We received the following e-mail today, I think it is a topic worthy of discussion here:
My initial response:
We’ve considered this, but there are some issues to deal with before making any changes in the USCF’s published rating policy.
First, publishing some official ratings on paper but others only on the website would effectively divide TDs into two classes, those who have net access and those who don’t. A player might not know which published rating to expect a TD to use, the latest printed one or the latest online one. (For cost considerations we probably cannot go to monthly printed ratings supplements.)
Second, part of the reason for having the rating fixed for a period of time is so that players and organizers both have a consistent reference point in terms of eligibility for certain events, sections or prizes.
I think that time period needs to be long enough to make travel plans, I’m not sure what impact monthly official ratings would have on that.
It is not unusual for some events that are held right after a new supplement takes effect to announce that they will use the previous supplement. For example, the upcoming SuperNationals III in Nashville will use the February 2005 ratings even though it is being held in April.
Even that decision is not without controversy because there are players who were still unrated in February but are rated in the April supplement and want to play in sections based upon that rating. I believe they’ve made an accomodation for those players, which only goes to show that no matter how carefully you plan you usually miss some details.
I tend to agree with you that some kind of change may be needed, I’m still not sure what it should be. This is an issue that needs to be reviewed by our Executive Board and possibly by the Delegates.
There are members having problems understanding their official rating and their web rating. I’m not sure if Mike Nolan has looked into how many active players have a web rating different then their last published official rating? Not asking the raw data, only the ball park percentage range for the current membership.
For a very active player, would say being in 6 tournaments in a given year as being active. The new rating system, having tournaments rated on the same day is not going to change the amount of tournaments players will play in a given year. The very small percentage of players having their web rating change to a level of needing a month by month unofficial rating is not needed.
Anyway, what was the percentage change of members having a new official rating for the April supplement?
I like the idea of additional downloads being available to TDs that enable them to update their membership lists on their computers (meaning Internet access at the tournament site is not necessary, but still preferable!). I would think the following scenario is something to work on:
Supplement Download - Every two months showing people’s “official” ratings, etc. just as it is now.
Additional Download - Containing members who now have a rating that didn’t in the latest Supplement and updating all provisional ratings to their first “official” rating. It could also contain any membership renewals and new members, but NOT update any of the “official” ratings from the Supplement as that still stands.
When I run a tournament I always use the Supplement, unless they are either unrated or provisional in which case I get the latest rating off the MSA and use that one instead. The Additional Download above would help automate this process.
There will be around 53,000 players listed in the April 2005 supplement.
By comparison, over the last few years the number of players listed in the April supplement has averaged around 24,000.
Rerating will probably increase the number of players in a typical supplement by about 5%, April 2005 was an unusual situation because of the first-time rerating of over 23,000 sections held or rated since 1/1/2004.
On rerates I have a question I have been thinking of the last few days. If I am not mistaken a couple of years ago there was a 2 point addition to the rating somewhere in the rating system. I know it was rescinded, but with the rerates going back so far ( I am not sure how far you have gone back) if it changed the rating I am not sure it would be a fair rating showing up now. The past shouldn’t be changed (past meaning more than 2 or so years.) Although they may be out of order, what is done is done. The time to fix it was then, not now. It wouldn’t be fair.
Please note that I am not complaining about the rerates. Because of them my rating is actually higher I am just curious what others think on the subject.
Only events that ended or were rated in 2004 and 2005 have been rerated.
I don’t anticipate going back any further than that, and the reason I wanted to rerate back that far was to correct some systems problems with returning players who were treated as if they were unrated and to correect an unusually large number of events in the first half of 2004 that were rated twice, double-rated under one rating system instead of dual-rated or rated under the wrong system.
What has this post to do with the current thread? I wish ppl would stay on topic. This post could have been posted at uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=378
I am just curious what others think on the subject.