Is there a release date for the print version of the new rulebook yet?
US Chess is aiming for no later than the end of the first quarter for 2019. I get to do a once over once it is ready.
Tim, who’s going to be going over the information on ratings systems? There were some out of date statements and other errors in the last two editions of the rulebook regarding ratings, and I don’t know if they’ve been reviewed for accuracy lately. The specifics and procedural matters regarding ratings issues change from time to time.
No one specifically. That chapter reflects wording changes made by the Delegates since the 6th edition. And that rulebook chapter has the following:
A more precise description of approximate rating calculations can be found at:
http://glicko.net/ratings/approx.pdf
A more technical version can be viewed at:
http://glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf
AND
Editor’s Note: The material in this chapter is a mix of ever changing ratings formulas, ratings policies, and rules changes. This chapter does not reflect the exact system used to calculate ratings. It uses simulated data and procedures to demonstrate the ideas behind the Ratings System. For the exact current formulas, policies, and rules please contact US Chess directly.
We have to go through the archaic process of having a delegate submit an ADM for the delegates meeting, it likely getting referred to the ratings committee at the delegates meeting, and then passed the following year with whatever the ratings committee says.
The Delegates only have authority over the rules of chess and (I think) the code of ethics, not the entire printed rulebook. The EB can make changes to the ratings formulas and the ratable time controls, for example.
But my question had more to do with information that was out of date, because those changes had already been made, just not reflected in the 6th edition, either because they were missed when the 6th edition was prepared or because those changes occurred after the 6th edition was published. For example, US Chess now offers two official ratings systems for online chess events, which may necessitate changes to the chapter on ratings as well as the chapter on Internet chess.
That’s separate from the question as to whether the rules of chess or the code of ethics correctly reflect the changes made to them by the Delegates and the question of whether the rules of chess and code of ethics are flawed or inconsistent. Between Tim’s work on the 7th edition and the office staff, hopefully those sections of the rulebook will correctly reflect the actions taken by the Delegates. As to flaws or inconsistencies, those do require the Delegates to pass motions to effect changes.
Nope. That’s not how it works.
Perhaps the ratings portion could be expanded and made into a separate volume. Perhaps two or three other volumes could be added as well, on other related topics, to create a valuable 5-piece organizer’s encyclopedia.
Bill Smythe
Then why did we go through that archaic process recently with some information that was incorrect in this chapter?
Which ADM are you referring to, from what year?
Considering how sporadically the formula may change, and (I’m kind of guessing here) the ability the Ratings Committee has to tweak the bonus (and maybe the k-factor) to keep things in a steady state, about the only thing better than Tim’s wording would be link on the website to explain whatever the current formula is (if the information in it gets maintained).
The ratings committee does an annual review of inflation to decide whether a bonus factor adjustment is made, usually that’s done in the May-June time frame.
Other ratings formula adjustments that have been made in the last 10 or so years were done by the Executive Board, and included changes to the floors (both where there are floors and what the money prize floor threshold is) and to the effective games formula (which resulted in a change in the K factor). There were also reductions in K for high rated players in dual rated events.
uschess.org/docs/gov/reports … hanges.pdf
This one:
“5. Rating floor.
Each rated player has a rating floor. Every player has a personal absolute floor between 100 and
150. A player with an established rating may have a rating floor higher than the absolute floor. In
most cases, floors are calculated by subtracting 200 points from the individual’s highest rating
achieved and setting the last two digits to zero. If a player’s highest rating achieved is greater
than or equal to 1400 but less than 1500, the individual’s floor is 1200. If the highest rating
achieved by a player is below 1400, then the individual’s floor is the same as his or her absolute
floor. No floor can be above 2100 or below 100, except that a player who achieves the Original
Life Master (OLM) title is given a floor of 2200. The OLM title is earned by playing 300 games,
not necessarily consecutive, with an established rating of 2200 or higher.”
I must be missing something, because I see no reference to an ADM.
Alex Relyea
As I understand the rules (and I served as a member of the Bylaws Committee for nearly 20 years, chairing or co-chairing it several times, as well as serving as the Parliamentarian for the Delegates for 25 years) and the specifics of that change, that editorial change was not one that required Delegate approval since the EB became the Board of Directors. (It is questionable where it would have required Delegate action before then, too.)
If that came from an ADM, it may have been a suggestion by the Delegates, each year there are a few motions that are basically requests for the EB or office to make a change, most of which should just be referred to the EB or office for their consideration, as the Delegates cannot mandate the Board or office to take specific actions on matters that are the Board’s authority to control. Some of those requests have been very trivial matters, too.
The only floor policy changes made in the last 20 or so years were made by the EB.
I don’t have the time or inclination to try and find the ADM reference but it was an ADM that was referred to the ratings committee and then passed the following year with the above language the ratings committee proposed to correct some incorrect statements in this paragraph.
OK then.
Alex Relyea
This might come as news to someone who’s only been to one Delegates Meeting, but the Delegates don’t always do everything ‘by the book’. (That’s actually true of a lot of organizations, and that is even within the spirit of Robert’s Rules, which are intended to be an aid to fair and efficient conduct of a meeting, not a straight jacket. Note that this is not true of all bodies, especially elected governments. Some use their rules as a means of delaying or avoiding actually conducting any business.)
Sometimes it’s just easier and faster for the Delegates to refer a motion to a committee and move on to the next item on the agenda.
Whether such a motion, if it is one that is technically outside of the purview of the Delegates, needs to come back the following year is usually left up to the person who prepares the advance agenda for next year.
I think we’ve developed a tendency to put too many referred items back on the agenda when the Delegates really don’t have the authority to take that action in the first place these days. It would, in my professional opinion, be adequate to just indicate in the Minutes or the Delegates Call for the next year that the motion was referred and what action, if any, resulted. It could also be handled in the committee’s report to the Delegates. A committee, or even the EB, is, of course, permitted to ask the Delegates for their opinion on matters that are not technically under the Delegates control.
I am scratching my head here. I am not sure what is being looked at that needs changing. From the 7th edition below are (once again) the links to the documents posted by the Ratings Committee chair AND the complete text of rule 5.
"A more precise description of approximate rating calculations can be found at:
http://glicko.net/ratings/approx.pdf
A more technical version can be viewed at:
http://glicko.net/ratings/rating.system.pdf
Currently there is an online approximate ratings calculator at: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/9177/679/
Dr. Mark Glickman and Bill Smythe contributed to the material in this chapter."
"Each rated player has a rating floor. Every player has a personal absolute floor between 100 and 150. A player with an established rating may have a rating floor higher than the absolute floor. In most cases, floors are calculated by subtracting 200 points from the individual’s highest rating achieved and setting the last two digits to zero. If a player’s highest rating achieved is greater than or equal to 1400 but less than 1500, the individual’s floor is 1200. If the highest rating achieved by a player is below 1400, then the individual’s floor is the same as his or her absolute floor. No floor can be above 2100 or below 100, except that a player who achieves the Original Life Master (OLM) title is given a floor of 2200. The OLM title is earned by playing 300 games, not necessarily consecutive, with an established rating of 2200 or higher.
A person’s rating floor can also change if he or she wins a large class prize. The dollar limit is set by the Executive Board and may change due to economic conditions or periodic updates. The current floor will be listed on the US Chess Federation official web site. The minimum post-tournament rating of players winning such a prize shall be the lowest rating which would not be eligible for the section or class prize the player won.
A player with a substantial history of not being competitive in a floored class may request that the US Chess office consider lowering this floor.
Rating floor examples
Example 1: If Jack’s highest rating achieved is 1830, his floor is 1600.
Example 2: If Joe’s highest rating achieved is 1599, his floor is 1300.
Example 3: If Sharon won an Under-1900 prize of $2,010 and her pre-tournament rating was 1853, her post-tournament rating and floor would be at least 1900. Thus, Sharon would be ineligible to win an Under-1900 prize in future events. If Jack won an Under-1500 prize of $2,200, his floor would be set to 1500."
We are going to build the agenda a bit differently this year. This is one example.