Ratings

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I know this is a pretty stupid question to some of you veterans, but how good is a player of 1000 rating? Does he know many openings, solid tactics, and understand endgame themes? Or is 1000 a beginner’s rating?

The reason I ask this is because our high school team is one of the top teams in the state, and we are league and division champs. All five of us on the team have the skill which I believe (from internet, chessmaster, and various sources) are almost at the 2000 rating. Definitely over 1500 at the least. (Yes I know internet rating are inflated. Our second board player has a 2400 rating on Yahoo which should translate to 1500-1800 for otb ratings.)

However, the only rated events we ever go to is the HS State tournament once per year. I think this is the case with a lot of the other high school players. So what I am saying is that there are so many good unrated and provisional rated players gathered into one tournament. All the rating in that tournament seem deflated by 500 points. Our first board player, who is absolutely amazing (trust me he’s good) has a rating of 1050 after 2 years of that tournament. Our fifth board is 1280. I think something must be wrong with the rating system because one of the top players in the entire tournament came with a 688 rating (our first board lost to him) and messed up his rating.

So, in conclusion, do you think these rating are deflated? Or is that even possible? Or are those ratings actually accurate and we just suck? I am going to be our third board for next year and I am worried that this tournament is going to drop my rating significantly since all of the good players that only go to this tournament have deflated ratings. Any feedback would be appreciated.

2

You can’t ever go by Yahoo ratings, since there is tons of cheating, or internet in general.

When you get down to ratings, I think Scholastic ratings are for the most part inflated against adults. The reason?

When a scholastic player plays in an adult tournament and gains points, the scholastic player has more options since an adult can’t get those points back by playing in scholastic tournaments.

I’d say for an elementry student, 1000 is good, 1400 is really good.

You can go through scholastic tournaments on msa.uschess.org and check averages for yourself and see who is playing to get a better estimate of ratings.

3

I agree with thunderchicken that you cannot go by Yahoo ratings… I doubt most of the players there are even rated by the USCF, and so even being towards the top of the rating pool there might not guarantee you much. There are a lot of internet chess servers that are taken a bit more seriously.

However, weightlifter9000, I think you are right in general, and let me suggest some reasons why.

(1) Most players at the scholastic level are generally in it to have a little fun and to hang out, and are not extremely serious about the game. You’ll even see this sometimes at the first board level just because of the attrition of the players. Sometimes these players even acquire a decent amount of skills just through absorption, practice, and pattern recognition. These players mostly play at scholastic events, against similar competition, and accordingly don’t really have the opportunity to play players with significantly higher ratings than their own. Sometimes what happens is that two players with 800 ratings and skill levels of 1200-1300 are often playing each other.

(2) Because of the above, most scholastic players do not play in a large number of adult tournaments. The cost of the adult tournament could be part of it, or it could imply a more serious commitment to the game. Accordingly, most scholastic players only play with players that are fellow scholastics for the most part.

(3) Most scholastic players find that their ratings improve when they go play at the adult tournaments. This is because scholastic skill increases faster than USCF ratings keep up, for the most part. (It’s not uncommon for scholastic players, especially those playing in adult tournaments, to suddenly and rapidly gain 300-400 rating points, say within a year’s time.) However, that player now has an inflated rating relative to his fellow scholastic players, and so when that player performs as expected by the skill level of the players, but fails to perform as expected by the ratings level of the players, the player loses rating points. What usually happens according to the scholastic players is they get frustrated by the loss of points and simply stop playing most scholastic events, preventing the infusion of more rating points into the scholastic system.

So then the question is, what caused Scholastic ratings to be so much lower in the first place?

I’ve got one word, Supernationals.

Supernationals, in case you haven’t heard of it, is an annual opportunity to play lots and lots of other students from around the country. You get 7 games, and it’s broken up into 3 or more sections. Traditionally, one of those sections is U1000/Unrated. The trophies are available to unrated players regardless, and a lot of schools that foot the bill for the trip (any part of it) want to see trophies. So a lot of the new and unrated players who want to win a trophy decide to join the lower section (sometimes at their coach’s insistence/encouragement). But with players rated so low, and the unpredictability of a lot of scholastic players, even a score of 5/7 or 5.5/7 (not a bad score for somebody of maybe 1200 strength) would get them a rating of approximately 800 or so. These players then play some of the local area scholastic tournaments in their area, keeping the ratings down.

Anyway, my best suggestion to cure this remedy is to try to persuade as many of the scholastic players as you can (both on your team and on other teams; after all, you want your opponents to be higher rated) in your area to play in a lot of adult tournaments. Not only is it good experience, not only are there good chances for scholastic players to win prizes because their rating doesn’t always reflect their skill, but it’s also a chance to boost most of your ratings.

Just don’t all go to the same small tournament, or you’ve really just changed an adult tournament into a scholastic section. :wink:

4

Ok thanks for the information chessnut. It all makes a lot more sense now. Because everyone is rated so low, I guess theres no way to increase your rating by playing only scholastics.

5

The average rating in the U.S. is something like 1200. Some consider that the level of an adult with no chess training or tournament experience. One example might be a casual player that plays at lunch with a buddy. This type of player often will tell you they are “pretty good” or even “very good”. But, anyone with even modest tournament experience and training will generally clobber one without it.

For elementary school players I agree that 1000 is good and 1400 is really good. My daughter played about 300 scholastic and adult tournament games, winning many scholastic trophies (even one at the Nationals). She got just over 1100.

I have not played on Yahoo, but 2400 for regular over the board USCF ratings is the senior master level. These players also typically have world titles, e.g., FM, IM, or GM. 2200 is the USCF national master level, a level that is respectable world wide and considered by some to be the low end of the chess professional level. Of course, there are many chess masters that consider themselves amateurs.

I think scholastic player ratings often lag their ability because they improve quickly due to their interest, focus, vast amount of available time, energy, and in many cases support and resources from their parents. So, when they play in events with adults (that are often higher rated due to experience but are distracted by work, family, and less energy) they often gain points. I agree these rating point gains are often re-distributed later to others at scholastic events. But, as one improves they re-distribute less and keep more for themselves. :sunglasses:

Of course, everyone is different but I would expect a 1000 player to have little in the way of endgame skill or experience. But, should be able to routinely mate with, e.g., K+R v. K or K+Q v. K. And, know the basics of how to Queen a Pawn, e.g., K+P v. K, and how to watch out for stalemates. They probably have never heard of the “wrong” Bishop in a K+B+Rook P v. K ending.

I would not expect a 1000 player to have good middlegame skills. They probably have heard about taking the 7th rank, and might have heard of good and bad Bishops. The might have heard of the Bishop pair being generally good but may not know when two Knights are better. But, they probably have never heard of an isolated queen pawn and how to handle such positions. They also probably think doubled pawns are always bad.

A 1000 player will probably have some opening knowledge of a couple openings, and probably know some of the axioms, e.g., Knights before Bishops, Castle early. Yet they often violate these guidelines. And, the opening knowledge is probably book memorization rather than an understanding of how to play the opening, and what squares are important and why. Or, which moves are thematic and why.

A 1000 player probably can see simpler tactics but games with 1000 players are often decided by blunders, e.g., a hung piece or a combination with one or two moves. So, buy and read 1001 Combinations by Reinfeld. :exclamation:

Some get sucked into the trap of spending too much time studying openings in the hopes of catching their opponent in a trap. Here, middlegame and endgame skills suffer. And, endgame skills are the most difficult to acquire and can take years. Some coaches recommend beginners start there.

If you want your rating to go up you should play as much as possible. Lots of Blitz online but as many serious games as possible. If you can handle losing, play one section higher than required. Meaning, if you are a 1300 player, don’t play in the U1400 section, play in the U1600 section. Don’t go for the Open section–a 1000 player that gets creamed by a Grandmaster has no fun and learns little. There needs to be some struggle, some back and forth. Look for games with others within about 300 points or so of yourself. Playing stronger opponents will improve your game. Of course you are likely to lose more, but you will improve faster. Some kids are ready to handle events with adults, some are not. Each person is different. For some younger kids, playing adults can be intimidating, even scary. Some smaller kids cry when they lose; these ones are probably not ready for the bigger or more serious events.

Go over all your games–especially your losses–with a friend or coach if available. I have seen scholastic players toss the game scores of their losses. :confused: If you are serious and can afford lessons, look for someone with a rating at least 400 points higher than you. A 2200+ player would be preferred but I know a “B” player that is an excellent scholastic coach. 1000 level players don’t need to seek out a Grandmaster for lessons but if you can afford it, a stronger coach can’t hurt. Also, lessons in person are much preferred but you can get them online too.

6

One of the major reason that other servers like yahoo have higher ratings, as the rating change is done for each and every game when the federation does it in a batch for the event the player was at. Then there is more active rated games on yahoo with more members that would also start to give some players higher ratings.

If you look at the pool of players from state to state, there is a difference in ratings. FIDE had this same problem with women players when womens tournaments became only for a womens title for the winner of the event. The Polgar sisters making it a habit to only play in mixed gender FIDE events, were able to gain a higher FIDE rating and gave Susan Polgar to become the first woman with a Grand Master title. If the Polgar sisters only play with other players that are the same gender, would never been able for Susan Polgar too earn the title of Grand Master. A few years ago FIDE gave all women except the Polgar sisters 100 points added to their ratings, as only women in women only events and only play other women only made the women to have lower ratings as it was a smaller pool of players and a smaller pool of events.

If we look with the difference between state top rated players, the state with the greater amount of USCF members and active events will have higher ratings then the smaller states that have few USCF members with very few events. With my classical rating having a floor of 1400, going to most of the Rockey Mountain states would be in the top 50 active players in the state, being in Michigan around 500 to 575 rated player in the state. If moved to a state with lower rated players would have a harder time to make my rating go up. For the players that have a higher rating them myself can not make them come to the same event as myself is registered; even if some of them do play in the event, it is not a given that we will be on the same board; even if we are to be on the same board does not make it a done deal that the game would be won by me. As Michigan has more players with more active events would give myself a better chance to gain more rating points then a state with few players and less active games.

As the majority of players only play in events in the state they live in, if you could think of yourself as a new member to the USCF without a rating. If could make you this deal, pay you to live in a Rockey Mountain state, and pay for all the events in that state; or, pay you to live in New York City, pay for your membership to the Marshall Chess Club and all the events that the Marshall Chess Club that you could play in, then have you start out as a new player without any ratings. Myself, would say the Marshall Chess Club will give you a better USCF rating.

Yes going to the Marshall Chess CLub would give you a better USCF rating and will improve your chess game then being in a Rockey Mountain state. Finding someone that plays active chess in the Rockey Mountain state, or parts of states that have few or little chess does not mean they are weak players. If you are a class C player, if you are looking for rating points you are not going to get them in a event when you are the top seed of a event having class D or Class E players.

Ratings have meaning and also have no meaning, they have meaning going to a event for the parings. The rating could limit a player to a class prize, the section of the tournament. Having a USCF rating is not that important, could tell a player what you did as a player in years past if you have not been active, or how good you are as a player if you are active. Having a rating does not give you a pay-check (some players get paid to teach chess but a teacher of chess needs social skills then a rating), knowing players that look for that grand title of expert – how many of them have seen wasted their life to get this title then enjoy the game but became a slave to the game.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

7

Yeah I understand the level of play in different ratings now. However, I’d like to ask one more thing. I recently joined a local chess club and met a lot of veteran players who have been playing for 20+ years and are among the expert and master ranks. I am the youngest member (16) and was talking with them, when one of them brought up and interesting quote. “Unless you are an upper A class player, your first name is tactics, your middle name is tactics, and your last name is tactics.” At first I didn’t think this was a good approach to chess, but the more I thought about it the more it made sense. Most Class C and below games are decided by a material blunder along the way. Is tactics really that much more important than long term strategy and positional play? And is it possible to reach an A class/expert rating without starting chess as a little 5 year old or spending 25 years studying the game?

I have been playing for a year now (still unrated) but think I am an E/D class player. Would it be possible to become a class B/A player within another year if I study and practice the game everyday? My father thinks that I started the game too late to ever become a master (I hope not). He may be right. But many people believe that anyone can become a class A player if they try really hard. The problem is that I get so much mixed information.

It is commonly taught to beginners (especially kids) that the endgame should be studied before the opening is analyzed. Others say that without an opening reportoire, you will never reach the endgame. Some people say study basic positional strategy (ex. Silman’s books) while others say to solve tactical problem after problem. One expert player told me to do 1000 tactical problems two times each, and my rating will go up at least 100 points. But if anyone here is a real teacher or coach, I’d like to know the most time efficient method of improving. I know, I am not asking for a miracle that will make me into a grandmaster. I just want to be a class A player, maybe expert one day, so I can win at the high school level, and enjoy artistic values of the game rather than slapping my head after a blunder. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.

8

Towards the end of a recent thread, I posted my own thoughts on the way to improve rapidly, you can find that post on Improving Your Game here. (In the interests of length, I decided not to repost it.)

A couple modifications for players at the D/E level:

(1) You may not know your style yet, so don’t focus so much on the style as much as finding someone about your strength who wants to learn as much as you do.

(2) At the D/E level, I would recommend slowing up the games from blitz to something slower. Most students won’t find themselves running out of time too frequently at this time control (although ideally, you will eventually), but in particular, D/E players should take the time to look around, make sure that they’re not leaving a piece loose.

I believe the statement that you can reach Class A with mostly a firm understanding of tactics. At about Class C and Class B, some of the more positional nuances will come into effect, but really, tactics are merely the result from a well-executed positional plan. In other words, you won’t get the tactics to work in your favor, unless you’ve done some of the positional legwork prior (or your opponent blunders). Or looking at it another way, some of the positional patterns that you may think you need to learn are things that you already intuitively understand.

At the lower levels also, one important thing to utilize is the initiative. Among higher-rated players who are more skilled in the art of the defense, the initiative is something that you can defend against to some extent and counterattack (although the initiative is STILL a good thing at even the higher levels), but at the lower levels of the game, he who attacks first WINS. That doesn’t mean to go attack like a madman, sacrificing every piece you have, but it does mean that where possible your moves should have a purpose, and that purpose should be to go forward with your ideas if you can. If you find yourself constantly responding to your opponent’s ideas, your opponent has the initiative, and unless you can counter it, you most likely have LOST.

I do think it is possible to reach a high level. A year is probably optimistic, but at your age, two or three is possible. It probably will take a lot of work, though. Part of it simply depends on what your priorities are. At 16, I admittedly think I would have traded my many hours practicing my chess for hours with the girl across the cafeteria. But that’s just me. :slight_smile:

One other thing: most players believe that you can reach the class below their own with enough training and hard work. I’m currently an expert, so that means I think you can reach Class A. Ask a Class C player the same question and he’ll think there’s a natural peak of Class D. :slight_smile:

I don’t know if there’s a tried-and-true method to improve in a hurry, though. Chess is a game of patterns and a game of strategies, and in order to really understand the game, you have to learn to play with as many different patterns and strategies as you can. One simple example of this is the idea of the back-rank mate. After being back-rank mated enough times, you say to yourself, “Hey, I need to make a spot for my king!” So you push a pawn in front of your king. And then you realize that you’ve made holes in front of your king for the enemy pieces to sink themselves into. So you decide not to make holes, and get back-rank mated again. Ultimately, with enough pattern recognition, you realize that some positions are positions where you are more at risk for back-rank mate possibilities, and other positions are positions where you’re more at risk for having enemy pieces take advantage of the pawn push you make. You might not even be able to verbalize this, and that’s OK. But the only way to improve is to make mistakes, to blunder games away. Sometimes the best lessons come from the games that you let get away…

9

Yes, tactics are critical so go through the 1001 combinations. But, so are middlegame and endgame skills. Balance your chess study time. Do, say, 20 minutes of tactics every day at the beginning of your study time to warm up your chess calculator, do some Blitz, and then go over annotated games of masters or a middlegame text. Maybe something like The Most Illustrative Games Ever Played by Chernev, or My System by Nimzovich. Carve out some time for endgame study, maybe go through Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge by Averbach.

The middle of “D” is 1300. If you are there, yes, if you work hard you should be able to move up 300 points to 1600 in a year or two. Maybe higher. It all depends on you. No, you have not started too late to become a master. No, you don’t need to have started at age 5 or be at it for 25 years to be an expert.

You will get lots of advice on how to improve and there is some truth in all of it. Set a study schedule for yourself and keep playing and working at it. You will get there.

My advice is to keep playing and don’t focus on just one area to the detriment of others. Yes, you need a basic opening repertoire that will change over time but don’t fall into the trap of spend all your time memorizing openings. Lower rated players probably need to spend more time on Blitz to see lots of ideas and patterns. But, don’t only play Blitz since your middlegame and endgame will not develop.

And, do it for fun and enjoy the road traveled. Smell the flowers along the way otherwise you will get burned out. Don’t fret over your rating too much. And, keep up your school work. If you don’t mind delaying your progress, ask that girl out for a date. :slight_smile:

10

Dear weightlifter9000:

As you are 16 years old, you have gotten into the age of scholastic chess and adult chess, being 16 years old adults would not have a problem with you in a tournament then say a 6 year old. As adults feel they have to beat a child and they have spent time and engery to come to a tournament and face a child leaves a bitter tast in some players. As you have stated that you would like to be a strong player, my question too you: if you do become a expert what are you going to do when you become one. What they are going to do with this rating, if they do become a expert, as a expert what is the difference between a expert and a class A player. As a player do you enjoy the game even as a class D player or whatever rating you do end up with.

At this time and age in your life, you have more free time then most adults could ever dream about. Glad at your age you rather spend the time to gain the skills of a chess player, then spending the time and engery on video games. Chess is a game that you can take a life time to master, it is also a game that you can play from now to the end of your life. For some players that drop out of tournament chess is not the cost of the USCF membership, it is the cost of the tournament or the lack of a close tournament; or the lack of free time to study chess, or the time it takes to go to a large event that comes around once a year.

As you do go to the chess club and find experts and masters, are the experts and masters the norm at your club or the novality? If you can only become a class B player, finding out how hard or as hard as you can the best you can do is the rating of a class B player; if the dream is to become a expert so powerfull would you drop out of tournament play becasue you could not reach your dream? Chess players will study or fail at the chess board. Over the years of chess, can recall class A, or experts given up the game of chess at the tournament level – the reason are different for each person: they just burned out. For the players that are Class C and down, they got married or have a job, they have children – they do not have the time.

Myself looking at players class A or greater as being more alone, if the federation did do a study would find that the membership that are class A or greater as single white males for a population then the national adverage. Myself is in that single white male population, for a game that needs a partner does lead to more single people. There are a number of players that are married with the spouce and children, if you are looking to become a expert, or a expert looking to become a master, are you willing to give up having a family to gain this title? Myself look at chess as a game, to become social with other people, this could be the reason for myself being a class C player.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

11

Thanks for all your concerns about my goals. Yes, I know that dedicating a whole life to a game can definitely be misleading. But I do realize that. I enjoy the game as a game, which is why I have the motivation to become a better player. It is just the same as anyone who practices the guitar or the piano for a couple hours everyday of their lives, yet many still carry on normal lives. Actually a lot of people spend many hours a week to become good golfers (they never do), and that even costs more time and money than chess. Yes, some people do become slaves of the game, but I am learning to balance my time effectively. I found out that you don’t have to cut out school time, or social life to practice chess. It’s those little things, like watching TV, playing video games, or excessively hanging out at the mall (buying unnecessary items) that needs to be eliminated. Thats how I found out that I can still have time to study and do my homework, wrestle and throw discus on the school team, and hang out with friends. Like some of you say, I do not have time to get into a serious relationship with girls yet. While the guys don’t understand this, several girls I talked to said I shouldn’t worry since, relationships in high school usually don’t last more than two years anyway.

And if you ask me why I would even want to become that good? Well, thats a very good question, but can you answer what the meaning of life is? When I was a little child I always used to wonder why I was here and what I was supposed to do. Now I know that life is about doing what you want to do if it makes you happy. So once again I’d like to say I appreciate all of your advice and concerns. It really helps to listen to your opinions. Yes, I guess the posts have kind of gone off topic, but deviations in a conversation occur quite frequently.

12

I agree with this post! :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: weightlifter9000 I guess u r as smart as me! :exclamation: :exclamation: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :stuck_out_tongue: :sunglasses: :sunglasses: :sunglasses:

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

13

Even more important, it’s a chance to boost your actual playing strength (which, in the long run, will also boost your rating).

Bill Smythe

14

Well, it looks like study does pay off. Now I’m frequently holding draws aginst our 1 and 2 boards (I’m board 3) and even winning sometimes. I’m also a class B player now after a great performance at a local quad last month. I guess for someone who was a fifth board high school player six months ago and losing to class D players this is very good. I discovered that the problem with all of my losses was some gross blunder of material. For those of you who are also lower class players I recommend you get the book Rapid Chess Improvement by Michael de la Maza. His method seemed a little optimistic, but it actually worked for me. I no longer make silly blunders, and I can easily identify the stupid mistakes that my opponents make.

15

Sorry, I have to disagree. A scholastic player can always play up in another class to face tougher competition as long as the organizer permits this. All the ones I’ve been to with my students allow this.

Really? We’ve had the opposite experience, that students going to adult tournaments lose horribly because the competiton is so much harder, and then they get discouraged and only want to play in scholastics!

I’m sorry, but this is what really got to me.

Supernationals are held every four years, not annually, and has a lot more than just three sections. There are divisions, such as elementary, junior high, and high school, but within these divisions there are numerous sections, allowing students to play at the level they are comfortable with.

Shoot, we even had one student who is still in middle school compete at the junior high level. Once again, students can take part in sections against players stronger than themselves.

And finally, the most confusing statement of all.

A small adult tournament attended by a number of students will not turn it into a scholastic one. First, any student who has a USCF rating above 1600 will be able to hold their own against any adult, while keeping the other students on their toes. And it’s pretty frightening for an adult to face an 11-year-old who has a rating 300 points higher than him, because they know what might happen. Besides, no matter how big the turnout is, playing against adults of any strengh is good practice for anyone.

Radishes

16

I’d have to say 1000 is a beginner’s rating, but you have to realize a rating without reference to the number of games played is like asking if the kid shooting hoops in his yard is as good as the one who is on a team at school. In other words, how many games is this rating based on?

Okay, taking this into account, what does that say about this next statement?

It means your first board player hasn’t played enough rated games, probably only 10, to really get a good, accurate rating. The USCF doesn’t consider your rating to be established until you’ve played at least 25 games, because your record has to overcome certain statistical influences. You don’t take a poll of 15 people and say their answers reflect what everyone else thinks; you need a larger sample. So your first board player may be good, but his rating hasn’t caught up with that because he hasn’t played enough games.

More later!

Radishes

17

I think WAchessnut is saying that scholastic players (perhaps pressured by their coaches) often CHOOSE not to play up a class, thus denying themselves a chance to improve by facing stronger opposition.

If REALLY WEAK scholastic players attempt an adult tournament (by the way, OPEN tournament is a better name, since it is open to all), then of course they’ll get smashed and become discouraged. On the other hand, their ratings won’t drop much, because they’re already so much lower-rated than the players that defeated them.

If, on the other hand, scholastic players who are on the verge of being able to compete properly with adults enter an open tournament, they will be playing opponents just a few hundred points better than they are, so they’ll learn a lot, and won’t be totally wiped out, although they will end up with less than a break-even score. They may gain rating points even with fewer wins than losses. More importantly, they will improve, paving the way for an eventual (or not so eventual) rating gain.

The way to gain rating points is to IMPROVE YOUR GAME, not to manipulate your rating by choosing which tournaments to enter or which opponents to play.

I think WAchessnut’s point was, that if a group of, say, 8 kids from the same school goes to a small adult tournament, where the total attendance is 20, the kids will form a significant portion of the total turnout. As a result, they’ll end up being paired against each other a lot, so that it will FEEL like a scholastic tournament.

Bill Smythe

18

It is very hard to make a clear judgement with scholastic players: as so many scholastic players do not have a established rating, or even a quick rating. Scholastic tournaments at the state level can be hard to find or only happen during the school year. Most scholastic players drop out during the first year of membership with one or two tournaments, making the claim of the scholastic ratings as little importants as current data.

Having the ratings be between 100 - 900 has little difference on how strong any scholastic player is. As a scholastic player that went to a open tournament could have been pounded very hard to a lower rating then they should be. Or a scholastic player being paired with a scholastic player that is under rated by 500 points, could make the other scholastic players also under rated during that tournament.

One of the problems with scholastic players, they do not have that many total games or have a wider group of players. If the scholastic player does have a rating over 1000, it might be time for this scholastic player to play in adult tournaments.

19

Okay. I have discovered the truth to all the confusion through experience. The problem with scholastic ratings is that there is too much rating deflation. For example, a kid might play in 3 tournaments when hes 6 years old and get a 600 rating. Then he will stop playing in tournaments for a while and come back when he is 10. The boy will probably be a much better player, say an 1100. But he is competing as a 600 since thats his last rating. So lets say he beats 3 kids that are 1000 because now the 10 year old is better. But by rating, those 1000 kids will have lost to a 600 player, dropping all of their ratings. Now these kids also will have deflated ratings. This process of rapid improvement in children causes the imbalance and upsets are very common. I’ve even seen a 450 beat a 1050!

Now how do I know this? The top three players from our high school (including me) have started to play in open/adult events. Our second board who earned a 1230 rating from a few scholastic tournament beat an expert (2040) and drew another one (2007). My suspicions were correct. We were actually a lot better than our ratings were reflecting. I on the other hand became a Class A player very recently (1891) :smiley: Although I am very happy about this, if I go back to a scholastic event, I will most certainly lose points now. (I can’t even play up a section since im in 11th grade). This basically means that rapid change in playing ability among scholastic players have deflated the rating pool.

The federation needs to somehow come up with a way to correct this inaccuracy. However, it seems very difficult to find a fair way to do this, which is why nothing can be done.

20

It is not the problem with the federation, with the ratings of the scholastic players: as scholastic players are the most non-active players. It would be just the same problem with a scholastic player at 10 at a rating of 675, then come back into tournaments at the age of 20 – at the age of 20 very sure the player is no longer at a 675 rating.

Even happens with adult players, not being active as a player only shows the rating they were in time past. Rating is a strange monster, some years would play very well and have a great rating, other years you just fall flat on your floor. The longer you play chess with the many years you play: will find you should be stronger in the ratings, other times you know you’re on the road to you’re rating floor. There are a number of players that stop being active chess players, they know if they go to any tournaments on a active basis, they could drop down (example: a expert to a class A player) a rating class. Players are more active if they feel their ratings will go up, become so in active when they know their ratings are going down.