Is it against USCF rules to have games in the same section at G/25 (or possibly G/20) and G/65? For example, playing the first two rounds at G/25 and all later rounds at G/60.
No.
You can take a look at allowable time controls at:
main.uschess.org/docs/forms/Time%20Control.pdf
From the TD/Affiliate Support Area, FAQs for submission of events at:
secure.uschess.org/TD_Affil/faq.php
"What time control do I report?
Let’s handle the easy case first: If all games in a section are played at the same time control, that’s what you should report. (Remember to report primary Sudden Death time controls like this: Game/10, Game/30, Game/90, Game/120, etc.)
If there are multiple schedules for a round, or if not all rounds use the same time control, in general the slowest time control used for any game in any round determines whether the event can be regular rated only, dual-rated, or quick rated only.
Two important principles to remember are that games played at a primary time control faster than 30 minutes can never be regular-rated and games played at a time control that is slower than Game/60 or not a sudden death primary time control can never be quick-rated.
Another important rule is that adjustments to the initial time period because of an increment or delay mode clock do not change the primary time control for ratings purposes. Thus, if the time control is Game/30 with 5 seconds delay and players are permitted to set clocks supporting delay mode at 25 minutes (per rule 5F in the USCF rulebook), this is still a Game/30 time control for ratings purposes. (See the final paragraph of this entry for further complications.)
If all games are between Game/5 and Game/29, then it can only be quick-rated.
If all games are at primary Sudden Death time controls of between Game/30 and Game/60, then it must be dual-rated. This is not an option that the organizer or TD can choose, it is a USCF regulation. Contrary to what it may say on older rating report forms (which may also have the wrong fees on them), there is no additional fee to dual rate events, even if submitting them on paper.
If not all rounds are at a primary Sudden Death time control or if any round is at a primary Sudden Death time control slower than Game/60, then the section can only be regular-rated.
Here’s the complicated part: If some rounds are faster than Game/30 and other rounds are Game/30 or slower (or not a primary Sudden Death time control) then you should break the event into two sections for rating purposes. The rounds played at time controls faster than Game/30 would be quick-rated only, the others would be dual-rated or regular-rated, depending upon the slowest time control for any of those rounds."
so for the tournament referenced in the other thread. it is a question on whether the first two rounds should have been regular rated or not since they were Game 20/25.
That is good that two different time controls are possible. I think that can help some one tournament out
As the lengthy quote from Tom explained, you can hold events at any time control you want, but for ratings purposes games that are faster than Game/30 (but at least Game/5) must be rated separately from games that are at Game/30 or slower. That means submitting them as a separate quick-rated section.
That wording does need some minor modifications, as of 1/1/2009 a time control like 30/30 SD/30 would be dual ratable because the total time for each player is between 30 and 60 minutes.
It does not appear from our records that anyone has actually run a 30/30 SD/30 event in the last few years, so I don’t expect a flurry of such events just because they’re now dual ratable, and I doubt we’ll see a lot of 15/15 15/15 15/15 SD/15 events (which also adds up to 60 minutes per player so it is dual ratable) either.
The USCF office can’t act as the tournament police, TDs and organizers are expected to know those limitations and how to submit the events they create when it involves different time controls for some rounds. (If the event in question actually did have quick-ratable-only rounds and dual or regular-ratable rounds, please Walter Brown and Chuck Lovingood know the details, someone will need to contact the TD and get the event straightened out. However, I think Walter may be out of the office until after the first of the year.)
Consider the following hypothetical event (one that I hope nobody ever tries to organize):
Round 1: Game/3
Round 2: Game/15
Round 3: Game/30
Round 4: Game/45
Round 5: Game/60
Round 6: Game/75
In this event, Round 1 is not USCF ratable and round 2 is quick ratable only. Under the procedures cited by Tom above, rounds 3, 4, 5 and 6 would all be regular rated-only because the slowest time control is the one that determines if the event is dual-rated or regular rated.
Well, according to the flyer linked in the other thread, the tournament had first and second rounds of either GAME/20 or GAME/25 (both are cited in the flyer, so it is hard to tell which is correct) and remaining rounds at GAME/65.
Alex Relyea
someone needs to send a copy of this thread to the organizer/TD who happens to be the President of the Alabama chess association it was said to let him know he needs to correct his event before he gets a ‘slap on the wrist’.
If the TD was willing to do the extra work, would he be allowed to submit this as three sections - Round 2 Quick, Rounds 3-5 Dual and Round 6 Regular? Allowing that would make sense to me.
Glad he replied. Great to get this settled. I do however disagree with his point that he could advertise in advance and rate a g/20 as regular. That point is moot as he said it was G/30 with the 5 removed for delay, but it needs to be understood that that is not possible under the rules to rate a G/20 as regular even it is in the same tournament as a G/120.
This just goes to show that no matter how you word the rules, someone can still misunderstand them.
So, the explanation on the website just got more complicated. :sigh:
I’ve updated the option for Regular-only on the online form to say:
All games Game/30 or slower, some or all games slower than Game/60.
In my hypothetical 6 round event if someone wanted to submit that as 3 separate sections, one Quick, one Dual and one Regular, I don’t think anyone on either Rules or Ratings would object.
If you want to run G/25 as regular-rated on the grounds that there is a 5-second delay, you should instead announce G/30 and then invoke the option to reduce the main time by up to 5 minutes when a 5-second delay is in use.
But then you’d have to make sure that games played without the delay (such as those played with analog clocks) are actually played at G/30, not G/25.
Bill Smythe
Oh, this is just peachy keen:
I will assume – I could be wrong – that when you use the phrase “primary time control”, you are talking about the FIRST game of the tournament, is that correct?!?
So lets look at the following hypothetical event :
Round 1: Game/20
Round 2: Game/30
Round 3: Game/35
Round 4: Game/45
Round 5: Game/60
So does the event get rated as Quick Chess only (since Round 1, the primary round, is G/20), enough though rounds 2-5 would fall in the dreaded dual rated area?!?
Forward on:
Like I said this gets better and better: So my next question becomes this: IF you can have multiple sections… CAN EACH SECTION have its OWN time control ? ie can you have a section in which all rounds within the section are played at a single time control? ie one section played at say G/29, another at say G/30, and a third at say G/61 all within the same tournament? Thus within the tournament you would have a QUICK CHESS ONLY section, a Dual Rated ONLY section, and a REGULAR rated ONLY section?
No. It refers to the first time control of the game.
Sure. In particular many, scholastic tournaments have some sections which are Regular Rated and some that are Dual Rated.
I just want to check to make sure we are on the same page of the play book: When I use the term “Section” I am using it as in say “Open Section” “U1500-1300” Section, U1300-1000 Section", and “Booster Section”, etc. of a tournament. If I sound confused I can assure you I am very confused.
When I left playing chess almost 19 years ago G/xx, did not exist, Quick Chess did not exist, nor did “dual rating, QC rating and Regular rating” exist – the ONLY rating that existed was a regular rating.
If you have been following my previous posts you already know that I’m no fan 
of “dual rating”, but I’d like to try my hand strictly at Quick Chess. I just want to make sure that we are both using the term “section” in the same way.
The word “section” has traditionally meant things like “Open Section, Under-2000 Section, and Under-1600 section”, but I suppose you could divide a tournament horizontally instead of vertically and still use the word “section”, as in “Rounds 1-2 Section, Rounds 3-5 Section, and Rounds 6-7 Section”.
The “primary” time control is the first time control in the game. For example, the primary time control in 30/30, SD/15 is 30 minutes. Whenever the time control is G/xx, the primary control is the only control, i.e. xx. This thread has been talking about situations where the primary control changes from round to round.
Bill Smythe
There’s no reason why a tournament can’t have sections with different time controls. I’m currently planning one that will have a G/5 quick only section, several G/30 and G/60 dual rated sections, and then regular rated sections for the main event.
Alex Relyea
I long for the days of yore when I was stationed at Ft. Hood TX '89 -'91. The local chess club, once a month would pair up players for a rated game at the very laid back time controls of:
First time control: 30 moves in 90 minutes
Second time control: 20 moves in 60 minutes
Third time control: sudden death 30 minutes.
Nothing more exciting that getting near the end of the last time control, in a close game, and having all the other players huddled around the board watching to see who wins.
And the best thing about the club was that most of the players were rated between 1100 and 1400.
You and me both; you and me both. Amazing how life’s curve balls change your perspective on things.QC Yes; dual rated No.
If we are going to hang onto this Dual rated stuff – which I strongly disagree with – then IF you are going to offer a G/30 tournament you should also offer a G/29 section too – yeah I know already, it ain’t going to happen. Funny thing, I just got my USCF renewal notice, and I am seriously – probably for the first time in my life – consciously going to let it lapse since the USCF seems more interested in catering to the needs of the scholastic crowd, than veterans, who once made up the backbone of USCF. The Dual rating system is rigged specifically to meet the needs of the scholastic crowd; not for seniors and the disabled. May I suggest that the name of the United States Chess Federation be changed to The United Scholastic Chess Federation? The system is broken and needs to be fixed, Yeah I know, “ain’t going to happen”. Maybe in August (or whenever) the so called “delegates” meet again, maybe (I’m not holding my breath) my voice (and that of thousands of seniors) will be heard (again, I’m not holding my breath) who can’t and/or won’t play in dual rated events because it favors the young. Senior’s regular ratings – especially for people who are disabled and/or simply move slower due to age – usually take a huge hit in these events. Maybe once I see some type of willingness to reach some type of accommodation for older ADULTS – not KIDS – I might want to rejoin USCF (I don’t count on it however). There are way too many hard and set positions in regards to the “dual rating” system – in fact I have no idea why a “Quick Chess” rating even exists in the first place, since it means absolutely nothing. Regardless, that’s cool. No problem. Right now rejoining the USCF for $41 (or whatever) is a waste of good money I really don’t have to spare. It is time for the USCF to start listening to older ADULTS and start taking in THEIR NEEDS, not just the wants and desires of “the scholastic crowd”. There is absolutely no reason why, given the advent of high speed computers, so-called “dual rated events” could not be both a uni-rated Quick Chess event, as well as “dual rated” (I know, “ain’t going to happen.”), which is a shame. I have no real desire to listen to the gazillion reasons why this could not be made to happen, if someone REALLY wanted it to happen, it would. The problem is that the voices of the scholastic crowd is drowning out the voices of older adults. Maybe we should restrict entrance into all tournaments based upon age: G/61 and up; no one under the age of 21 allowed; G/60 and below; no one under the age of 21 permitted 
That way the scholastic crowd is penned into their own private ghetto.
Like I said I am disinclined to renew my membership, the USCF does not come anywhere close to meeting any of my needs, and/or a willingness to at least to work towards accommodation, ergo it is a waste of good money. It is the last part about an unwillingness to listen and try to reach accommodation that tics me off. And no it is not just the voice of “some disabled person”, but just one voice of thousands of older ADULTS who hate the dual rated system because it penalizes them, whose regular ratings suffer in these tournaments. Here’s an idea: once a person hits 50 years of age (the age at which a person qualifies for play in senior tournaments) they are offered a chance to convert their regular rating if they so choose into a PERMANENT LIFETIME RATING, that can’t go up or down. That way SENIORS can play just for FUN. Yeah I know, “Ain’t going to happen”, the scholastic crowd would be up in arms, people less than 50 would scream bloody murder, etc, etc, that somehow this too would be “unfair”.
Yes I too long for the old days when there was but one rating system, with slower time controls, when a rating reflected your ability, not a testament of how fast you can move a piece. It’s depressing that I no longer feel welcome, but rather am viewed merely as a source of revenue that is being pumped into meet the needs of the scholastic crowd. Maybe this year things will change; maybe someone will stand up and slap the scholastic crowd silly, and start talking about meeting the needs of older ADULTS; maybe, but somehow I doubt it.
Regardless, know I’ll be watching.
Please don’t put words in other people’s mouths. I, too, am senior, yet I thoroughly approve of both G/30 regular and G/29 quick.
It’s unfortunate that your disability makes faster controls unattractive to you, and even (perhaps) would reduce your rating were you to play in them. But to change the standards, in a way which would make things so much worse in the eyes of so many, would be like passing a law requiring all persons to use wheelchairs, whether they are mobility-impaired or not.
Bill Smythe
Bingo.