720, 710, 700 as their quick ratings. With the other 3 players in the class G ratings, and one as a expert under their classical ratings. Sure, the expert should win the quad with it full of class G rated players. When the tournament is rated, the class G rated players only risk their rating against a fellow class G rated player.

The class G rated players did not have a chance to win the prize money, they did not lose that much in rating points also. The quad with experts, would risk losing the prize money but have a chance to win. They also would risk losing rating points in a massive scale of over a 1300 point difference. It is not idea for the person that would be paired against this player with a 1300 point difference in the classical and quick ratings. The rating department will rated this person with the quick rating as it stands. The director should use whatever quick rating is posted and stay with such rating.

19

Uh… Mr. Forsythe, can you summarize your ideas in a couple of sentences? The posts are kind of long, and therefore it is difficult to understand your point.

20

I’m not advocating this as a policy, but some competent TDs do. You already made the argument for it in your last post – a player with a very old, very low Quick rating and a current, much higher regular one. It would be “fair” in the sense I argued above to use the Quick rating for both pairings and prizes, but it might lead to some odd mismatches in the games. The real problem is that Quick Chess has never become very popular, and the USCF tried to create a functioning rating system by fiat. USCF politicians to the contrary, wishing will not make it so.