US Chess rule 5C simply states that dual rating is where the total playing time is between 30 to 65 and doesn’t state any situation where a game played at a dual rated time control wouldn’t be dual rated. For tournaments that have some rounds/schedules at dual time controls and some at regular-only time controls, doesn’t this mean that the games played at dual rated time control should be getting dual rated? (I know it mentions the provision for multiple schedules, but not tournaments with one schedule and different time controls for different rounds, in the second TD Tip after rule 5C but TD Tips are not rules.)
Mike Nolan and others know better than I, but I think the rating software cannot handle separating dual-rated games from Regular-only rated games played in the same section of the same event. (Multiple schedules, mainly. Could also be a case in which time controls get slower in later rounds.)
But I have yet to hear a player complain about this, unless your OP counts for that. The point is that all games played at Regular-ratable time controls must be Regular-rated. If not, players will justifiably go nuts. The vast majority will not care about whether their Quick ratings are impacted by games that could also be dual-rated in a perfect world of perfect software.
This leads to the question of whether it’s time to end dual-rating as it approaches its 20th birthday.
I believe the programming would have to be changed to accommodate it. My point is simply that based on rule 5C, any game played at a dual rated time control should be getting dual rated.
It was shown in another thread that dual-rating may have increased the reliability of quick ratings.
That is kinda true.
Dual rating helps keeps an otherwise obsolete quick rating closer to the regular rating of an improving player.
However, dual rating causes a lot of scholastic games to be quick rated and if it didn’t exist then a lot of players would not have an otherwise obsolete quick rating in the first place.
A very complicated study might be done to see if eliminating dual rating would make most of the quick/regular discrepancies more clearly related to quick inactivity (obsolescence).
I don’t anticipate such a study being feasible for quite some time, if ever.
Big time. WinTD and SwissSys might have to be re-programmed, too, AND organizers and TDs would have to re-program themselves to use it, AND the MSA software would have to provide a way to mark EACH GAME as regular-only or dual. Most likely, no organizer would ever bother to do this.
In short, it’s just not worth it.
Creating this rule was like passing a law against earthquakes and tornados. Some city councils and state governments may have passed such laws, but last time I checked, earthquakes and tornados were still happening in those municipalities.
Maybe, but there are better ways to increase the reliability of quick ratings. I’m sure I’ll have more to say about that, in another thread, sooner or later.
Bill Smythe
I agree and the rule should state when games played at dual rated time controls won’t be dual rated.
What do you think about updating rule 5C as follows? It takes Mike Nolan’s suggestion of eliminating dual rating and my suggestions on cleaning up the language of the rule and making it more complete.
Some of your “<” and “>” signs (in both versions) should be “<=” or “>=”. In particular:
The existing limits for dual ratings are inclusive: 30 <= mm + ss <= 65.
The existing limits for blitz are inclusive: 5 <= mm + ss <= 10. This should also carry over to the new rule. Otherwise, the classic form of blitz (G/5) would not qualify as blitz!
I copied and pasted from the online edition of the rulebook. It seems it didn’t copy the signs over correctly. I fixed it, thanks.
The on-line version looks fine–I just checked. It does not use <= but the underlined sign “<” (copy-paste seems to not copy the underlined portion in the few tests I ran) found in printed math texts.
I greatly prefer the “underlined” version, but my keyboard doesn’t do that (or if it does, I don’t know how to make it do that), so I was forced to use “<=” and “>=”. I see that when Micah corrected his post, though, he was able to use the better version of these signs. I would like to know how he did that.
I Googled “greater than or equal to sign” and copied and pasted the signs that came up in one of the search results.
Using the numeric keypad with Num Lock on (not the number keys above the QWERTY row, and I don’t know why I have to use the numeric keypad)… Hold down the ALT key and then enter 242 and then release the ALT key ( ≥ ) or hold down the ALT key and the enter 243 and then release the ALT key ( ≤ )
That said, not all entry windows or copy/paste operations will respect it, while every one will respect >= and <=.
Thanks to both you and Micah. Unfortunately, my laptop (the only computer I have at home) does not have a numeric keypad (or a Num Lock key). Maybe I will try this next time I’m at work.
With Word, you can do Insert—Symbols—Symbol and choose the symbol. You can also just google less equal sign and copy and paste off the first hit.
Copy and paste out of PDF’s can create some minor issues even with straight text. For instance, letter combinations such as ff and fi can be combined into a single ligature character which looks better in print, but is no longer the actual characters.
The problem with both of the above (and various other tricks) is that these weird symbols won’t always translate properly when copying and pasting between documents in various formats. If everybody would just stick with “>=” and “<=”, these problems would go away.
Or, if you don’t want to say “<=65” (for example), then you could always say “<66” instead.
Or, just spell it out in plain English: “at least 30 and at most 65”.
Bill Smythe
But what happens when you have a clock able to do G/60;d5.5 ? 
Or G/60:30; d5?
I knew somebody would ask that. (In fact, I think I knew it would probably be you, Jeff.) 
Suffice it to say that I think some of the other rules might already contain some one-minute holes like that.
Bill Smythe
This is already present in the MSA system. The rating report (online only) includes a way to specify the multiple playing schedules and the corresponding game lengths for each round. Then you can mark each player as to which playing schedule the player used. Sure, it would be nice if this can be done automatically within WinTD or SwissSys, but at least there is a manual method to do this.
However, I have no idea what MSA does with this information once entered. Is it even stored? It’s never displayed on the public rating report nor does the rating system use the individual time controls. It simply uses the longest time control for the section.
In theory, games that have dual rated or even potentially quick only time controls could be rated as such, since the information is potentially available. But, it’s not currently done.
That sounds like what might be called a “partially implemented feature”.
Suppose you have a 5-round 3-day event at G/90 inc/30, with one round on Friday night and two rounds each on Saturday and Sunday. Suppose also that there is a 2-day schedule with two rounds Saturday at G/45 d/5, then merging with the 3-day schedule beginning with round 3. Suppose further that round 2 in the 3-day schedule and round 1 in the 2-day schedule both begin at the same time on Saturday morning. (Not an uncommon arrangement.)
Now let’s say that player X in the 3-day schedule and player Y in the 2-day schedule both arrive on Saturday morning to find out that both of them have full-point byes due to an odd number of players in both of their respective schedules. Players X and Y find each other, and approach the TD with the suggestion that they could give up their byes and instead play each other in a sort of cross-section cross-round pairing. The TD, being an accommodating person, agrees to do this, but points out that their game must be played at the faster time control so that player Y will finish in time to begin his round 2 game at its designated time.
In this case, the “partially implemented feature” will have labeled X as a 3-day player and Y as a 2-day player, perhaps causing their game to be rated as regular-only for X and dual-rated for Y, even though it should be dual-rated for both.
Let’s go a little further. Suppose we get to the point where quick-only games and regular-rated games can be played in the same tournament. For example some organizer runs a 1-day event with rounds 1-2 at G/26 d/3, and rounds 3-4-5 at G/60 d/5. (No multiple schedules, no merging.) Now the “partially implemented feature” won’t work at all.
To enable this sort of event, pairing software and MSA would need to fully implement a new (and difficult) feature. Somehow I don’t see this as happening.
Bill Smythe