Who should a TD contact to request corrections to an event that has been already been submitted online & rated?
Thanks.
See the Frequent Questions document on the TD/Affiliate Support Area, secure2.uschess.org/TD_Affil/faq.php, for the answer to your question, including what information we need when posting a correction.
What if I just want a couple of events deleted from my history? 
See Dr. Who.
In a pinch, David Filby might be able to put you in touch with someone that can help.
What should you do if a TD acknowledges errors that has affected ratings but refuses to correct them?
I have recently noticed three events where all the sections were listed with the same time control but some of the sections had different time controls. Maybe new warnings and errors can be added to the tournament validation program (if they don’t already exist) to help prevented this in the future? Here are the 3 different situations (1 has been corrected but 2 and 3 are the events where the TD has refused to correct the mistakes) :
-
All of the sections of a scholastic tournament were listed as G/75 but only the sections with 3 rounds were G/75. The lower rating based sections were G/40 (but was correctly listed as being 5 rounds on one day).
-
All of the sections were listed as 40/2, SD/1 but one of the sections (which was actually a side event) was G/45 (but was correctly listed as being 5 rounds on one day).
-
All of the sections were listed as 30/90, SD/60 but one of the sections (which was actually a side event) was G/45 (but was correctly listed as being 4 rounds on one day).
I think these 3 examples show it would be beneficial to add new warnings and errors:
-
A warning to any section that has more than 12 hours of chess being played in a day (the FIDE limit, excluding the 5 second delay) that the time control and/or date may be wrong (this would have caught situations 1, 2, and 3 above).
-
A warning for sections of a scholastic tournaments that have an unusually long time control or number of hours of chess being played for the rating average of the section (this would have caught situation 1 above if the time control had been been something like G/70 and thus doesn’t get warning 1 above)
-
An error for any section that has more than 24 hours of chess being played in a day that the time control and/or date is wrong (this would have caught situation 2 above. It also would have caught another error (which didn’t affect ratings) in which a tournament had it correctly listed as being 6 rounds of 30/90, SD/60 but incorrectly had the tournament being on one day).
Such an error is important only if the ratability of the games is affected by the difference in the time controls (i.e. regular vs dual vs quick-only).
If there is still documentation available for what the announced time controls were (e.g. if the TLAs for these events are still on line), the office might consider this sufficient evidence so that, even if the TD refuses to make a correction, the correction should still be made. Lots of luck with that, anyway.
Or maybe the possibility that you will put this TD’s name up in lights, here on this forum, will spur him/her into action.
You should check the ratings regulations carefully, though. For example, if some rounds are at G/45 while others are at G/90, I’m pretty sure the entire section would be regular-rated only, not dual-rated, even though G/45 is dual-ratable. (Maybe I should check the rules too.)
Bill Smythe
The three situations I pointed out were all just regular rated but should have been dual, as can be seen in my original post. Even if the ratablity of the games isn’t affected, the TD should still get this and other errors corrected so we have accurate data.
The flyer for one of the events is still available online if you google it and it lists the time control. Is that enough evidence?
I don’t want to publicly call out the TD.
I am aware of the ratings regulations and the situation you talk about but all of the events I pointed out had the same time control for all rounds.
I dunno, you’ll have to ask the USCF office.
But maybe the threat (or hint) would have worked – but not as well as it would have, now that you’ve said you don’t want to do this. 
Congratulations, though, on being (apparently) one of the few people who cares about his quick rating.
Bill Smythe
I suppose that you could file a complaint with the USCF office, but if, as suggested below, you don’t even want to publicly identify the TD, I can’t imagine you doing this. I also can’t see why the TD should care as long as there is no threat of being called out on this.
Alex Relyea
TDs are expected to report accurate results, which includes reporting corrections to the office once they are aware of them.
Failure to do so could, if a complaint is filed, result in the TD being suspended.
It is worth noting, though, that just because the flyer said a particular time control was used, the flyer could have been wrong or it could have been changed at the event.
I doubt this TD reads this forum so putting his name here wouldn’t spring him into action.
By “results” you mean not only the outcome of the games but also thinks like the time control as well, right? A TD is responsible for reporting corrections in the time control once they are aware of them, right?
Should? Yes.
It can be a pain to enter varying time controls. Personally I do that while validating that all of the names on the rating report match the names on the cross-table (especially necessary when using a tournament file that the organizer entered data into, instead of my entering all of the data, with a risk that the same ID was accidentally used by the organizer for siblings in two different sections).
I do all of my entry by USCF ID (as long as it is in the supplement) and thus it is very rare for me to have a problem with anything I’ve entered (usually a typo for the newest unrateds). Thus that double-check is often mostly a time-waster and I can understand why there are TDs that don’t bother.
Since I’m in each section anyway it is not much of an issue for me to also change the time control (if necessary) and to mark the section as scholastic (if necessary), such as the following:
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 10272222.0
To the extent that the time control affects the choice of rating system, yes, the TD should be expected to promptly correct errors in the time control when they are pointed out, just like the TD should be expected to promptly correct errors in player IDs, pairings or results.
If someone says an event was G/90 when it was really G/120, that has no impact on USCF ratings. (It might have an impact on a FIDE rated section, though.)
Most of the complaints about incorrect time controls are ones that affect the choice of rating system or are for sections where not every game is played at the same time control. Some TDs don’t want to take the time to put in every round and every schedule, and at the moment that is not mandated, as long as they give us the slowest time control in effect for any round, which is what determines whether that section is regular or dual rated. (I am assuming that there is no mix of quick-only and slower time controls, just like a mix of blitz-only and other time controls will not be permitted in 2013.)
I just noticed another event that has a wrong time control. The tournament was a 4 round, G/60, one day event but was listed as being 40/90;G/60 which up to 20 hours of chess in one day!.
This is 4 events that I have noticed that had the wrong time control and affected ratings (were only regular rated but should have been dual) plus 2 other events that had the wrong date, but didn’t affect ratings, that would have been caught by my proposed new warnings and errors.
The proper procedure for correcting errors still remains the same, the submitting TD (or in some cases the sponsoring affiliate) must contact the USCF ratings department. In some cases, notably changes that affect the ending date of the tournament (thus changing the event ID), the TD will usually need to resubmit the event and request that the office delete the earlier event ID.
Players or others who report events to the office should expect to be told to contact the chief TD, who remains responsible for the accuracy of the events he or she submits.
I know the proper procedure is still the same but I was just bringing up the point that I have recently noticed a lot of similar mistakes and my new warnings and errors would prevent these from being submitting incorrectly in the first place. Also, I’m sure there are a lot of other similar mistakes that will probably never be corrected but would have been caught by my proposed warnings and errors. One interesting idea would be to go back retroactively and check all events based on my new proposed warnings and errors to detect and correct some events that have mistakes in the time control and/or date that have affected ratings. Going back retroactively to detect and correct other mistakes is probably possible as well.
I have my doubts that your rules (which are not expressed well enough to be programmable) would prevent errors, most likely they would change the types of errors that are made. That could result in even more errors than we have now.
For someone who has little experience at submitting rated events, you have a lot of ideas about how to change things, with little practical experience about what those changes would do.
Thankfully, nobody seems to be taking your suggestions very seriously.
How would they not prevent errors? What I think will usually happen is that TD’s will see the warnings or error and realize they have put in the wrong time control and or/date and correct them. What’s your alternative? Continue with the current procedures and continue to have lots of these mistakes I have been noticing?
How are they not programmable? If you are saying because I didn’t specify how delay and/or increment adds to the number of hours played, I was assuming people would infer that you would add the delay and/or increment to arrive at the number of hours played.
I do not appreciate this comment.