Outdated ratings listed on the player search page

All Things Chess
1

I was just searching for a player (see the link below) who played in a tournament I helped out with this past weekend due to a potential duplicate ID issue. The duplicate ID issue is beside the point here. The point I want to make here is that it says her regular rating is 1542 when you search for her. This makes you think her official September rating is 1542 but that was her official August rating. Her official September rating is 1503. Having outdated ratings come up when you search for a player is not good.

https://new.uschess.org/player-search?submit=1&pager=1&display_name=Emel%2520Bayrambeyli&rating_94[min]=&rating_94[max]=&quick_rating_95[min]=&quick_rating_95[max]=&blitz_rating_96[min]=&blitz_rating_96[max]=&online_regular_rating_165[min]=&online_regular_rating_165[max]=&online_blitz_rating_98[min]=&online_blitz_rating_98[max]=&online_quick_rating_97[min]=&online_quick_rating_97[max

2

I think the idea is to use ratings that have been around a while (say, 2 weeks or more) in order to give players enough advance notice as to which section(s) and which class prize(s) they are eligible for.

Imagine a player who wants to play in the under-1600 section and sees, a few days before the Labor Day weekend, that her rating is 1590 on the August list, because the September list isn’t official yet. She arrives at the tournament to be told by the tournament staff that she is not eligible for the under-1600 section because her September rating is 1610, and since part (or all) of the tournament is in September, the September rating will be used to determine section and prize eligibility.

It’s just a matter of giving sufficient advance notice to the players. The policy of “the August list will be used for August tournaments, and the September list for September tournaments” is arbitrary, but is easy to remember, and it’s intuitive.

Bill Smythe

3

Bill, this is irrelevant to my point here. My point here is that when you search for a player, it should come up with their latest “official” rating.

4

This problem has already been reported to the software development team, the ratings were supposed to be updated on September 1st.

This appears to be an issue with the lookup program at new.uschess.org, not the one at msa.uschess.org