FIDE Rules for using USCF ratings

[harveylerman]

What are the FIDE rules for having an event rated by them? I would assume that they would require FIDE ratings to be used for pairings and prizes. I have tried this but have encountered problems since many players would then be considered as unrated. If we use these players’ USCF ratings we get ratings that normally would be too high. I see events run in the USA now that say “FIDE Rated, using USCF ratings for pairings and prizes”. I would think that this would not be acceptable to FIDE.
… so I have stopped FIDE rating my events.
What have others done about this “problem”?

[BobMessenger]

CCA uses FIDE ratings for norm tournaments but USCF ratings for non-norm tournaments that are FIDE rated.

The FIDE Swiss Rules, section C.04.2 in the FIDE Handbook (General handling rules for Swiss tournaments) say:

Before the start of the tournament a measure of the player’s strength is assigned to each player. The strength is usually represented by rating lists of the players. If one rating list is available for all participating players, then this rating list should be used.

It is advisable to check all ratings supplied by players. If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible.

To me, this suggests that even a norm tournament could use USCF ratings instead of FIDE ratings.

[eastside]

IMHO, the best solution for handling FIDE-unrated players in non-norm US events is to use the player’s USCF rating, minus either 50 or 100 points (I think USCF-50=FIDE is the current preferred conversion formula, but others may know better). That should give a pretty reasonable conversion to FIDE at the present time.

One could use FIDE ratings for pairings, and USCF (or any other) ratings for prizes, to run an event or section where norms are offered. This is what happened for the Open section at the Millionaire Chess Open, for example. Ratings were converted for tournament purposes using one of several formulas supplied by the organizers, and those converted ratings determined section and prize eligibility for all sections, including the Open. However, the Open had to use FIDE ratings to make pairings, including marking the one player without a FIDE rating as unrated for pairing purposes.

[harveylerman]

Thanks for the input, but it sounds strange to me that an organization like FIDE would continue to “tolerate” the use of a mixture of ratings in that way, especially since they have their own ratings… and I hear will cover all players down to a rating of 1000. It seems kind of a mess to run events using two rating systems one for USCF-pairings-prizes and another for FIDE. Something will happen, and I don’t think it will be good.

[eastside]

@harveylerman

Thanks for the input, but it sounds strange to me that an organization like FIDE would continue to “tolerate” the use of a mixture of ratings in that way, especially since they have their own ratings… and I hear will cover all players down to a rating of 1000.

Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the practice were eventually outlawed by FIDE altogether. However, FIDE did accept the Millionaire Chess Open’s rating report without incident, and I am unaware of any recent problems with CCA’s FIDE rating reports either. (Jeffery Xiong’s average field was two rating points shy of a GM norm as of the end of the tournament. It may have been submitted by the chief TD anyway, due to some subsequent developments. If the average rating issue goes away as a result of said developments, I would anticipate FIDE granting the norm.)

@harveylerman

It seems kind of a mess to run events using two rating systems one for USCF-pairings-prizes and another for FIDE. Something will happen, and I don’t think it will be good.

I must concur with the first sentence. Having run an event like that, I can say that it’s possible to do it without having problems - but IMHO, the attention to detail required to make sure there aren’t any problems is a big problem in and of itself. I had to post a separate list of players with their “prize” ratings, as well. Lots of opportunities for extra errors with all that manual work.

[Smythe_Dakota]

@harveylerman

… it sounds strange to me that an organization like FIDE would continue to “tolerate” the use of a mixture of ratings in that way …

@BobMessenger

… The FIDE Swiss Rules … say:

… If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible.

From the above I’d say that, for FIDE-unrated players, FIDE is not only tolerating, but encouraging, the use of USCF (or any other) ratings.

Bill Smythe

[brennanprice]

@Smythe Dakota

@harveylerman

… it sounds strange to me that an organization like FIDE would continue to “tolerate” the use of a mixture of ratings in that way …

@BobMessenger

… The FIDE Swiss Rules … say:

… If no reliable rating is known for a player the arbiters should make an estimation of it as accurately as possible.

From the above I’d say that, for FIDE-unrated players, FIDE is not only tolerating, but encouraging, the use of USCF (or any other) ratings.

Bill Smythe

At last month’s Lugano (Switzerland) Open, my USCF rating (which I disclosed) was used for pairing purposes without modification.

[jwiewel]

@brennanprice

…
At last month’s Lugano (Switzerland) Open, my USCF rating (which I disclosed) was used for pairing purposes without modification.

Mark Glicko’s conversion is:
USCF =
180 + 0.94FIDE if FIDE <= 2000
20 + 1.02FIDE if FIDE > 2000

I think reversing that means
FIDE =
(USCF-180)/0.94 if USCF <=2060 (USCF ratings below 1120 would translate to under 1000 FIDE)
(USCF-20)/1.02 if USCF > 2060
If that event had used such a formula then you would have been paired as about 100 points less than your USCF rating.

[ILfish]

I know in Canadian tournaments they use my CFC rating rather than either my USCF or FIDE rating.
Larry S. Cohen

[eastside]

Our northern neighbors don’t have a very high opinion of our rating system, in my experience.