Tim, I believe what we did was have 2 tournaments; one for non USCF members and another for current USCF members. We did use a single pairing system, in this case it was a hex. Then we carved out those games between USCF members and reported them to USCF for rating. The other games between non-members and members composed the unrated section. I do not see any violation of USCF Rules in doing this or any nefarious purpose that John Hillery mentions. Would you agree?
Maybe more on point is on page 3 of the Rated Chess Events booklet:
“It is improper to report only part of an event, such as games between USCF members.”
My copy is dated January 2002 and I’m not sure if they have ever updated it.
Most of the scholastic events I direct include both rated and non-rated sections. While the quoted text states that “It is improper to report only part of an event”, there isn’t an issue with running rated as well as non-rated sections at the same time and same venue.
The issue is the pairing of one event and then deciding on the rating of the individual games solely based on the membership status of one of the players. While non-members can be paired against members, it should only be in a non-rated section.
A possible way around this rule, is to hold a non-rated section open to both members and non-members. If two members are paired against each other allow them to request to have the game rated as part of a club ladder or one game match. Under this method, either one of the rated players would have the option of not rating the game.
Nope.
When someone enters a rated event, there should not be conditions under which some of those games will be rated and others will not be rated because of who the opponent is.
Either they’re playing in a rated event (ie, section) or in a non-rated event. There cannot be any middle ground here.
Next time I will advertise that we will have a rated and unrated section and that current USCF members can play in either or both sections. I may get the same result I got before depending on the pairing method used. Is this OK?
As long as each section is paired entirely seperately from the other section, the rated section of fully reported in the rating report, and as long as somebody opting to play in both is actually paired in both sections (with two games at the same time if that is how the schedule works), then you are okay.
HOWEVER, if you pair them as a single section and only report a subset of the games in the rating report (such as just those involving only the USCF or both players) then you would still be in violation of the rules.
Personally, I don’t like encouraging players to play in multiple sections at the same time, which is what it sounds like you’re offering.
If someone enters one of your ‘rated’ events, then ALL of the games played by ALL of the players in that event must be USCF rated. If someone enters one of your ‘non-rated’ events, then NONE of the games played by ANY of the players in that event can be USCF rated. Any attempt to find a middle ground in between those two options is a violation of USCF tournament rules and procedures.
Moreover, people who are not (yet) USCF members can play in rated events, providing they meet any of the following:
- They join the USCF before or at that event.
- They (or you) pay a non-member tournament participation fee (the so-called ‘Tournament Membership’).
- They are exempt from USCF membership for that event. (The two most common types of exemptions are for JTP events and for foreign titled players.)
[b]Sorry to stir things up, but I’m glad I asked before suggesting this to anyone at the school I’m helping at.
Dwight[/b]
Just to repeat an earlier option. If it is for an intra-school event then the school could become an affiliate (I don’t remember what the annual affiliate dues are for a scholastic affiliate but you could look that up) and while it is an affiliate the school could hold as many as it wants of intra-school JTP events (as long as the players have been assigned IDs they do not need to be current members). All you would then need to do is get IDs for the players, submit the tournaments, and pay the per-game rating fees. If you plan on having the players play against somebody other than students of that school then you start having to worry about memberships for individuals.
P.S. Make sure the TD submitting the events is a current member, a certified TD, and authorized by the school’s affiliate to submit events.
A club TD is okay for events expected to draw up to 50 players, a local TD for 100, Senior for 300, and ANTD or NTD for larger (it’s great if you have an intra-school event that is too big for a Senior TD to be the chief of). Getting assistant TDs and computer pairings can increase those numbers by 20%.
Affiliate dues are $40 per year for affiliates in the USA.
I didn’t say you had an “nefarious purpose.” I said that if this were allowed, then it could (and would) be abused. You seem to be arguing that it’s OK for you to do it because your heart is pure, and that the rules should apply only to the bad people.
You did something wrong. You should admit it and stop wriggling. If you want to change the rules, you can apply to the Delegates or the Rules Committee, but until then the rules apply to you along with everyone else.
This is not a good idea. It is never a good idea to allow players to choose whether or not to rate an individual game.
Any suggestion that starts out with “…around this rule…” is immediately suspect - I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that avoiding the letter of the rule respects the spirit of the rule. In this case, I think that’s not possible.
I am a big fan of unrated events. There’s nothing wrong with them, and much good can be done with them. Most of my low-level directing these days is aimed at unrated events which are run at (close to) USCF standards. Most of the players don’t care that the event is unrated.
Having seen many attempts, I despair of finding a good way to run an event where some games are rated and others are not. I’ve finally decided that it’s simply not a good idea.
Where I’m coming from:
The school I’m helping at has bought a school affiliate. I’ve signed on as club TD. So I’m trying to understand options I can give them. It’s a small school, so we’re talking 30-35 kids, K-10, in the chess club. So it’s an interesting mix. The K-12 JTP looks like a nice option for an intra-school event, but that leaves my 5 boys out (home schooled). The headmaster has expressed a desire in inter-school competition, so looking at promoting something with other local schools, but I haven’t found much activity in other schools yet. So I may try to promote a rated and un-rated tourney, open to other schools, and hopefully build interest in rated chess. I’ve been keeping a club rating ladder for our group, that has generated interest. I’m trying to see what interest a national rating generates, intra- and inter-school.
I have 5 boys, home schooled. Three have played USCF rated chess and the fourth is ready, I think. So my base motivation is getting more(any) local chess started. The home school group we’re with, has a few others interested in chess. I’d like to keep them all playing together, as much as possible, since we are apt to be a smallish group for some time to come. So will probably have side-by-side, rated and un-rated events, and promote USCF membership as much as possible. Maybe membership as prizes in the un-rated section.
Thanks for the ideas.
Dwight
No, Bob. You held one event and then you filed a bogus tournament result. As others continue to point out, this is expressly against the rules. I understand that your heart was in the right place and you were trying to do the right thing - but you should not repeat this error. My recommendation is that you continue to run these events - but DO NOT submit them for USCF rating.
Alas, this has been, and continues to be a common practice - that’s the main reason that there is an explicit rule against it! It has happened before, it has been considered over and over again, and the official USCF position is that this is simply not allowed (except for one or two very unusual situations - all of which involve getting special permission IN ADVANCE).
Ken, I agree if you are saying that you cannot have a section where only some of the played games are rated. However, I’m not certain if that is what you meant. Were you referring to an individual section having to be all or none, or were you referring to an entire multi-section event being all or none?
A number of organizers around here will run multi-section events with some sections rated (as advertised) and others non-rated (as advertised). I’ve done maybe a half-dozen such events for some organizers and there are other TDs in this area that have done quite a few more. The event as a whole would thus have only some of the played games rated, even though every player would have either “all of” or “none of” the played games rated (depending on the section the player signed up in. If you have a problem with that then I’ll disagree with you.
As far as USCF rating is concerned, each section is a separate “event”.
Depending on the type of scholastic, a JTP tournament may be the best answer.
If used properly with the correct criteria, then all players in the tournament will be
rated. Speaking of which, this is an utterly FANTASTIC program offered by USCF
which can enable many formerly not rated youngsters to enter the world of rated
events.
Rob Jones
Senior TD/Denton, Texas
If your motivation is getting local scholastic chess going and you’re dealing with a closed pool of players, then just create your own local rating pool, and run strictly unrated events. WinTD (and presumably SwissSys) will calculate post-tournament ratings for an event, and it’s not hard at all to maintain a player and rating list for a pool of players. There is nothing to stop you from running high-quality “by the USCF rulebook” unrated tournaments.
All sorts of advantages to this. You don’t have to worry about structuring within the rules of JTP, you aren’t going to break any rated vs. unrated rules, you’ll save the cost of USCF membership and rating fees, and you give parents and players a simple and cheap way to try out tournament chess.
Eventually, you will build a pool of strong, interested players, and then you might consider running one rated tournament a year–or more precisely one “completely rated section of rated players and games”
Put another way, I don’t see the up side to rating a closed pool of scholastic players. USCF-rating their games makes more sense to me when they venture outside their own club, town or school district, and measure themselves against the larger chess world. Yeah, I know: that’s a gut feeling, and it may not be statistically sound.
I started a chess club in the LaSalle-Peru area of Illinois about 1 1/2 year ago. I also started a club ladder using SwissSys and then WinTD (and back to SwissSys for ease of use) to calculate the ratings of club events and to keep the ratings in the club format.
I keep the ratings on the club web page ilchess.110mb.com under Ratings Ladder.
The ladder is started over about once a year where everyone starts with the same rating. We used 1300. For every night someone plays they get 15 points added to their rating before we run the “tournament” of the night. If someone wants they can play another and I will rate that as a match.
In longer game controls like G30 I will give the rating a double weighting (2K) or higher at G45.
Since the vast majority of the people in this club were and still are beginners, I only play when needed. Even though, I am their brick wall and at the top of the ladder.
We run a very similar ladder in Peoria where everyone starts at 1600 on January 1.
This system keeps people interested and they do like playing the rating game.