Eloquence is beautiful to behold. 
Thanks, Nolan!
BB
Dear evansvillecc:
The tournament will be rated even if the tournament does have 80 players and the chief tournament director was a club tournament director. Lets say this was your tournament, for some reason you did not send in the tournament because you are in the hospital. The assistant you have sends in the tournament report, the assistant is just a club tournament director. If the tournament is rated, then how are you going to be able to have the federation make sure they changed the name of the chief tournament director. If you do not mind having a tournament with 80 players and get zero credit that is fine with me.
Then the director could have been certified to be the director of this event, for some reason just put the tournament report to the side and left it for days. The assistant that is just a club tournament director sent the tournament report and paid the rating fees.
The tournament will be rated, just be asking for the reason the club tournament director was the chief tournament director.
Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
I refer you to nolanās post, as follows:
Allow me to attempt something here
Is this a question or a statement? If itās a question, the answer is YES. If itās a statement, I reply with āI KNOW!ā
OK! ā¦
The reason would probably be that I am in the hospitial.
Actually, since Iām in the hospitial (probably the psychiatric ward for the criminally insane after having dealt with obstinate chess players and Club TDs all day long at the tournament) I probably wouldnāt give a ratās hairy ass. In the small chance that I was coherent enough to give a ratās hairy ass, I would prpbably have my assistant send it in and deal with whatever questions USCF should pose to me. Truthfully, I believe that my assistant might send a letter along with the report explaining my untimely situation. He could put my name on the report, sign it (his name, as assistant), and we would just wait and seewhat happens.
Iāll bet that if my assistant put my name down as ChiefTD, Iād get the credit.
Again, however, since Iām in the hospital (most probably being injected with Thorazine to keep me calm and less threatening to others around me, including myself, I donāt think Iād care.
Is this a statement or is there another question here?
Whoās asking?
Do you ever plan on learning the proper use of personal pronouns?
Dear evansvillecc:
Douglas Mark Forsythe does have enjoyment to write in the third-person. If and only if you do need a stay in the state mental-hospital, you would have a great deal of free time: would you enjoy to read āThe education of Henry Adamsā by Henry Adams, āThe varieties of of religious experienceā by William James, and āThe proper study of mankindā by Isiah Berlin? If not there is Kafka.
Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
Thatās it, Iām on my way, Iām calling the men in the white coats right now. And Iām sending you the bill !!!
Terry Winchester:
Just think out-side-the-box. Have you picked up a box and thought what is inside the box, the box could say the name of the product inside the box or it could have something else inside the box. Only the empirical evidence could give me a judgement of what is or what should not be in this box; only empirical evidence can only give a judgement of past evidence that can cloud judgement of a bias. Then again you could be in the box, all that you can see is only four walls. In that case you could be in Platosā cave or my idea the box: in Platosā cave they only could see the reflections of the light on the wall, in mine the light that leaks into the box.
If you are in the box, and then myself pick up the box without opening the box. What all you know and understand is inside this box, myself pick-up the box and question what is or is not inside without opening. So put the box to my ear and start to shack the box around to get some idea of what could or could not be inside. Myself only hear something going bang bang bang inside the box, you understand that you are being smashed into the walls of the box. What is better being out side the box or inside the box?
Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
As the federation during the 2004 US Open has change the policy ā the cost of dual ratings. The reson for supporting dual credit for classical and quick rating was the fact that a director would need to pay double the rating fees for dual ratings. The new policy that any events for over-the-board rating would be only 40 cents under paper ā then dual rated events for the quick rating would be rated for free.
As the quick part of the dual rating would in theory be rated as free with the time controls of G/30 to G/60. Then there is zero claim for a club tournament director to get any credit for something they never did pay and would be done for free. If the director has a event with time controls of G/5 to G/29 then they only get half the credit for the tournament and half the credit of players: and only get credit for only two quick events to be equal to one event with classical time controls. If the director does pay the rating fee then should only get this credit, if the director has three quick events or more then there is zero credit.
Since now that under the dual ratings are only 40 cents to rate the classical rating and free for the quick rating ā if it is being rated for free, then the director has zero rights to make a claim for credit for the second part of the tournament.
Will say that my new judgement are inline with senior tournament director Terry Winchester and senior tournament director Bill Symthe. Under the old system, it only gave credit twice for the players without credit for the tournament director. Under the new system, still gives credit for the players as the entry fee are paid by the players; as the tournament director pays only for the rating fee for the classical rating, then gets the quick rating done for free ā the director should not get credit if something that is free.
As usual, Doug, you are COMPLETELY missing the point on this topic.
The reason for the double rating fee was that, under the old software, the data entry had to be done twice. Since that logic does not apply to tournaments submitted on diskette, the double fee applied only to events submitted on paper.
The double rating fee (now rescinded, or soon to be rescinded) had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with giving a Club TD double credit for the tournament.
As for the PLAYERS receiving double ācreditā, I suppose you could put it that way, but wouldnāt it be less misleading just to say that both the playerās regular and quick ratings would be affected by the results of each game?
Bill Smythe
Bill:
It has been many years that you have ever been a club tournament director, during that time you have forgotten what it was like for some but not all club tournament directors. If someone is just a club tournament director, then only on the second or first tournament. For the first time club tournament directors: they are not going to start out with time controls of 40/120 SD/60 with a three day event. Most will start out with only one time control with a one day event, with some sites the time they have for the tournament, could be impossible to have a G/90 event with three rounds.
One of the reasons that club tournament directors or even other certified tournament directors have a late tournament ā that the tournament lost money at the event. Some tournament directors only think having a tournament they will make a profit, then find they lost money. Bill it is clear you use computer software and only pay 20 cents per-game; with a first time tournament director the cost of software would never pay for itself during that first tournament. If this tournament director lost money at the event, the rating fee becomes a issue if it starts to count up to $20 or $30. If this is a dual rated event, would they send in $20 or $40 when knowing that the quick section has zero credit.
My idea of a tournament, is having everyone have a established rating or use the tournament in a effort to get both over-the-board ratings. Very much so for the scholastic players, as they are more willing or the parents are more willing to give up on the federation if there are zero or few local tournaments. Bill, looking at the people that goes to your chess club that are USCF members get and have a established over-the-board rating for classical and quick.
How many times have seen USCF members with only a provisional classical rating (like 230/07) with zero quick rating: drop out of the USCF because: 1) having a low rating 2) very few tournaments in local area and drop out. There is nothing as a director can do with the rating, but can do something to get that player a established rating one person at a time. As my idea and personal idea that people will stay with the federation if they have some tournaments.
If under the old system for that club tournament director never sending in that extra rating fee for that quick section of a G/30 event, is only cheating the players out of a quick rating. The scholastic players, as most scholastic tournaments only and only send in rating reports to have only the classical rating not the quick rating rated for a dual rated event.
So, G/:30 through G/:60 can be dual rated!. They donāt have to be dual rated, but they can be dual rated.
Personally, I donāt choose to have my G/:30-:60s dual rated. I never indicate the TC on the rating report, and I always select the āRegularā Tournament Type for :30-:60 tournaments. Only for G/:29s do I select āQuickā Tournament Type.
BTW: where are these forms which have a field for indicating the time control?
The rating report form can be downloaded here:
uschess.org/about/forms/00tmtrep.PDF
Simply put, the reason the USCF started Quick-rating G/30-G/60 was that the Quick Chess rating pool was so small that the ratings were grossly inaccurate. Probably the logical response to this would be to conclude that Quick Chess was an interesting idea that just didnāt work out ā but thatās not the way our USCF leaders tend to think.
Iām not sure I agree that the small rating pool proves Quick Chess didnāt work. It does, however, suggest that since the ratings are inaccurate it is unwise to hold big money events using those ratings. If you want to have such an event, rate it Quick but use regular ratings for pairings and prizes.
Our local club has Quick Chess events Tues-Friday. Tuesday G/30 draws very well, and Friday G/10 is also pretty popular. Wed G/15 and Thu G/20 are more iffy, though thatās largely because those are lower attendance nights anyway. Our Quick ratings are pretty similar to Classical ratings with most players, and with all of the āregularsā. The G/10 is really fun because you get the adrenaline rush and also have a chance to sneak a win here and there from top rated players. Even an FM has been scalped a few times by B players. Itās fun, as long as you donāt take it seriously.
If your club runs QC tournaments regularly, then the ratings in the local pool will be reasonably accurate. My point was that QC has not grown to the level predicted by its originators. (When I tracked this a few years ago, I found essentially no change in the number of QC TLAs over a couple of years.) The number of players in the QC rating pool ought to be at least a rough model of the number of the interest in QC tournaments. The problem is that a rating system only works if there are enough participants to make it statistically meaningful. (Thatās why the old regional rating systems faded away over time.) Iām not saying thereās anything wrong with playing G/10, or any other kind of chess that players enjoy. But trying to clone the rating system for this kind of chess was an experiment that just didnāt work out.
I agree with the assertion that national Quick ratings arenāt accurate, I just donāt believe that means they must be scrapped. As to the assertion that regional ratings died because of an insufficient rating pool, that aināt necessarily so. The Northwest rating system died because USCF made that a condition for Portlandās US Open bid to be accepted. The NW players were pretty much opposed, but the condition was agreed upon by the NW chess board. Iām not saying that wasnāt a reasonable condition, mind you, only that our pool was plenty sufficient.
In my opinion, the local rating systems were undesirable from a national perspective because players improved in non-USCF rated events, then went back to the World Open and did very well.
āMust be scrappedā is overstating what I wrote. The truth is that most players do not care much the about QC ratings. If this were not the case, there would have been no reason to double-rate all those G/30-G/60 tournaments. The fact that most men no longer wear straw hats in summer does not mean that straw-boaters āmust be scrapped,ā but it does mean that youāre not going to make much money selling them.
The problem with G/10 events to G/90 events: even if they are both 4 rounds events, 4 round G/10 [4(10 x 2) = 80 minutes / 1 hour 20 minutes] would be total time of 1 hour 20 minutes; a 4 round G/90 [4(90 x 2) = 720 minutes / 12 hours] would be total time of 12 hours. If someone drives to a event, it could take then 30 minutes or a hour or more to get to the tournament. If the tournament would only take 1 hour and 20 minutes they would spend more time on the road then the tournament. If the tournament would take 12 hours more players would come to the event. As they would have time to talk with the other players, see players they have not talked with in years, or the last tournament they were in. This is the reason that quick events have been more or less just tournaments for members of the club.
Do know there are a number of tournament directors that never would have a G/30 to G/60 time controls dual rated. This is a shame, as the goal of having dual rated events, was to make the quick ratings more current. The director if wanting: could have the tournament not dual rated, or have the tournament dual rated. This was the reason for my old statement, if the director needed to send in the rating report on paper as some directors still do. Then if the director pays double the rating report, when the director could only pay only one rating ā then pay double the ratings or one rating and both tournaments are equal. Then the federation would be working against itself, as the director not having credit would not spend the money. Only a few that wants the best for the players would have pay double the rating fee. As the federation does not ask for double the rating fee for paper, then the quick is rated for free ā making it free to the director then would not support the claim the director should get the quick rating and classical rating for the same tournament.
Let me restate one point: all events at Game/30 through Game/60 are supposed to be dual rated.
The office incorrectly interpreted the decision to dual rate, primarily for economic reasons, I suppose. That WILL be corrected in the new ratings programming.
There is a difference between whether quick ratings are viable and whether they achieved their purpose, which was in some measure to give players who werenāt willing to risk their regular rating a venue to continue playing rated chess. Dual ratings are at cross purposes for that, of course.
Are you saying, Mike, that TDs are required to submit G/30-60 for dual rating? I thought that it was an option, esp. since the fee is doubled for paper reports. If this is a requirement, then I have missed the dictate.
Terry Winchester:
This could be the reason that the federation changed the policy for the paper reports: 1) the directors in your thoughts would not get credit 2) the directors; 2) the directors did not care to spend extra money for the dual rating; 3) not spending the money almost always effected the scholastic players more then the adult tournaments.
The reason that the scholastic players have less of there dual rated tournaments performed then adult tournaments: 1) the scholastic players and the parents have little or less knowledge of the workings of a rated tournament; 2) the directors of scholastic tournaments are more into the profits of the tournament, as a adult would take home $50 to $80 for first place, in the scholastic tournament first place would get a trophy worth $5 to $15.
Doug, Doug, Doug. How do you manage to keep coming up with this stuff?
Mike Nolan explained it very well:
-
First, the EB (or the Delegates or the ratings committee) decided to dual-rate G/30-G/60, in order to provide a larger database for the quick rating system. This dual rating was supposed to be automatic ā TDs were not supposed to be allowed to CHOOSE regular only, quick only, or dual.
-
Then, when the office tried to implement this policy, they discovered that, due to antiquated ratings software, the data entry for dual-rated events would have to be done twice. This was a big cost factor for tournaments submitted on paper (as the entire crosstable would have to be entered twice), but an insignificant factor for tournaments submitted on diskette (because inserting a diskette into a computer twice is no big deal).
-
Therefore, the office unilaterally modified the policy (and what else could they do, really?) so that the double data entry would be performed only if the organizer paid for it. The result was that tournaments submitted on diskette would still be dual-rated, but tournaments submitted on paper would be regular-rated only (NOTE ā regular-rated, NOT regular- or quick-rated at the organizerās option) unless the organizer paid a double rating fee.
-
Now, with new well-written software that doesnāt require double data entry, the originally intended policy (automatic dual rating of ALL G/30-G/60 events) can be implemented easily.
And thatās the (simple) picture.
Bill Smythe