I’m thinking of playing in the World Open this July in the u1800 section. But I was told by my friend who won a $1000 at a tournament in november that if I win more than a thousand dollars in a tournament in my section that my minimum rating would be moved to 1800. I like the idea of having a minimum rating of 1800 but I was wondering if I would be forced to play in the u2000 section immediately or as of the next supplement. This affects whether I can play in the u1800 section of the Southern Open or would i be forced to play in the u2000 even though the next supplement hasn’t been published. If anyone knows anything about minimum ratings or this question I’d appreciate your time.
Only knowing one person, with winning the under 2000 prize fund, that gave him a rating floor of 2000, just because of the prize fund; as he never reached a master rating, he does have a rating floor of 2000, this is only for his classical rating as the tournament time control was slower then game 60 – as his quick rating floor is 1900. 
If you win that prize fund, the tournament director will send in a statement, (your name and uscf number) and anyone else winning a prize fund, when the tournament director sends in the official tournament report. The tournament director will report that you have won this cash prise for the under 1800 section. What the office will do is give you a rating floor of 1800, so its like any other rating floor (example: like going over 1600 then having a rating floor of 1400; going over 1700 having a rating floor of 1500, going over 1800 having a rating floor of 1600). As you will be in the under 1800 section, you should know about having a rating floor: as I feel you have a established rating over 1600.
It will take place after the tournament is rated, when it is rated you will from that time on have a rating floor of 1800, and 
will never go under that rating. After it is rated, and when the annual list or the supplement comes out, then you will have a rating floor of 1800. As your floor will not be official for parings of tournaments untill its (Febuary 1, April 1, June 1, August 1, October 1, December 1). If you play in a tournament before the tournament you won the prize fund is rated, or that you play in a tournament after the prize fund is rated but its not let official, then you could play in the under 1800 section.
What you are asking is a ethical question, 
if I win do I play in the under 1800 section of a different tournament right before it could be rated and become official. There is nothing to stop you from doing so if you can so do it. All that the office will do will set you with a rating floor at 1800 so you can never be in a under 1800 section.
Will say on your ethical question, you are spending a great deal of time thinking of the win of a prize fund, then thinking of your game. Some times having a rating floor is not always that great if you are thinking of the win of a prize fund.
Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
Thx for your reply as this answers a lot of questions. But I think I have an acception that I’m not sure of. The world open and the southern open are both in the same supplement so as official ratings go I am in the clear. But both tournaments are Continental Chess Assoc. events and they have their own set of rules and they might go into affect immediately. Also the rulebook states that these minimum ratings established by winning prizes are for large tournaments. And since the rules are also USCF, The USCF is headed by the same man as the CCA(Bill Goichberg). And since CCA is the only organization that runs large tournaments wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest?
As you have made it clear, the same people will be doing both tournaments, if you do win the prize fund granting a rating of 1800: going into the next tournament, they should know about your past prize money.
It would be up to the chief tournament director to let you win a second prize fund in the under 1800 section. The United States Chess Federation would not have much to say dealing with this ethical issue; if it was myself: you still be able to be in the second tournament and able to win the under 1800 section. As the tournament still will be forced to pay out the promised prized fund, for some person or persons in their tournament; the only limited demand is a rating between 100 to 1799 that is official during the time of the tournament. Knowing that some large tournaments, that they will be limits for a person that has a unknown rating: to only be able to win the lower sections.
All that the prize fund rating floor does it make sure your rating never goes under the rating you won your prize fund. Then again the tournament director must follow the rules dealing with a persons official rating, if your official rating is still under 1800, the tournament director should still be forced to grant you the prize fund in the under 1800 section.
Were we are going on this subject, is something that the rule book has not addressed, as this is such a special case. As there are not that many members, that has won a prize fund rating floor, then go to a different tournament, and able to win a large prize fund because there rating floor was not changed before the next tournament. The idea of giving you a rating floor above your prize fund was to stop a second large prize pay out. This subject might be addressed more clear in a 6th edition rule book, with the new rule book that became official in 2004 might take a number of years before this subject is clear.
In theory think you can do this, it would break with the spirit of the rules. Then again the rules state at the next tournament that your official rating is still below 1800, with that in mind as your official rating; also that the tournament is going to pay out the prise fund for some people in the tournament, with it given that the people dealing with the tournament would be given out the money.
Douglas Forsythe, Local TD
I agree about the rules. But I don’t think this has anything to do with ethics. Usually it would be an ethical question but I was 1170 USCF as of the april 03 supplement and I m 1727 right now. This is my first supplement in the u1800 section and you had no way of knowing this. I’m still catching up with the competition. I wouldn’t feel bad about moving to the under 2000 but thats kinda hard to swallow. Jumping u1600 u1800 and u2000 in three supplements. But I probably wont win anything anyways so I might find a large scholastic nationals to go to.
There are two different questions here. There is a USCF rule that anyone who wins a $1000+ class prize should be assigned a minimum rating. (It is enforced erratically, since not all organizers wish to report such things). This would not come into effect until the next rating supplement was published. Quite apart form this, however, CCA maintains its own minimum rating list, which applies to CCA tournaments and some others who choose to use it. If you won a large class prize in the World Open, you would almost certainly be assigned a CCA minimum rating immediately.
Please indicate which USCF rule specifies this $1000 prize and minimum rating assignment.
Thanks,
-Terry
See link below.
Thx everybody for your help. but I have one more question which I mentioned earlier. Why is Bill Goichberg the executive director of the USCF and the head of the CCA. As I mentioned before wouldn’t this be a conflict of interest when it came to rules pertaining to large prizes. Since CCA is really the only organization that runs large class prizes.
I don’t see a conflict here. The Executive Director doesn’t have any special power to break/bend the rules which are determined by the Rules Committee. Furthermore, I don’t see any rule violations within CCA, since the Official Rules of Chess allows organizers to modify any/all standard USCF rules provided advance notice is given in all pre publicity advertisements, i.e. TLAs.
October 2004 Rating Supplement Bits and Pieces:
“Under current USCF policy, a person’s rating floor can also change if the individual wins a large section or class prize. For example, if a player wins an Under 2000 prize of at least $1,000, the individual floor is 2000. Such floors cannot raise ratings to above 2000. The maximum such floor is 2000.”
Our local National TD was unaware of this USCF policy and thought that only the Continental Chess Association kept track of prize amounts. I’m curious how this information formally gets to the USCF and where in the rules is a TD required to send this info. The local Senior TD says that all big organizers are required to send in a letter or statement of the big prize winners along with the ratings report, but where does it say that the TD has to do this? The above only seems to say that if they have such info, they’ll act on it. SwissSys doesn’t prompt me to include this info. Is it required learning in the TD certification process? Or is it just reading between the lines of the Bits and Pieces?
“Required” is a stronger word than I’d use. There is a line at the bottom of the rating report form saying “Please attach a list of names and USCF ID numbers of all players winning a class prize of $1,000 or more.” It really doesn’t come up that often; aside from the CCA, I can think of maybe three organizers to whose tournaments it might apply.
Only know of one player that won the prize money to give him a rating floor of 2000. He did go too a tournament and won the under 2000 section, the USCF gave him the rating floor of 2000. It was only for his classical rating, not his quick rating. His quick rating floor is only 1900, as the tournament he was in was slower then G/60.
With the empirical evidence, if you win a large prize fund you’re rating floor is only set for the classical rating; unless, you win the prize in a tournament with the time controls between G/30 and G/60. At the national level, very sure there has never been a prize fund for someone to win over $1,000 with a time control less then G/60. Only the tournaments that last 4 days are going to give out this type of prize fund.
It is a little strange only having one rating floor changed then having two. As the point of the idea is too keep the person from ever being in a tournament, too win the same under “X” prize again. As he still can win the under 2000 prize in a quick tournament; but not able to win the under 2000 prize in the classical rating tournament. It is up to the organizer it whats, for the rating too be used in a quick tournament, most use the classical ratings for the pairings not the quick rating for the pairings – as a number of players do not have a quick rating, it is better for the director and players to pick the classical ratings. It does make it stranger for the prize money, when a players classical rating is 1950 and the quick rating is 1025.
Of course, he has always been head of CCA – basically, he IS the CCA. About a year ago he volunteered to serve as USCF executive director, for a year, free of charge. This has saved cash-starved USCF big bucks, although it raises potential conflict-of-interest questions. I’d have to say, however, that Goichberg has acquitted himself extremely well as interim ED.
The same situation existed long before Goichberg accepted the interim EDship. Players who won $1000 class prizes had their floors raised to the next class, effective with the next rating supplement that included the tournament in which the prize was won. This has not changed. CCA may have had its own policies, which also have not changed. Some other organizers have chosen to use CCA minimum ratings. That hasn’t changed either.
Bill Smythe
The floor rule should be strictly enforced, since that would prevent players from sandbagging. For instance, if Joe Smith is a 1955 player who decides that he wants to play in the U1800 section of the HB Global Challenge, he might go to as many local tournaments as possible and intentionally lose until his rating falls to <1799. Then he would have a better chance of defeating the competition in the U1800 section as opposed to playing in the tougher U2000 section. Lets say that Joe does very well in the tournament and earns himself a $5000 prize. It is imperative that a rating floor of 1800 be established, so that this type of situation can never happen again.
By and large, TD’s should be required to report information such as prize fund, money winners, amount won, etc.
If Joe Smith rating is 1955, the drop it down to 1900; after that take 200 points away and Joe Smith rating floor is 1700. Sandbaging is more common for a player going from 1810 a class A rating to 1799 or below a class B rating. Sandbaging to reach your rating floor just to play in a large tournament for a large prize fund. It would take Joe Smith a number of small weekend tournaments just to break below 1799, then going to a larger tournament for the hope to win the under 1800 prize. If Joe Smith rating is 1955, think he is looking at breaking the 2000 rating then sandbagging his rating down to a class B player.
Been to a number of tournaments and did see class A players that would not even be able to win the under 1800 section. Did see class A players with the same point score as the players that win a under 1800 prize. Lets say Joe Smith did sandbag, going to the Chicago Open for that large prize money. Going to that type of tournament to win a prize money is not a cake walk.
Sorry but I do not understand. You contradict yourself. If “Joe” breaks the 2000 rating, then his new floor becomes 1800 so he wouldn’t be able to sandbag to class B. So how can he break 2000 then sandbag to <1799?
Dear Weightlifter9000:
You never used the word then as in a idiom, or better still as a parodox. Does not Mister Smith with a 1955 want to become a expert; or, does not Mister Smith want to sandbag his rating. If Mister Smith wants to sandbag his rating, then Mister Smith would be sandbaging his rating down to a class B player.
If you look at the total direct conclusions, then take one sentence out of context. When talking over Mister Smith, it is more circumstantial evidence then direct observational evidence. As Mister Smith or Joe Smith is a literary work based on the imagination with a improbable or deliberately false personia.
If we look at the problems with Mister Joe Smith. In that one sentence Mister Smith could become more then the sum of his parts. As a person he could work to become a expert, as he rating is only 45 points from that as a goal. If and only if the writer wants Mister Joe Smith to have this as a goal. The other goal would take his rating, and bring his rating down into a lower class. If Mister Joe Smith, does take his rating from a class A player and bring it down into a class B rating. If it is self-will to bring oneself down into a lower station in life: as a class A rating is a higher station in life then a class B rating; it would be like a person living in a apartment and wishing and wanting to be homeless. Number of people would look at this as a failed personia, or not being rational.
The parodox for Mister Joe Smith, take his 1955 rating and work to become an expert. As he has over come to become a class A player, can he over come and then become a expert or not. As a human being he could or cannot become a expert, it is one of the many tests in life to become better then what we are as humans. It would be thought that making this as a goal, as being rational.
On the other hand, if Mister Joe Smith sandbags his own rating just in the hope of the win in a lower class. Then the whole point of the game of chess is the art work to make capital. We know that Mister Joe Smith is a class A player; if he de-evolution to a lower class for the sole reason for making money. The he would become a failed personia, or if he was a real person would become a failed human being.
Chess like anything is labor. If you look at the new wave or the post modernist, you will have living labor and dead labor. Chess can be having a skill, with the enjoyment of the skill. Going into a tournament, being a director, having a skill that you can use that could give yourself a wage. If you enjoy the skill more then the wage that skill brings into your life then you have a living labor. If Mister Joe Smith, since he was sandbaging his rating. He has given up his skill as a Class A player to become a Class B player just to make money, just to make capital. Then going into tournaments for Mister Joe Smith is dead labor. As it is not to show others your skills over the chessboard, it is just to get that prize money. For Mister Joe Smith then, his love of chess is over and only use the skills as a chess player for the only goal he wants – that goal is only for the money.
That is the parodox for Mister Joe Smith. If he works to become a expert, then we will use him as a role model for lower ranking players and the youth of the scholastic programs. If he damage his own rating and station, for the sole wish to better himself with the rewards in the tournament. Then we will hate him, for what he became and what he could have been only makes the hate worse. This is the parodox for Mister Joe Smith, wish you can now understand the meaning in the sentence.
idiom
n 1: a manner of speaking that is natural to native speakers of a language [syn: parlance] 2: the usage or vocabulary that is characteristic of a specific group of people; “the immigrants spoke an odd dialect of English”; “he has a strong German accent” [syn: dialect, accent] 3: the style of a particular artist or school or movement; “an imaginative orchestral idiom” [syn: artistic style] 4: an expression whose meanings cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up [syn: idiomatic expression, phrasal idiom, set phrase, phrase]
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
paradox
n : (logic) a self-contradiction; “`I always lie’ is a paradox because if it is true it must be false”
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
First of all, the word “then” is exactly what causes your statement to be a paradox. One cannot break 2000 then sandbag to class B. Secondly, The statement is not an idiom. An example of an idiom is “It’s raining cats and dogs.” Idioms are a form of figurative language. The above statement is just simply false; there is nothing more to it. So I don’t see how your long seven paragraph post addresses the issue at all.
Methinks Doug Forsythe doesn’t understand how rating floors come about for players.
There are two ways a player can get a floor:
-
Once a player has achieved a rating of X, he is given a floor of X-200, rounded down to the next multiple of 100 points.
-
If a player wins a class prize of $1000 or more, he is given a floor in the next higher rating class.
The first of these is handled automatically (I believe) by USCF’s ratings software. The second depends on organizers reporting cash class winners to USCF, and on USCF personnel properly assigning the floors manually.
Bill Smythe