The current formulas do include a bonus factor for this situation, though a player has to perform significantly better than ‘expected’ in order for that to kick in. (I’m not sure whether a provisional rating would impact the triggering of the bonus formula, I’ll know the answer to that question better in a few days as I’m just getting ready to write the program to implement the ratings formulas.)
Yeah, I think I ran up against some of these deflated scholastic ratings at an “adult” event a few years ago at the first RBO I played in at the Marshall Chess CLub in Manhattan.
There were many new and inexperienced USCF members like myself there with a smattering of these youngsters. I played 2 of them in the 4SS G/60 U1200 RBO that day myself. Let me tell you, they were listed on the pairing sheets rated as 800 and under, but they sure played like 1600 or higher!
BTW, this was a trophied event. Guess who got all the trophies…
Regards,
AJG
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
Are there more recent former scholastic members than adult members? Yes.
Are scholastic players less active than adults? Absolutely not!
About 50% of dues-paying adult members play tournament chess in a typical year. Among scholastic and youth members it is more like 85%.
From what I can tell, a former adult members is several times more likely to rejoin the USCF than a former scholastic member.
Saying that scholastic ratings don’t tend to be deflated is ridiculous. The reason for it is clear as well. Most scholastic players are improving quickly, so their ratings don’t yet reflect that. When they play against other scholastic players, also underrated, they don’t have much of a chance to improve that. I know in my high school league, every player who has started playing in real non-scholastic tournaments has risen quickly.
Our second board(Sathvik Tantry) rose from 1223 to 1598 in six tournaments and is still underrated, since our fifth board(Erik Friedlander), who is not as good, rose from 1180 to 1626 in about 10 adult tournaments. This is not a phenomenon local to our team. Another team’s board one(Bernard Liang) went from 1296 to 1860 in 9 months, Simon Rubinstein-Salzedo went from 1392 to 1669 in 5 adult tournaments and countless other players had similar drastic increases.
I know for me, as a rated expert, it was always perilous playing these people. One team’s board one was rated 800, but played nearly flawlessly and held a slight edge on me the whole game, until I was able to beat him in a time scramble.
Fortunately, the league matches were not rated, so the occasional draws I gave up to 1600 and even 1400 players never hurt my rating. However, the end of the season rated county tournament was very dangerous for anybody with a real rating, as they would come up against 800s with 1600 strength and 1200s with 1800 strength. I and Vinay Bhat(IM) and Matthew Ho(a master), avoided that fate, but others were not so lucky: for example, our aforementioned board 5, still rated 1400 at the time, beat a 1740 and a 1960.
I think the scholastic high school league format is especially conducive to this underrating, as all the players get a lot of tough competitive practice that isn’t rated, meaning their improvement won’t be reflected at all. Players from our league tend to improve their ratings even in other scholastic tournaments.
Another thing is that with the advent of the internet, players(mostly scholastic) can get a huge amount of practice and experience and improve their play, without their real rating reflecting it. Another player in my league, Gary Huang, was rated 1200 USCF. He played a huge amount on ICC and improved vastly, his ICC blitz going over 2200. He played in some adult tournaments and rose every time, but his rating could not catch up to his strength. He came into the 2000 Continental Open rated 1529 and won the u1800 section with 8/9, rising from 1529 to 1885 in one tournament.
For a pure scholastic player without a expert coach like yourself
‘SeriousStandard’ most scholastic players will have ratings around 100 - 1000. The bulk of scholastic players, they will only be in one or two tournaments during the time they are USCF members; as they are scholastic members, taken in as a whole they lower the scholastic ratings of the group. Starting out with a established rating of 300, the player will in time double or more their rating within a few years or a few tournaments.
It is not that common for scholastic players or adult players to have 40 rated games in a given year. The only reason for my activity being 178 games since the August suppliment, is the reason for having my own tournaments with my own personal friends play with me. The more games they do play in the ‘high school league’, if someone is there to have them rated – the rating will go higher till they reach the peak of their rating.
Having someone that can become a expert, only going to scholastic tournaments with ratings around 300 - 900 will never make that person a expert. Going to non-scholastic tournaments will make a scholastic player gain greater skills with a higher rating. There are a number of experts that could become a master, if and only if they have the income to go to every major tournament in the nation: as nobody became a master just being in the one day tournaments, or be at a tournament less then 100 miles from home.
As parents will have a harder time to make even the scholastic tournaments that are one day events, or even able to pay the entry fee for their child when it is only a few miles from home. Do know parents that will spend $55 an hour for private chess lessons, willing to take there child all over the nation for the scholastic tournaments. There are parents that are willing to spend $5,000 a year just on chess for one child. Sure that amount of one on one chess lessons will make anyone become a stronger player. Not that many parents are going to that level of chess for their child, even if having a child of my own would never go to that level.
Sure you can take someone at the age of 8 to 18 and get them to become a expert, with the private chess lessons with someone with a chess title with FIDE. Take the time and engery to take the scholastic player to all the major tournaments and the local tournaments in the area. Myself very big on chess, only finding if the parents that made a expert of their child at 18, would have better luck for their child if it went into some college funding for their child. Being a expert does not mean the player would make any money from the title: at this time know a expert and he lives in a homeless shelter. Not going to say if you are a class player that a expert is going to come to you’re home and eat the food in you’re trash can. Just make sure that chess is chess and life is more important then making chess the only reason to be alive.
I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say due to your English difficulties, but none of the players I am talking about have ever had a lesson or traveled to more than one tournament outside the area. You seem to be saying that chess hurts people’s future careers, which is bizarre. The high school chess players I know are, essentially without exception, very successful academically and many studies have shown chess to be helpful.
Otherwise, you appear to be agreeing with me that scholastic players are deflated due to their quick improvement, and that it is impossible to rise to one’s true rating only playing against other scholastic players, due to their low ratings and deflation. As you mention, inactivity accentuates this effect, making ratings even more out of date. Many players in my league only play 5 rated games per year, in the year end county tournament, so their ratings have no chance of catching up, especially since most of their opponents are similarly deflated. When some decide to finally play in some real tournaments, the gap is made up, at the cost of the poor adults who are paired with them.
The players I am talking about are 14-18 years olds. With younger children, deflation could be less pronounced, since many of these guys have ratings from a few tournaments they played many years ago. I wish I could attribute their improvement to my brilliant coaching, but I taught them essentially nothing, and players from other schools have increased just as much when entering adult tournaments.
The over all question becomes: since the players at you’re local group have improved with great skill is a little strange. With the former posting of the great deal of the debate, on how they have gained rating points with yourself being part of the non-rated games with these other players; it has given greater importance to the theory that as a player you have given them some form of education of chess – as it looks to be clear with the limited information that you’re on the top of the rankings. The time that most scholastic players do gain from the skill of there chess, will be during the age of 14 - 18. As being the top ranking player in you’re local group, then you have become the role model, if you’re the expert with the others being class players – then they gain from you’re being part of the group, as you are not learning as much as you can being part of there grouping.
Serious standard is right. A whole high school chess season lasts about 3-4 months. During that time, players usually discuss their games and different positions. About 10 matches take place during a season, with the state tournament to conclude the year. None of the school matches are rated, and during that time, players improve greatly. Then for many, the state scholastic tournament is the only rated tournament they attend.
Let’s say some kid named John joins the chess team during his sophomore year. He plays fifth board during the season and plays in the states. He earns a 1100 rating at the tournement.
Then, John decides to take chess seriously. He practices during the summer with books and online. He later joins a local chess club and gets hints and advice from the stronger class A and expert players. But he chooses not to play in any rated tournments because he has no time.
Next year, John returns to the chess team. Because he is so good now, he plays first board. Then he improves even more during the season. At the states, he enters as a first board with a 1100 rating (from last year). In the states, he defeats 1500, 1600, and 1700. Consequently, because John had a deflated rating, all of these players suffer from a loss of rating points.
Let me tell you that John isn’t a unique case. He didn’t take lessons, nor did he travel all around the country attending major tournaments.
Our team also has a coach who cannot teach us because we are better than him already. As I said, our first board was 1100 after only scholastic touraments and our second board got 1200 after only scholastics (we are 16 years old). I was unrated, but clearly worse than them (now I am better only using books, no lessons Mr. Forsythe). We decided to go to a couple of tournaments by ourselves. They were small local quads (15-20 players). We dominated everyone around our ratings. I boosted up from unrated to 1700. I even had a winning position against a master until I unfortunately thre the game away in a time scramble. My two friends went from 1100 to 1300 and 1200 to 1400. Our second board also played in the NJ open. Interestingly enough, our second board defeated an expert and drew against another one.
Very glad that you’re rating is doing very well Mr. weightlifter9000. Wanted to check on you’re rating at you’re high school affiliate, only finding three affiliates (A6010185, H6009923, C1002511) from the name Holmdel, all from the state of New Jersey – all three affiliates have ‘zero tournament reports’. If you do say with agreeing to the same ethos, you’re club membership will improve if having more tournaments or a tournament. Why not become a ‘club tournament director’, then use the affiliate (C1002511), if and only if the affiliate does not expirer on September 30, 2004. Having the tournaments never rated, having the affiliate never used for any active tournaments: it is not the problem of the players or the affiliate never used; it looks to be clear, it looks to be sound, that someone needs to become a active ‘tournament director’. Why not have you and you’re team mates have a privite tournament. If the high school withdraws as a active USCF affiliate, if you do become a active ‘tournament director’ Mr weightlifter9000, will let you use my affiliate for this enterprise.
I can’t say that OPEN tournament is a better term, since that usually means all rating groups play together, which isn’t always the case. My students have been going to class tournaments, and those can be either adult or scholastic class tournaments. By going to an adult class as opposed to an open adult tournament, they play adults in their rating range, as opposed to going to an open adult tournament where, as you said, they would be smashed. And they come away feeling better about it. I know it to be true, because it has happened to my students. The difference is therefore clear.
And this is exactly what happened in the adult class tournament with one of my students. He gained 75 points as a result of winning 2 out of 5.
Radishes
This isn’t a problem that is confined to scholastics, so don’t blame that. Since a person can never lose their rating, even if they aren’t a USCF member for several years, it’s possible for any person to drop out of chess for a few years, study and improve, and then come backstronger than before. So it can happen at the adult level as well as the scholastic level.
The thing you should remember is, when sitting down and facing an opponent, don’t worry about what their rating might be, because it may be so old as to be unreliable. Don’t play to the rating, play to the person as they are now.
This is the reason the Swiss system of pairings works. The first round always pairs the lowest-rated with the highest just in case there’s been some improvement made by the lower-rated player. And if the lower-rated player hasn’t improved, he doesn’t lose very many points. But if he has, then he certainly should gain a lot when he wins, as is only fair.
If you say so. I still don’t see how this can happen if you’re so much better than the others. Don’t you expect to win, and thus retain your high rating? Or are you worried that some lower-rated player has improved so much that they can now beat you and you lose points that way? And if that happens, shouldn’t it work that way anyway?
Radishes
No it shouldn’t work out that way. At last year’s NJ state scholastic, a 600 player beat 1200, 1300, and 1450 players. Therefore, 600 became a 1150 which is perfectly fine because 600 earned this new rating. However, his three victims all heavily lost rating points due to their losses to 600. So in fact, by losing to a 1150+ level player, they lost to someone with an official rating of 600! That’s the problem radishes. Anyone with a mathematical knowledge of addition and subtraction should understand this.
If you’ll read the material on the USCF website regarding ratings, I think you’ll find the opponents of the 600 will have their ratings calculated based on something more like 1150 than like 600, especially if the 600 is provisional. This kind of safeguard is built into the new system to handle precisely the kind of problem you describe.
Bill Smythe
Weightlifter9000 – you list your Chess Club’s website, so a quick check of it, and MSA, tells me that there are some inaccuracies in your statements. First, a rating of 1891 based on only three games in which you beat a 1043, a 1237, and a 1496 hardly makes you a Class A player. Yes, the only tournament rated for you is listed on MSA. In fact, you, because that rating is based on less than 4 games, are still considered Unrated. Granted, you are off to a good start, but long ways from becoming a Class A player. Make a statement like that once you have an established rating (25 or more games) and have beaten your share of players rated over 1800. I looked, in MSA, the ratings of all your Club members and tournament experience and could not find any of them who beat a 2040 and drew with a 2007 – not in a USCF tournament, anyway.
You cannot lose points by winning – trust me, I have TDd in many state and National events! – so going back to a scholastic event will not be the cause of that. In fact, I strongly recommend you continue playing scholastic events, mixed with an occasional “adult” event, until your “true” rating is reached. If it happens to be that of a Class A player, then great! I wish you well, but I suspect that after 25 games, you will not be near that level…unless you keep going 3-0 in tournaments vs players rated under 1500. Once you have played more, you may have a better idea of “your suspicions” being correct.
At this point, just play a lot, again, in scholastic and adult tournaments alike, and don’t worry much about your rating. If you and your teammates are as good as you think you are, that high rating will be achieved naturally.
Good luck![/list]
[/quote]
Will have to support the claim, if it is to be a official rating must have 4 rated games. If still the norm, the 1891 rating will not be official for the October 2004 rating list. Just having a performance rating of 1891 will not give you a rating floor of 1600, not till it is a established rating over 1800. It is a very good start, having a 3 - 0 record. Having a class A rating without ever beating a class A player does not make the claim of being a class A player.
I guess I have to much time in my hands today! Sorry…
Actually, the Rating Algorithm found in the Ratings portion of this website should clarify things for you. No, it is not as easy to understand as you may think. Your post-tournament rating is not necessarily based on the pre-tournament rating of your opponents! It is a five-step process that eventually is affected more by the post-tournament rating of your opponents than their pre-tournament rating. Having said that, those players rated 1200, 1300, and 1450, in your example, were given a new rating based, among other things, on their performance against a player (for that game, anyway) rated closer to 1150 (his final rating).
Again, I go back to my other post, don’t worry about your rating because, after all, the more you play the more it will reflect your true strength. If you fear losing to someone rated 900 or 1200, then you are not really an 1800, are you? Sure, you will be the victim of upsets – even GMs are – but you will also be, if you play long enough, on the winning side of some of those upsets. That is why they play the games! To become a good player, you must learn to beat those players you are supposed to beat. Trust me on this one – I have a son who I took to his first tournament when he turned 12 and now he is a 15-year old Expert two-time National Champion. I take him to as many tournaments as I can, without the fear that he might lose to someone rated lower than him. Yes, he has, but he has also beaten his fair share of masters. I also know he can beat those players rated 900 or 1200…blindfolded.
Just play, enjoy the competition, and learn from your mistakes…
Nice to find someone with a open mind, the enjoyment of the game is greater then the value of the rating. There will be a need for a national rating system, the system was designed for the ‘tournament directors and the organizers’ far more then the rank and file. True, the rating can be used for a player to enter a section of the tournament (example: state championship with open, reserve and booster) just to find the stronger players for a national or state title. Other then needing a rating for a closed championship or a rating for the type of section – the rating has little importance.
The rating if it does become greater if it is over 2000 USCF, has more importance for the organizers – as they are making the effert to find these types of players. If a organizer has the capital like Bill Gates, would be able to draw 20 players over the rating of 2600: it would not be a one day event with 4 rounds with the time control being G/60. Organizers are looking of the draw of the masters and experts, as it will bring in the rank and file of the class players – reason for having a large prize fund for the stronger players.
Talking to a expert with a expert rating floor, you do not play chess for the money. With the time and engery just to study the game, the cost of all the books and equipment, the time of going to any tournament – the prize fund will never make up for the spent time, the spent energy, the spent capital.
The quote above refers to players playing one another at scholastic events. I’m not familiar with scholastic events in your region, but scholastic events in our region often have only one or two sections with class prizes. Accordingly, playing up a section is often not feasible, because there often only is one section.
But even so, when scholastically rated players play against one another, it is likely that the ratings they play with are substantially lower than their skill level really is.
Indeed, Mr. Smythe hit my point that this is primarily for players who actually are ready to experience tournament play, and not for most beginners.
Even despite this, however, the players for a club I once coached participated in some adult tournaments and had their ratings increase significantly above their scholastic counterparts, to the point where we had to adjust the board order at the state tournament to one that would have been considered “stacking” had it not been forced upon us by the tournament director. (Our top two boards went a combined 1-9 one year, while our bottom three boards went a combined 15-0. And two coaches from our league accused us of stacking… Yea, USCF ratings!)
Sorry, I misunderstood the frequency of the Supernationals. However, I never claimed there were three sections.
It also is apparent to me that you just quoted the convenient part of the argument. I can guarantee that coaches encourage their kids to play in the lowest sections that they are eligible for, for the sole purpose of winning prizes. Just because students can take part in sections that are higher than where they belong doesn’t mean that they do or are even generally encouraged to do so.
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
[/quote]
Indeed, Mr. Smythe interpeted me correctly here as well, that if a small adult tournament consists of a large percentage of scholastic students, they will all play against themselves, which would generally defeat the purpose of getting experience against primarily adult players.
– WA Chess Nut
In Atlanta we have quite a few players at all grade levels playing regularly in adult events. And steal plenty of rating points from the higher rated players. On this point alone, our experience is closer to Radishes’ than WA Chess Nut’s.
Some, not all scholastic chess players are at the level to be in the non-age group sections or the non-age group tournaments. If they do play in the standard tournaments, they are past there own age group; or, the parents can not find the tournaments in the local area for the scholastic tournaments. There are other factors for the reason the scholastic player in the terms of Mulfish – ‘stealing rating points’. They are not active as tournament players, only active in the study of the game.