Just for clarification, you need to be within 500 points and you can only play a 2 game match for it to be rated fully, correct?
Here are the current rules for rated matches, though I expect these to be reviewed at this week’s EB meeting and some changes made:
-
Both players must have a published rating and be rated within 400 points of each other. (The rating need not be an established rating, but it must be a published rating.)
-
A match is currently defined as three or more games between two individuals. If the validation program sees that there are just two players and the event is three games or longer, it will require that the event be classified as a match. One or two game events can be coded as matches but that is not currently mandatory.
-
If a player has three or more games against the same opponent in an event, the bonus formulas do not apply for that player. Obviously this applies to all matches of three or more games, but it also applies to other types of events where, for whatever reason, a player has three or more games against one of his opponents. (Obviously, that’s not a true Swiss event.)
-
The maximum ratings gain or loss in a match is 50 points, regardless of the number of games.
-
The maximum ratings gain or loss solely from matches over a three year period is 200 points.
Here are some of the changes that have been discussed:
A. Events that are two games long and between two players must be classified as matches and the match rules regarding ratings difference and maximum gains or losses will apply. (Currently this is optional.)
B. The maximum ratings game in an event which is just one game betweeen two players may be set at 50 points (or less).
C. Events such as one in which player A and B play 8 games and player A plays one game against a third player (to get around the ‘two player’ test) may be required to conform to the match rules for both the ratings difference between the players and the maximum ratings gain/loss.
D. A player who is at his or her floor and plays in a match will be considered to have made a request to have his or her floor lowered by 100 points. (A request to have one’s floor lowered is not automatically granted, to forestall manipulation of ratings by sandbaggers.)
E. The ‘three year, 200 point rule’ is unclear. I expect the Board to either clarify this rule or modify it. (In addition to a rule governing a multi-year time frame I’d like to see a 100 point limit on gains or losses from matches over a 180 day time frame. This would ignore non-matches, so that a once a player has a net gain from matches of 100 points over 180 days no further gains from matches are possible within that 180 day time window, though the player could still lose points from those matches.)
F. There is currently no upper limit on matches, though WinTD and SwisSys cannot handle events longer than 14 rounds. The online system can handle an event of up to 32 rounds if entered using the online editing form. The board may limit a match to no more than X games (I think the number 20 has been discussed in that context.)
G. Players in contention for invitational events who have played recent matches may have any ratings points gained in those matches subtracted from their rating for eligiblity purposes. (This idea still needs further thought.)
Thought the current rule, you have to have a established rating. That will help a great deal next Monday (02/13/05) and the weekend (02/18-19/06). That will help out a great deal Mike. If someone has a published rating like 1406/04, than I can play the person a 22 game match with it only being one section.
Sweet! 
You change it up to 32 rounds, time to run a test match to see if if does go past 20 games.
Mike:
Glad the board is going to do a number of changes to the match rules. Think it has cost me something like over $100 to $150 in entry fees to get the rules changed. It still is not going to slow me down, as like I said I do not care about ratings. With the rule changes, it will be more simple to get people an established rating faster with limited amount of sections. I support the rule changes Mike!
I did run a validation, with someone with a provisional rating. It did pass validation with more than three games. That is so sweet, as I can get someone an established rating with one section within one tournament. Glad you have changed the rules Mike with the validation. As I did the same test back in early January 2005 and it failed validation.
With only the shift of 50 points in a match. If someone is say 1651 provisional, after the match the established rating will be 1601 or better. I have to pat you on the back Mike, as you have made it so much better. Thank you Mike, going to call up Brandon and see if I can get him an established rating this week.
It still only goes up to 20 rounds Mike for a match. Its ok, as the best I can do is 10 G/30’s per-day.
The rule regarding matches and published ratings has NOT changed, that is the way the rule currently stands. (The initial version of the validation program incorrectly required an established rating, but that’s not what the published rules currently require.)
Howver, perhaps the Board should change that so that matches would only be permitted between players with both published AND established ratings.
I’m fairly sure the ratings committee would support that change since the whole point to provisional ratings is to have enough games to to ensure that a new player’s rating is a reasonable estimate of his playing strength.
Having most or all of the games leading to a player’s initial established be against just one player decreases the reliability of the rating.
I’ll add this to the list of items I sent to the Board for their consideration.
You could write a letter to your delegate. Hope your delegate goes to the US Open. Hope your delegate brings it up at the delegates meeting. Thats right, dealing with the delegate is a total wast of time. So what is the rush to get past the delegates?
I’d let the Nebraska delegate know about it, but I’m not sure how to contact myself.
Match rules have not been set by the Delegates, but were set by the Executive Board with advice from the ratings committee.
Is not the match rules part of the Official Rules of Chess, as they are on page 261? Did not the delegates approve the Official Rules of Chess?
So you are tell everyone the delegates approved the Offical Rules of Chess from page 1 to 260 and 262 to the end of the book. Have you talked to Tim Just with the idea to mess with his book?
I’m pretty sure it was once required that matches be between ESTABLISHED players. Somehow this requirement seems to have disappeared along the way.
Bill Smythe
When I rated the match today, it was kind of odd:
My standard rating was 1710, I lost 2 games against my friend, who is 1884.
He gains 11 points, but I lose 15? Should the net be the same?
Then in the quick, I lose 26, he gains 29?
No, since the changes in the ratings formula in 2000-01 the ratings system is no longer a zero sum game.
Because each player’s K is based on his rating, the gains and losses aren’t being multiplied by the same K factor. That’s also why the changes in the regular rating system aren’t the same as the changes in the quick system, unless both players had regular ratings that equalled their quick ratings, which is seldom the case.
I’m not sure when that change might have been, Bill.
When I went through the website and pamplets looking for all the rules to build them into the validation program, I though I saw a rule requiring matches be between established players, too.
However, once it was pointed out that the rulebook and current flyer both say ‘published rating’ not 'established rating, Joan and I went through every version of the match rule flyer we could find in USCF files going back at least 10 years. I didn’t see it in any prior edition of the rulebook, either.