If you simply advertize an under prize such as U1500, are unrated players (that are not assigned a rating) eligible for this prize? Rule 28D says that “Players without official USCF ratings are eligible only for place (or top non-class) prizes and prizes for unrated players unless alternative procedures are used to assign ratings”. However, Rule 33F seems to allow some flexibility here and says “Unrated players should generally not be eligible for any prizes of values other than place or unrated prizes”.
No. How could they be? If you had a U1500/Unrated prize that would be deprecated under 28D but misguidedly allowable under 33F.
Alex Relyea
You can let them play in an under 1500 section, for example, if there is a reasonable expectation that the player is under 1500 (a scholastic player, for example). But, if you also have an Under 1200 prize given in that same section, the unrated should not be eligible for that prize. They can only win 1st, 2nd, or whatever overall place prizes are available for that section.
It is a very common misconception among players (and perhaps a less common misconception among tournament directors) that an unrated player has a rating of zero and should therefore be eligible for “under” prizes. This misconception of a zero rating is probably reinforced by unrated players appearing at the bottom of the wall chart.
In fact, while it sounds redundant, unrated players simply do not have a rating. To use a “computer-ese” term, it’s like having “NaN” (not a number) for a rating. In computer floating point arithmetic, it is impossible to compare NaN against any floating point value (so, for instance, it would be impossible to compare NaN against 1500 to determine whether an unrated player is eligible for an “under 1500” prize).
Since an unrated player does not have a numerical rating value that can be compared against the limit of an “under” prize, an unrated player is only eligible for overall place prizes or those that are specifically advertised as available to unrated players (e.g., U1200/unr, for “top under 1200 or unrated”).
First, a big thank-you for educating me on what “NaN” stands for. That’s a computer acronym I have seen for years (usually in all uppercase, “NAN”) without ever knowing what the initials meant. 
As you point out, the confusion about which prizes are available for unrateds probably comes from the common (but unwise, IMHO) practice of automatically listing unrateds at the bottom of the wall chart. In a single-section adult event (with ratings ranging typically from about 2300 down to about 1000), I prefer to put them in at 1399. I don’t write 1399 on the wall chart, I just leave a blank or write “UNR”, but I list them just under the 1400 players.
A number other than 1399 may be more suitable, depending on the tournament. For that matter, different numbers may be appropriate for different players, depending on how much you know about them.
Furthermore, there is no good reason, in later rounds, for an unrated player to continue to be paired according to his originally chosen arbitrary pairing number. For pairing purposes, an unrated may be placed anywhere in his score group, perhaps even in the top half, as appropriate.
Ah, the advantages of pairing cards!
Bill Smythe
At one point (30-40 years ago?) it was very common to have the bottom “prize class” in a single section tournament be D/E/Unrated. (Note that this is explicitly mentioned in the next sentence.) For reasons described in the full 33F rule (not just one sentence out of context) this isn’t recommended. However, if you know your potential player base (prizes are small, it’s not advertised outside of a club), then perhaps a U1200/unrated prize or something like that might be appropriate. However, U1200 excludes unrateds and U1200/unrated includes them.
I remember one tournament years ago in Illinois. A player had moved from Illinois to Wisconsin & got a new USCF ID number. He came back to Illinois to play in an event. Using his new ID number he insisted on playing as an unrated. I was not the TD at the event or really involved in any way. The players was actually allowed [he insisted heavily] to play as an unrated. At the end of the event he tried to claim the U1200 prize. I had the enjoyable task of pointing out that as an Unrated he did not qualify for the U1200 prize.
Nothing quite like just desserts.
Larry S. Cohen
Some tournaments have under prizes with something like 1st U1600-$50, 1st U1400-$50, 1st U1200/unrated-$50. What’s the rational for allowing unrated players to win the U1200 prize but not the U1400 or U1600 prize?
It ought to be the other way around, if anything. Better to group unrateds with somewhat higher-rated players. I think the phrase “D-E-Unrated” has unfortunately become a single, hyphenated word in some organizers’ vocabularies.
Bill Smythe
I can see a couple of factors here. The first is historical. Years ago, in the dim, foggy past, it was a reasonable assumption that a new player (or a player without enough tournament experience to have a rating) would in fact play chess at a class E (1000-1199) or perhaps a class D (1200-1399) level. (By “dim, foggy past” I mean before the ready availability of chess games over the internet and the availability of inexpensive computers and sotware that can play grandmaster-level chess.) Of course, this was not an iron-clad guarantee, but exceptions were rare.
Second, the lowest “under” prizes typically tend to be token amounts (often just a bit more than the entry fee), so there is less motivation for a player without a USCF rating to avoid disclosing his actual playing strength to win an “under” prize.
Another person from my club was also confused about unrated players eligibility for under prizes due to the wording in 33F that says “should”. I think the wording of 33F needs revising.
So “should” should be replaced by what? “Are”? Why shouldn’t an organizer who knows his/her market be able to have a D/E/Unrated prize? There may not be enough unrateds (or players generally) to make a separate unrated prize feasible.
Yes. This would make it consistent with rule 28D.
They should be able to. 33F can be reworded if need be. Also, I think the sentence that simply states that “Prizes such as D/E/Unrated are not recommended” should be revised to state when it would be OK to have such a prize.
33 is for organizers, not players. 33F says what it’s supposed to say—you can include prizes like D/E/Unrated, but it’s not recommended. 28D is the rule for handling claims for prizes by unrated players. They have two distinct purposes, which is why they don’t say the same thing.
Yes, and my points are:
-
The wording “should” should be taken out since it’s confusing.
-
It would be good to explain for the less-experienced organizers when a prize like D/E/Unrated would be OK,
That could be a TD Tip.
Rule 33 contains recommendations. Recommendations typically use words like “should”. I would not recommend editing Rule 33F for that reason, as it says exactly what it’s supposed to say, for its intended audience.
There are many places in the current rulebook where additional advice could be provided. To satisfy all of those, we’d probably need to break the rulebook up into multiple volumes, or publish it online.
OK, but in this instance, using the word “should” makes it appear that an unrated player should not be eligible for a prize such as “U1500” but that you could award them a “U1500” prize without adding “/unrated”.
I believe the appropriate response was “Oops. I didn’t see the preamble to 33”.
This is only confusing because you don’t want to read an entire paragraph, or in this case, even a sentence (“Should not generally be” needs to be read together, and means exactly what is intended: you can, but we don’t recommend it, which of course, the very next sentence says even more explicitly.)
Nope. I read the whole thing and it’s still not 100% clear. A top level TD at my club was also confused by the wording.