Dual rating of events with round-by-round time controls

Running Chess Tournaments
1

One of the alpha testers for the rating report upload process raised a question that got me thinking about the following situation:

Suppose there is a 4 round event. Rounds 1-2 are Game/60, rounds 3-4 are Game/75.

There’s no easy way to tell the computer that rounds 1-2 can be dual rated but rounds 3-4 cannot.

Thus it seems to me that it would be more logical to rate this event as a regular event only.

Personally, I would recommend that any organizer considering such a design make a simple change and have rounds 1-2 be Game/61. That clearly makes the whole event regular-ratable-only.

Comments?

2

Mike,

I suppose you could just go back to the file you want, say the 2c file, if you use Swiss Sys, and create a USCF rating report for those two rounds, or one, or whatever. For tournaments that have two or more playing options, such as a 3-day and a 2-day options, and they are merged in the second round, you could just, again, create the Quick rating files based on the unmerged 2-day option and submit a separate rating report, accordingly. Seems pretty easy, but you guys in USCF will need to recognize that you will not be getting additional rating fees for that report. A simple note by the TD should do it.

Interesting, though. I will try that next time…

– Franc

3

For that matter, what if somebody wants to run a 6-round event, rounds 1-2 game/15, rounds 3-4 game/45, rounds 5-6 game/75?

This kind of situation is probably the origin of at least one of Murphy’s Laws. The more questions you ask, the farther you get from your goal, and the more overwhelming the whole project becomes.

Bill Smythe

4

Bill,

Again, you can do the same thing. After you are done with with rating report, load the file for the finished 4th round and submit a rating report for Quick rating only. Again, you have to be careful so that those four rounds submitted separately are only Quick rated (and they are Regular rated, if you will, based on the other rating report) and you include a note to the USCF explaining the lack of rating fees. Yes, it is more work, but fairly easy, I think.

Franc

5

Capital punishment is probably a bit extreme, even under the 5th edition of the USCF rulebook.

For the time being, the following rule will be used:

All games in a section must be ratable under the same rating system(s), or they must be submitted as if they were separate sections.

In the case of Bill’s Goulash Open, described above, this could be submitted for rating as if it was three sections, one quick ratable, one dual ratable, one regular ratable or as two sections, one quick ratable and one regular ratable.

If submitted as the latter, the TD would have to pay twice to have the dual-rated games rated. I guess Bill better build that cost into his entry fee. :slight_smile:

6

Yes, yes, yes.

This isn’t even a new problem. The Chicago Open is run at 40/120, with a 2-day option at game/45 for rounds 1-4 of the 7-round tournament. So, if the game/45 games are to be dual-rated, not only must rounds 1-4 be separated, but so must the 2-day games from the 3- and 4-day games.

Looks like your rule will have to be more than just “for the time being”. :laughing:

Bill Smythe

7

Didn’t I read somewhere that rating fees would be reduced or even eliminated after online submission was up and running? And why would we need to pay twice for an online submission?

8

Only because, in the example cited, rounds 1-2 would be quick-rated, 3-4 would be dual-rated, 5-6 would be regular-rated.

To get this to work through USCF’s software (even the new software), the event would have to be submitted as two events – rounds 1-4 as quick-rated, and rounds 3-6 as regular-rated. Thus, in effect, the organizer would be paying twice for rounds 3-4.

Or, to avoid this, the event could be submitted as three events – rounds 1-2, rounds 3-4, and rounds 5-6. No double rating fee that way.

Bill Smythe

9

Mike Nolan:

Have been asking this question for some time myself. How the Michigan Chess Association runs the ‘Michigan Open’ with a 4 day, 3 day, then the 2 day event is to merge the tournaments. With the two day event it is a G/30 for rounds 1-4, then round 5-7 40/2 SD/1.

True, the ‘tournament director’ could have a tournament only for the round of 1-4 as ‘dual-rated’ then a tournament for the round 5-7 as only the classical ratings. Then add the final score of both tournaments for this two day event.

There is a problem with this idea, as it would make the players earn both ratings for the two day event. The ‘tournament director’ would need to send in 3 tournaments not just one. The ‘tournament director’ is Paul Kane, and know he is looking to become a ‘senior tournament director’. With having three tournaments not just one, would cut down the entries to a level that he could get zero credit for this test. It would also make the players upset, as some of the membership do not care or want a quick rating.

Mike Nolan, you could ask the ‘tournament directors’ who are in the G/30 rounds: then have them rated as a quick rating as a special tournament. It is something the ‘policy board’ needs to take up on how the merging tournaments need to take care of the time controls of G/60 and less.

10

Douglas,

His “entries credit,” if you will, will not be “cut down.” I think you can just, after all the sections are merged and finalized, create your report for submission, of course, including all the players – one report, as you always will. After you finish that, open the unmerged file (s) containing the latest round to be Quick rated and create another “final” rating report for that smaller file (s) – another report, for Quick rating only.

I am not sure that making players upset about having games Quick rated should be a consideration. The rule now is that “regular” games 30-60 minutes will be dual rated, if submitted accordingly. The player knows he/she is playing a rated tournament because it was so announced. But, if it helps, the tournament announcement could say that games one and two, etc., of the 2-day schedule will be dual-rated. Of course, other things, like half-K, must be so advertised.

Franc

11

It can be done in you’re formating, then it would cost the ‘organizer’ twice the rating cost if it is sent on computer disk. If a tournament are sent on the computer disk: with the time controls of G/30 to G/60 – then the cost of dual rating would be 20 cents per-game. If the director makes a special unmerged file, for the rounds that are between G/30 and G/60: that would be one whole tournament with a cost of 20 cents per-game. With the tournament that is rated only for the classical ratings, the time controls between G/30 to slower time controls: will be one whole tournament with a cost of 20 cents per-game. With the tournament that has two time controls, one within G/30 to G/60 and the second time control of G/61 or slower: the cost of the time control would cost 40 cents per-game with computer disk.

If making the special tournament with the G/30 to G/60 – the rating department could make a ‘human error’ and rate it for the classical and quick ratings. That would make one game be rated twice for the classical and one game for the quick. The rating department would love to take down a whole tournament and change the ratings on that one error – as merging does happen in large tournaments like the ‘state championship’ and other national tournaments: some do have around 100 to 300 players to change that little human error.

Sure the system you talk about will work, but it would cost the organizers 40 cents per-game on computer disk and the problem of human error if the rating department only rated the G/30 to G/60 only as quick not as quick and classical.

12

Douglas,

You do not have to make another tournament file for the unmerged files…that is created as you go, then you merged them. I have done so in many big tournaments I have directed. You do, however, create another tournament report, and, yes, you are correct in that it could cost you more. That is why I suggested in an earlier post that you specify, to Mike and the other USCF folks, that the additional report is to Quick rate rounds one to whatever and not to charge you. They may or may not agree, but, heck, they do not charge right now for doing 30-60 twice. As far as “human” error, just annotate the second report “for Quick rating only,” just like you would any Quick rated tournament, and, of course, you put the time control! If you have doubts, highlight it…but give Mike and his folks credit, they Quick rate tournaments every week!

Franc

13

I don’t know what will happen to ratings fees, that’s a Board decision, but I can pretty much guarantee you that they will not be eliminated. If the Board asks me for a recommendation, I will be able to make one in a few weeks.

I think it is possible, even likely, that the per game will be reduced for events submitted online, and the minimum fee to rate an event may be reduced as well, or possibly eliminated for events submitted online with advance payment through some kind of deposit account.

However, if an event is submitted online but we have to process a charge card or a check there will have to be a minimum amount to ensure that we cover those processing costs, though the Board could set the minimum below the current minimums for events submitted on diskette or on paper.

As to events with multiple time controls, there are two concerns.

First, rating only SOME rounds of an event is not consistent with the theory behind the ratings system. For example, if only rounds 1 and 2 are rated as a quick event but not rounds 3 and 4, we would be rating the ‘easy’ games but not the more competitive ones.

Second, the submission method must make it absolutely clear which games are to be rated under which rating systems. This applies to events submitted online as well as those submitted on diskette or on paper.

Ken Sloan of the Ratings Committee has suggested the following:

In order to be rated as a regular event, all games in a section must be at a time control of Game/30 or slower.

In order to be rated as a quick event, all games in a section must be at a time control of Game/5 to Game/60.

If not all of the games in a section qualify to be rated under a rating system, then none of them can be rated under that rating system.

Thus in order to be dual-rated, all games would have to be at a time control of Game/30 through Game/60.

14

I have always thought Ken Sloan was an intelligent and reasonable guy, and this suggestion certainly proves it.

On the other hand, his suggestion is really nothing more than the current de facto policy, anyway (which further enhances my opinion of Professor Sloan).

By the way, please, everybody, do not confuse Ken Sloan with perennial Executive Board candidate Sam Sloan.

Bill Smythe

15

Franc:

Do know how much work that Nancy Evens and the rating department do over the years. Have found a number of errors over the time, like with one match that was only 20 games got rated for 48 games. They are so much better since last Winter: it is just this feeling that human error will happen, and back tracking is not something most players are looking forward.

16

First, I agree that Ken Sloan has made a very good recommendation and urge its adoption as policy.

I have several concerns. First, I want the tournament to look like a regular tournament, not see 2-5 different crosstables - i.e 1 each for rds 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 for a given event. For this reason, I don’t like the suggestion of submitting partial reports for specified rounds when the time control changes. My second concern is that the process not require or requires as little staff time as possible so it is economically efficent. Therefore, I would not support submitting partial events and expect the office to merge them.

This said, I am also concerned about automating FIDE reports for staff time and money savings. Unfortunately, we must separate out many of the faster schedules that contain non-ratable TCs under FIDE regulations so this subject still needs to be considered and the consideration may want to include USCF as well as FIDE ratings. There is no easy answer
Regards, Ernie

17

The tournament will look, at least based on my recommendations, like a regular tournament, just like they do now. When a G30-60 tournament is rated, it is dual-rated by the USCF. No change there. The only thing I am suggesting is that if rounds one to whatever falls in this category, an additional report, as of the last round in that category (could be just one round or maybe the first two), be submitted to ensure any games played at the 30-60 speed be also quick rated. No additional merging will be required by the USCF. They will just process that as they would any quick-rated tournament. Again, you will submit a complete report, as you do now, for the entire tournament, and, if you want round one of the 2-day option, for example, quick rated, because there was a 2 or 3-day option, then you pull up the file with the complete results of that round and submit a report for quick rating. If the USCF wants to charge an additional rating fee, then fine – they should welcome that. Not too difficult, really… It will only occur in that type of tournament with different options. The USCF will just process the “additional” tournament (and get paid accordingly, if need be).

18

I haven’t given much thought to FIDE reports yet. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen one.

One possibility would be to upload the FIDE-rated games as a separate section, possibly using FIDE ID’s instead of USCF ID’s. Then ‘FIDE RATED’ becomes a separate ratings system choice. We could still check the section for internal consistency but it wouldn’t be processed when rating the event.

I think WinTD supports the capability of flagging which games are to be FIDE rated, but I don’t know if it can prepare an export file for just those games.

I’m really not excited about asking Tom and Thad to modify their programs to support flagging every game to indicate which ratings systems they fall under, and I can’t imagine most TD’s would be excited about that, either.

For now I’m going with the Ratings Committee’s recommendation that ALL GAMES in a section must be ratable under a ratings system for that section to be ratable under that system. That means that a section with rounds 1 and 2 at G/45 and rounds 3 and 4 at G/75 would be regular-ratable only.

This is in effect the current standard but without the current requirement that an extra fee be paid to dual-rate events submitted on paper.

At the Ratings Committee Workshop in Florida, it was made clear that the intent of dual-rating was to dual rate all eligible events WITHOUT AN EXTRA FEE. The current software may not readily support doing that without having to enter the ratings report twice (which is why there is a extra charge), the new software should. (Providing we don’t further complicate the submission process.)