In this type of event, if you are not going to list the different time controls for each round, you are suppose to report the slowest time control (G/75;d5) and thus the event should only have been regular rated.
Right—but what about the lower k for Masters in the first three rounds? That goes bye-bye then.
Who knows; if hungry Masters sniff out the deal here, they might sneak in and eat fish for three meals before the tough games start, thus qualify for the Whatever Invitational. (That was the reasoning behind lowering k for Masters in Dual events, right?)
Then listen to the deafening silence among the zero players who protest that their Quick rating was unjustly adjusted. Imagine the roar had that happened to their Regular ratings.
I stopped fully understanding how the rating system works a long time ago. With dual rating and all of the other tweaks to K values as well as sundry other adjustments and bonus points, I can no longer even estimate what someone’s rating will be. Recently, I thought one of my students would gain about 15 points after a scoring 2-2 in a local event. He actually gained 70+. Now I just wait for the event to be rated.
I’ve brought this up before that this can happen in tournaments with multiple schedules/time controls but most people don’t seem to think it’s an issue.
Maybe the master level players who gained points in the event cited are not aware of the lower k factor in dual rated events otherwise you would think they would complain and get it corrected to regular only so they gain more regular rating points.
Something is only really punitive if it applies to one opponent and not the other. And, Alex, there are many, and quite a few
‘old-timers’ at that who find no delay, no increment, quite appealing.
Rob Jones
Wow that is a hot potato!! Eliminate how–that is the question.
Eliminating time controls such as G/30;d0 from dual and making it for example, quick only would be a disaster for the scholastic
community in many parts of our federation. Now, if the topic is
to eliminate such time controls from quick, this is hard to debate on for what is quick and what is blitz has already changed a few times in USCF’s definition. Personally, it seems
to me that G/10 should be labeled as quick rather than blitz, but there, given the changes USCF has already had in this area,
is no firm ground here.
Rob Jones
What I mean by eliminate Dual rating is to stop rating games at G/30-G/65 as Quick. These games should be Regular-only, as they were for many years before Dual was implemented to save, fix, boost or publicize Quick ratings.
That has not worked and it’s been awhile now. Meantime, Dual causes confusion among players and makes it hard to run certain types of events without contortions, such as the one mentioned in this thread. Plus it just feels funny.
Players don’t take the Quick half of Dual-rated games seriously, per much evidence. See the Ohio event that Boyd Reed mentioned. That should have affected players’ Quick ratings for either zero or three games, depending on how it was submitted. (And again, there is no way to submit such an event without something giving way somewhere.) Instead all five games counted toward their Quick ratings. Did anyone notice or care?
Now imagine how players would have reacted had that affected their Regular ratings.
I have mentioned a club I know that used to hold G/40 events that were only Regular-rated—not Dual—for years after Dual was implemented. No one there seemed to care, either.
Players care—to put it mildly, in some cases—about their Regular rating, from G/30 and slower events.
Some players care about their Quick or Blitz rating, which is hard-wired into their brains as meaning G/29 or faster. I only know one such player, personally, but I don’t get out as much as I used to.
But tacking Quick rating on to G/30–G/65 games does not pass the sniff test. It just feels funny. Players don’t notice or care.
One game, one rating system. Lo those many years, even after Quick came along, a game was rated under one and only one rating system. That makes sense and that’s what players got used to. That’s how FIDE does things. As far as I know that’s how it’s done everywhere except USCF-rated G/30–G/65.
It might have looked good on paper or in a Ratings simulator run 15 years ago. It has not worked in practice. Time to simplify the position.
Those of us who run tournaments with pairings and prizes based on quick or blitz ratings have seen people who care. Those who use regular ratings for pairings and prizes for quick or blitz tournaments encourage people not to care.
Alex Relyea
To me, that doesn’t look punitive at all. Many slow players would probably jump at the chance to add an entire 30 minutes, and may deliberately bring an analog clock in the hopes of getting away with it in some rounds.
Adding time to compensate for inadequate equipment is a questionable idea to begin with. If you’re going to do it, at least add only half a minute, rather than a full minute, for each second of missing increment time. Thus 40/90 SD/30, inc/30 would become 40/90 SD/45 (not SD/60).
Bill Smythe
Perhaps you’re missing that the flag falls earlier, up to twenty minutes earlier, in the first time control. It is only if the game ends between moves 40 and 60 that the analog player has more time. Also, there are good reasons for wanting any non-primary time control to be whole multiples of an hour.
Alex Relyea
The USCF eliminated the 5 minute deduction for the 5 second delay. The question maybe should be would it be acceptable to have a time control [for example G/55, d5] where if there was not a delay capable clock available that the time would be increased [G/60] by an additional 5 minutes?
Larry S. Cohen
Or it could simply be a desire to please everyone, regardless of their preferences, and may very well end up pleasing neither
camp, the no delay crowd and the those who prefer delay.
Rob Jones