Since USCF ratings are based on how a player does against RATED players, how are ratings calculated for an entire section of Unrated players? None of them have ratings, so what are they being compared against to calculate their ratings?
We’ve got one kid in our club who ended up with a whopper of a rating after playing well in his first tournament in an unrated section. I know this has a way of straightening itself out in time–either the kid lives up to his rating or he doesn’t – but for now it’s pretty weird.
Thanks in advance, O knowledgeable ones; my brief searches have not turned up any answers so far.
The ratings formula is available on the ratings page, but it is not light reading.
In general, it works like this:
Unrataed players are assigned a starting rating, usually somewhere between 500 and 1300, depending upon their age. From there, we go through three sets of computations to determine the post-event ratings.
If all of the players in the event are first-time players, this may result in a higher average post-event rating, at least for the players with a plus score than if there were one or two players with a previous rating in the field.
In many cases, there are a couple of players with some tournament history even if they don’t have a published rating yet.
That rule is something that needs to be changed for scholastic. I know someone who had a tournament for new players. They varied in age from 10-14. One of the kids scored 5.0 and was awarded an unbelievable 1700 rating. Needless to say the kid was smoked in the under 1800 section for a couple of tournaments. I would estimate him to be around 800. I haven’t seen the kid at any of the local tournaments recently. This is something I think can have a negative impact on a new player. I know this doesn’t happen often but I think it needs to be addressed.
What I don’t understand is why someone didn’t explain to the players how unreliable the rating is until they get 25 games under their belts. Understanding the rating system should be a part of their instruction, especially if it’s being promoted as being important.
I always tell my students they can’t go by what thier rating is until they have played at least 25 rated games. Until then, they don’t need to pay any attention to them because it doesn’t reflect their true strength. If they are going to pay any attention to ratings at all, then it’s up to us to teach them so they don’t become disappointed.
On the other hand, my first rating was 1128. That was over 30 years ago, and I’m now 1194!!!
Actually, I would never have run a tournament like that but I could see how someone could without thinking. Regardless, that system doesn’t work for a new scholastic player. The reason I got involved was because I felt sorry for the kid. I don’t think that should happen in the future for any other kids.
There can be an error with the scholastic players age. With just a scholastic event, even if the scholastic player did go 5.0 - 0.0, would find a post event in the 1700’s as strange.
If the director signed up the members without birthdates, without birthdates the rating system could be rating the players as adults … then scholastic players. With a adult event of UNR’s, or UNR’s with players under 1200, could see it being more rational to see a 1700 player with 5 games then a scholastic player with a 1700 rating with 5 games.
With the online memberships, not sure if a membership would be accepted without a birthdate. If a online membership can be accepted without a birthdate, it would give a rational reason for the scholastic player with a 1700 rating.
Questions and comments on the ratings formula, especially for events with all players being unrated and/or scholastic events, should go to the Ratings Committee.
The committee members are listed on the committee lists on the governance page of the USCF website.
– but for now it’s pretty weird.