The Armchair Warrior stands corrected. Having picked a few nits in my day I am only glad my faux pas was not so egregious that anyone did not understand what I meant by “regular.”
I just assumed that “established ratings” referred to regular ratings. It is the regular rating that is considered the gold standard of the USCF. Perversely, even blitz ratings are started out based on regular ratings. And this is why I will not even attempt blitz until I miraculously manage to improve my regular rating. In fact, this is why I was not surprised when quick and blitz ratings were contrasted with regular ratings earlier in this thread.
I can relate. I called a master friend of mine, and told him that after years of trying, I
finally defeated the club expert. I forgot to tell my friend my victorious accomplishment
was actually in bug house. I guess it is the same, right?? 
Rob Jones
Yeah, and when I was a teenager the Seattle Chess Club met in a church which also had a gym. Sometimes we played basketball. I had no trouble beating Yasser Seirawan at hoops. Then he got taller, I got fatter and I couldn’t beat him there either.
This could be useful as a federation if we knew what type of tournaments in particular the
74,432 who may have actually participated in the last 10 years who have a below 500
rating. Now I know from what Nolan has told us that a good many of tournaments are
and have been submitted without specific tournament types listed, so this will cull this
number considerably. But, assuming the vast majority of this group are of the scholastic
element, I do think that further processing of the data could yield some positive pointers
as to future action, or tournament advice to affiliates from Crossville.
Also I would like to know how many of this sub 500 and the sub 1000 group of 230,253
are adults. Why?? Because for the last 3-4 months two of the clubs that I direct weekly
regular (open to all) have seen a dramatic upsurge in new and or novice returning.
Further processing, which may or may not be economically feasible, or given the data
available be particuraly useful, could help provide some much needed numbers which
could help in two areas.
A. For scholastic chess- how many of the sub 500 and sub 1000 are one and done, two and
done?? How many of these kids participated in regular non-scholastic events in
sections far over their abilities, achieving little success and quitting?? How many with
similar success, or a lack thereof, in scholastic events quit??
B. For adults, how many of those in the sub 500 and sub 1000 groups cited above quit
after only a few events?? What sections were provided in the tournaments in which
they participated.
What I have found to be true in the DFW area is this-- we have a far better chance
of getting both groups of players to return, scholastic and adult, if we structure the
tournaments they are participating in with low U sections. Now as there generally are
not many low rated adults playing in the U500 or U1000 sections (even if offered) at
regular (open to all) events, most of the players will be kids. Most of the lower rated
adults I have met would prefer to play someone that they can be competitive with,
regardless of age.
Thus, would USCF not be serving it young scholastic membership base but also its
adult base better by the encouragement for more local USCF affiliates to run "booster"
or novice events open to all? And, for scholastic events, to encourage more of a
local structure of K-U500, K-12 U1000, etc, for example, rather than grade based??
A point perhaps worth considering.
Rob Jones