Okay, here’s one for Mike and anyone else who can explain it.
My son played in the US CLass last August and ended up with a rating of 980. The next one he played in was in March and his rating went from 980 to 904.
Finally, when he played in the SuperNationals, they used his 904 rating and he ended up with a rating of 972.
My question is this: is the rating supplement that is printed becoming obsolete in this day of instant ratings? The rating supplement posted on MSA shows in October his rating was 979, and in April it’s 980.
In the MSA, the ratings shown for the supplement never do show up as the beginning ratings for the tournaments he’s played in. To me, this means no one is using the rating in the supplement but instead use the most current one in MSA. So I wonder what’s the use of the supplement if it’s not being used?
Maybe I don’t understand it all, but I’m sure someone here can explain it all to me!
The ratings in the supplement are (or should be) used for pairing and prize purposes. When we send a tournament into the USCF, we don’t send the ratings. As an example, I had a 929 recently who went in something like a 1600. He was still eligible for U1000 prizes, despite the fact that his unofficial rating was much higher.
Does this make any sense at all? The supplement has the official ratings which are used for all official purposes. The interim ratings that you can find in MSA are just used for the USCF to rate tournaments. I hope that that helps.
The supplement is very important. The supplement and the web rating are two different issues. The supplement rating, is the official rating and used for the pairings: with the important factor with prize money. The web rating could change 365 days a year, or change more then once a day.
With small tournaments, or the large tournaments with a large prize would advertise they will use ‘X’ supplement for the event. If a members supplement rating is 1590, with the tournament having a under 1600 prize. The web rating is not a factor for the event, as the web rating can change during the event from under 1600 or over 1600. If the organizer use the web rating, during the first round it could be under 1600 and the last round it could be over 1600.
If the organizer use the supplement, the organizer and the player would understand for the whole event what the rating of the player is. If the official rating is 1590, would have a right before the start of the first round to the under 1600 prize, or any under prize over 1600, or the prize for any prize for the winner or place prize. If there is a under 1400 prize, or any other prize lower then the official rating, the player would not have any rights to the prize.
The supplement rating is very important, like the under 1600 prize money at the Chicago Open. If the USCF did give up on the official ratings, and only used the web ratings. As the web ratings can change during the tournament, what web rating would be the cut off. If at the ‘Chicago Open’, could have a web rating under 1600 (before and during the first round), and feel I would have a right to the under 1600 prize. During the event, the web rating change and the start of the last round my web rating is over 1600. Say I did win a prize for the under 1600, would the organizer/director use my web rating during the first round or my web rating during my last round? This is the reason the official ratings are still needed.
And I think I must have known this before but just forgot it. I remember the days when you could go to a tournament, get a rating, see it in the supplement, and expect the rating wouldn’t change before the next one came out even if you’d played in a dozen events since then!
I guess the thing I wonder about is contained in your example. If I was in a tournament where the player who beat me and took all the prizes should have been in another section according to his current rating, I’d be a bit upset. Leaving it to the supplement to establish ratings for us every two months seems a bit behind the times.
Maybe, but it also helps establish consistency and predictability.
A player has a reasonable right to know what section(s) of a tournament, and what prizes, he is eligible for before he sends in his entry fee. Making the supplement ratings (every 2 months) the official ratings, for eligibility and prize purposes, helps achieve this consistency and predictability.
After having posted that last message, I had a call from a mother of a student that had gone to SuperNationals. She had received the rating report I’d made up for her son which consisted of the table I got from the MSA, showing who he had played and what their ratings were before the tournament.
She was wondering how someone rated 1276 was allowed to play in the U1000 section where her son played.
That was an easy question. I just told her what you all had told me! See how timely your advice is??
There have been a few calls for going to monthly supplements rather than 6 times a year, with only the even-numbered months printed and mailed, but I am concerned that would further divide TDs into those with computers and those without computers.
When you look at players who are likely to be rapidly advancing, like the participants at SuperNationals, by the time the event was rated quite a few of them will have moved up beyond the class that they competed in at Supernationals.
Having been in the TD room there for 4 days, the TD staff spent a lot of time trying to get everyone placed in the right section, even if that meant moving them from one section to another after the competition started.
This also explains why there are kids who were allowed to play in the Unrated sections, even though their Pre-rating (per the MSA crosstable) shows them as actually having established ratings (something that would have mystified me a year ago).
The days the supplement are current are 59 and 62 days. Going monthly would only make the supplement current for 28 and 31 days. As a TD would have mixed feelings with a shorter supplement, as a player would have major issues with a shorter supplement. With a shorter supplement, would have a shorter time to understand my official rating before the event.
