I got a nice phone call then from a young woman who has not played chess since she was 11.
“How strong were you then?” (expecting to choose between putting her in the U1200 section of an RBO or the U1800 section of an open event).
“First category.” Uh, wow. She has no published rating in the former Soviet republic, no FIDE rating. She hasn’t played chess in umpteen years. (“Umpteen” > 12 )
My understanding (possibly wrong) of Soviet system titles:
Master >= US Chess 2300
Candidate Master >= 2100
First Category >= 1900 etc.
OK to put in U1800 section? If so, should there be a cap on her max prize?
According to Rule 28D1g in order to approximate her rating you should add 250 points to the midpoint of the category. In this case that means 1900+250=2150. However, Rule 28D2 says that in a case where the player claims a foreign or FIDE rating which cannot be verified that player should not be assigned a rating under 2200 if that would make the player eligible for a class prize.
The event in question is a plus-score, so there are no class prizes. The only question, then, is section eligibility.
The danger is that, at some point in the tournament, she will defeat a 1790 player who was on the path to the perfect-score prize. Could be a sticky wicket.
Prize-limiting her wouldn’t help the player(s) she defeats, especially in a plus-score – unless, perhaps, you add an extra amount to the prize of any player who loses to her and finishes 3-1, or something like that.
The lowest possible equivalent rating for “first category” is 1800. Even fully crediting her self-disclosure and making all inferences from that disclosure in her favor, she cannot go in the U1800 section.
If the other section is an open, put her in the open and let her win what she wins.
If something about the conversation you had with her gives you the impression that she may be only around 1900 strength, then in this case I see no harm in using 1900 as the estimated rating. Whatever estimated rating you use, just be sure it puts her in the top section.
IMHO (and others may differ), you could even put this estimate into the pairing software as though it were her actual rating. The software will then use it to make pairings, and everything will look normal to the other players.
When it comes time to submit the rating report to US Chess, you could change the “rating” to unrated, or you could just leave it as is. US Chess won’t use that rating anyway – they’ll do whatever they should, which in this case may mean she’ll start as unrated, unless they can dig up something.
The original upload format does not have any field for the player’s rating but the ‘draft’ upload format does include a ratings field, although it is not used during the ratings process.
It may be used as one of several factors to try to catch ID errors, as Tom suggested, but if so it’s a minor factor compared to things like pre-event rating, age, state/ZIP code and event performance. (If you’ve ever watched Sesame Street, this is the “One of these things is not like the others” test.)
I print a detailed WinTD wall chart by score and rating. Then I do a visual check of that wall chart versus what is uploaded (name and rating). That has caught things that didn’t otherwise get flagged.
US Chess processes dozens of corrections to rated events every month that affect ratings, generally either incorrect IDs or mis-reported results. When players make these reports, the TD must confirm them before the office will make the change, as the chief TD remains primarily responsible for the accuracy of the event.
Please note that these are “recommendations” and not “rules”. A TD may assign any rating for pairing and prize purposes, as long as that rating is not lower than a published USCF rating. Some of the recommendations in “Rule 28” are questionable (in my opinion). Rule 28D2 is especially questionable for some events. Much depends on the type of event and the type of player typically attracted to that event. It really depends on how credible you find the claim of the old Soviet rating.
In my opinion, it is best to make a best estimate and live with it. In this case, I’d be inclined to go with 2150 and NOT limit prize eligibility. Others may (and do) disagree.
)
Oops.)