I would have replied in that category but since the topic was “locked” because Doug was going way off track then I couldn’t, although I believe the initial question raised was a good one.
(PS - Mike, if you close a topic every time you don’t agree with Doug, or he says something way off track then we’re not going to have any more topics!)
I do, and will continue to, run USCF quick-play rated events that contain both USCF and non-USCF members. Usually there are only 4 or 5 non-members out of approximately 25 or 30 participants, but I REFUSE to force them to be a USCF member for these “fun” tournaments just so I can run USCF rated events. I think I would rather not rate the event at all (meaning less income for USCF) than FORCE someone to become a USCF member just to participate in a blitz or quickplay event.
The way I do this is to finish the tournament, then I take the time to remove those players from the crosstable. If someone played a non-USCF member then I give them a full point, half point or zero point bye depending on how they did against the non-member. Then I submit the event for rating.
Everyone who plays is informed before the tournament that only games between current USCF members are sent in for rating purposes, and people can clearly see who are, and who are not, USCF members. However, it is just “pot luck” should they be paired against a non-member, and that’s just the way it is! So far I have had NO complaints, even though we have been running these for well over one and a half years. Also, I have only ever done this for quickplay events.
Do not be so hard on Mike, as he does have a good point. If it was for a slow chess game, with a limited number of games, Mike is dead right. The point of going to a tournament, is to play rated games. If there are only four rounds, it would not be fun to play three rated games and one non-rated game.
The point I should have made with Mike, the Grand Rapids Area Chess Club with most of the members is a little wild to play blitz chess. Just a few weeks ago, the club started an hour early at 6pm, that is normal. When the building was closed, the members run over to the local coffee house just to play chess. The club members broke up at 9am, lets face it 15 hours of blitz chess is well insane. The normal time the club breaks up is 2am or 4am. Just to run the USCF section of the tournament, it would not be a big deal to have USCF members play non-USCF members. If you check the listing of my insanity tournament, it would not be hard to get the blitz games in within the nine hours. Mike did not know or understand, as the club is not an average chess club.
If it was for a normal tournament, Mike is right. If the tournament has a limited amount of rounds, like the standard Swiss. It would not be fun for myself to be paired up with non-USCF members. It would be less fun for the provisional players more, as they are looking to pick up the rated games. With a tournament like that, I support Mike. The reason why Mike did not understand my statements, Mike did not know how Grand Rapids Chess Club works.
I don’t really care what your clubs are like in Nevada or Michigan.
If you don’t want to follow USCF rules for rated events, DON’T HAVE THEM RATED! Apparently having them rated isn’t important enough to you or your players to require membership.
I cannot agree with your contention that regular rated games should follow USCF rules and quick rated games don’t need to.
If you don’t like the current membership rules for quick or blitz events, what membership rules would you be willing to enforce?
I’ll even throw out an idea: If you require USCF membership in QUICK games (ie faster than Game/30), the ratings fee is 18 cents per game if submitted online. What about charging an extra 15 cents per game for quick-rated events that don’t require USCF membership? (Note that I do not have the authority to approve such a policy, I’m not even sure I’d be in favor of such a policy.)
If during the club meeting, myself and some other current USCF members decide to play a rated match. Are you asking us to report the games before, during, and after the match? Reporting the rated games is a necessity, as the point was to have a rated match. If one or both of us play from 6 PM till 4 AM, the hours of the match were from 8 PM till 10 PM. Do we still need to report our non-rated games also? If we play a match, than take a break, what if one or both of us plays with someone else. Do we have to report these games also?
What if the tournament has a number of days, are you asking the players to report all the games? If the last round of the day is over, are you asking the players to report all the games they play in their hotel room? Are they not breaking the rules, as they are not reporting the games. What if they play games with non-USCF members, is that not breaking the rules? It is not breaking the rules.
If the players are in a tournament, do they not play games between rounds. Is this not reporting the results? If they did report the results, would it matter to the organizers or the director. Does the rating department care about the games between the rounds? If there are non-USCF members in the skittles’ room, are you asking they all be current USCF members? The rating department does not care about the games between the rounds.
Why are you so upset? If a current USCF member plays with a non-USCF member during the tournament. The game does not count for the tournament, so it does not count as a game in the tournament. If the players want to keep a record of who won and who lost, it does not count. If the tournament is just a double round robin with six players, the games will be performed during the club meeting. Each of the six players will play ten rated games. How many non-rated games they want to play, that is up to each and every player. If the six players want to play two games with a non-USCF member, there is nothing I can do to stop them. The tournament will keep on going till all the players stop.
If you want to give credit to a person that gave me this idea, the credit goes to you. As you pointed out in the novelty opening tournaments, rule 1B1 and 1B2 trumps everything. The rule can be so opened ended, the organizer can do anything they want if it is posted before, and announced at the start of the event.
You can’t be seriously comparing playing skittles games OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE TOURNAMENT with playing paired games in a USCF tournament with a non USCF player???
I understand the desire to make tournaments accessible to everyone, and would love to see some cheaper, “tournament only” memberships to give people a taste of playing tournaments; however, I don’t think that ignoring the requirement for people to be members is the right answer. I will concede that pulling the non members out and assigning multiple byes is a creative solution, but it is still not allowed. If you don’t want to exclude people from the tournament, hold it as a non-rated tournament. Everyone can play, and there is no problem. If enough people want to play rated games, then alternate rated and non-rated events. Otherwise, the 4-5 non members out of 25-30 participants need to join.
Think of it this way, if you have a double round robin blitz with 11 USCF members. That would be 20 rated games for each and every USCF member. If the 11 players go on and play among 80 to 100 or blitz game at the club, only the 20 rated games counted for the tournament.
Think of this logistical problem for a director, if the director has a standard swiss with four rounds. Does the director have to count the games, if the players pair themselves up for the post-tournament games? Does the director have to stay and count the games, if the players do not leave the tournament site after the tournament? If the tournament you have ended at 6 PM, do you as the directors have to report the games if the players keep on playing till dawn the next day?
The point is this, the rated tournament games for most directors are going to be for the regular rating not the quick rating. Skittles if it is on the clock, are going to be with time controls like G/5. Directors send in the results of their standard tournament, say time control of G/90. If the players play skittles at time controls of G/5, the director can also report these games as well. Most skittles’ players would be upset if the skittle games are rated, even if the skittles’ games were rated for free.
The point with the blitz tournament at the club, the time control is G/5. The non-rated games are going to be at G/5. The problems any director has with blitz tournaments, making sure the players report the results, the players that have not been paired up find each other to play. The players are not going to come up and report the results like a standard swiss tournament. Than stand around till all the games are done in the first round. Than wait till all the results are in, so the director can do the next round pairings.
What is going to happen, the players are going to be done and look for someone to play with. Even if I did have two sections with USCF members and non-USCF members, players are not all going to say are you a USCF member. In theory that could happen, in reality not going to happen. Some games between USCF members and non-USCF members will happen without the consent of the director. The point is this, the game does not count as it was not a USCF rated game. The game was not authorized, so why should it be reported?
The point and final point, if it is a double round robin, the games with the USCF members will be done some time during the meeting. Unless someone withdraws, the games between the USCF members will finnish.
If you do not think it is right, this is a question I want someone to come up with. If you have twenty players at the club, with a mix of USCF members and non-USCF members. If you want to have a double round robin tournament sent in for rating. The players will be playing blitz games from 6 PM till 4 AM. As the director you have ten hours to get this tournament done. If you have only 11 USCF members, you have ten hours to get this tournament done. As the director you have ten hours to get all the USCF members to play twenty rated games. You can even have more hours to get this done. The point is this, on a good meeting the players will keep playing till 2 AM or as late as 9 AM. Even if you report all the games, how many games can players play within ten hours? If you want to have a blitz tournament last ten hours, that is up to you. If you want to get all the club players be USCF members, than have a blitz tournament that last ten hours or one time a meeting lasted fifteen hours. If you want to report 300 to 500 rated games, its’ your call. Now you think of a rational plan to deal with this problem.
A round robin is about the only way I can see the USCF tolerating an event that mixes rated and unrated games.
That’s because the ratability of the game has no impact on who played whom or how many ratable games each player gets.
Rather than try to find creative ways to violate USCF tournament procedures, why don’t you come with some suggestions for what you could do at your club or what the USCF could do to make it possible to rate all of those games?
Keep in mind that the USCF is a membership organization, and its primary duty is to its members, not to non-members.
Lets look at the long term effect of this type of tournaments. The tournaments are round robins, they are not swiss tournaments. If you want to attack the idea, attack the idea as a round robin not as a swiss. All the players that are USCF members, will be able to get the same amount of rated games. If it is a double round robin, with eleven USCF members, all eleven USCF members will get twenty rated games. If the eleven USCF members play with five non-USCF members, the eleven USCF members will play ten non-rated games. Each USCF member will get twenty rated games with ten non-rated games.
There a number of plus points with this type of round robins. If you are a USCF member, you would get to enjoy having thirty games than twenty games. Blitz tournaments are more fun, if there is a larger pool of players. If there is a larger pool of players, players are more willing to come back. If your a blitz tournament player, are you more willing to play if you get ten games or thirty games? My bet your more willing to play if you can get thirty games.
If your a non-USCF member, you should get a stronger field of players. With most chess clubs, it is an even wash, as the USCF members have been in non-rated blitz tournaments. There are non-USCF members that win games against strong USCF members. Since the club does not have rated blitz tournaments, there is no value to join the USCF. Very strong blitz players, for personal reasons feel games that are for regular ratings or dual ratings of regular and quick as being two fast. Most blitz players, have never been in any organized blitz tournaments before. If they can get a chance to play with a strong USCF member, than win the games, it could be a reason for the non-USCF member to join the federation. The game does not count, but it gives a reason for the blitz player to join. As the player would know the next tournament, as a round robin if both registers, they will be paired up against each other.
Looking at the model the other way around. The standard model, the player joins the federation to earn regular ratings. In the course of the members’ tournament history, will earn quick ratings. The standard model, the member becomes an established player of the regular rating first, than an established quick rating second. If the blitz player joins the federation, the model would be an established quick rating first, than in time an established regular rating second.
When the federation did start to rate blitz tournaments, the federation did not have or still have a working model. Even with quick tournaments, there is a minor model to support quick ratings not an equal model. The standard model of a blitz tournament, has been for years been a round robin event. The problem with a single game round robin event, is the problem with the color history. As the round robin if decided by the members for color, one player could in theory gets all white or all black for every game. Only a double round robin settles this problem, as each player would get equal amounts of the same color.
The other problem of non-rated blitz tournaments. The clubs that do have blitz tournaments, the director could be a non-USCF member, or a current USCF member without being a certified director. The club could also not be an active affiliate, this would stop any non-rated blitz tournament to become rated. Even if the club is an active affiliate, with an active director. Most of the blitz tournaments are non-rated as the director would not get any credit. The club director only gets credit for swiss tournaments, the club director does not get any credit for round robins. If the club director sends in round robins, the director gets zero credits. Since blitz tournaments are the standard for round robins, there is little reason for the club director to submit or organize rated round robin events.
There is no problem with rule 23C, but the rule was designed to take care of the problems of swiss events. With rule 23C Mike is right, even support him if the tournament is a swiss event. The question of round robins, if all the current USCF members play each other, all the members will have the same amount of games against each other. If all the current USCF members play against one non-USCF member, all the games against this one non-USCF member do not count.
The point of having a tournament like this, it gives a reason for the non-USCF member to join the federation down the road. If the non-USCF member does well, it gives a reason to join the next time around. The point of the tournament is to convert the blitz players into USCF members. It is hard to convert blitz players to join the federation, if the time control is set for the regular ratings. Knowing how many blitz players there are in my area, in a years’ time feel I can get around twenty blitz players to join. If they join the federation, they would be more willing to play in the slower time controls. If the slower time control tournaments have more players. There would be more reason to grow.
At the face value, the policy of the USCF has not been in support of the blitz tournaments. It has not been the policy to support the blitz players, as blitz tournaments are thought of as second class standards. Blitz tournaments are designed as round robins, the standard of blitz tournaments has been as a round robin. Having blitz tournaments as a swiss is non-standard, blitz tournament does not fit the model to be a swiss. There is zero credit if the club director sends in a round robin event. If the club director does not get any credit, why would the club director organize a blitz tournament?
My idea is to build more USCF members. Supporting blitz tournaments and regular rated tournaments. In time there will be a larger pool of USCF members, with established quick ratings without any regular rating games. There will be a reason for the blitz player to join the federation in my local area. In time there can be a grass root campaign to support round robin blitz tournaments, even if the federation policy boards likes it or not.
Here is a solution to your problem that will ALSO promote USCF, which you claim you want to do.
Run two blitz tournaments at the same time, one rated and one non-rated. Only USCF members would be allowed in the rated tournament. The non-rated tournament would be open to all (including any USCF members who happened to choose it). NO games would be played between players in the rated tournament and those in the non-rated tournament.
Both tournaments would be round robins. Delay the decision on whether to run a single or double round robin until the close of registration, then base that decision on the number of players. You could make a different decision for the two tournaments. For example, if you get 12 players in the rated tournament and 4 in the non-rated, you could make the rated tournament a double round robin and the non-rated tournament a quadruple round robin. (Or, if you want to finish a bit earlier, the rated could be a single round robin and the non-rated could be a triple round robin.)
If the players in the non-rated tournament feel slighted or bored because of the small number of players, maybe they’ll be encouraged to join USCF and play in the “real” tournament next time – that’s how you’d be supporting USCF.
Firstly, anyone can advertise a difference to the “official” rules of chess, e.g. page 260, the rule that states all games played in USCF rated events are rated. So I advertise the tournaments I run as “games involving current USCF members will be rated”.
Secondly, I guess you could stick to the above mentioned rule and say that the tournament between current USCF members is the “actual” USCF rated-event and the other games played between non-USCF members are played for internal Club purposes.
Also, to answer another point, I don’t run the chess club to promote the USCF. I run it because there really isn’t anyone else locally running any form of “organized” chess. If people wish to join the USCF then of course I provide a medium for them to do it. I did however become an affiliate so that the USCF can support the club and provide a ratings service, etc. meaning that I do not have to bother doing it myself.
Mike, the whole idea is not to manipulate the rating system… that is a ludicrous suggestion and not at all what this is about.
This is about everyone being able to participate in the club tournaments that we run, without the necessity of them being a member of the USCF. All games played between current USCF members are sent in for rating, irrespective of the results. The only haggle here is whether USCF members and non-USCF members should be in the same tournament, especially one in which 80%-90% of the games will be submitted for rating, something the players that HAVE paid their USCF membership are entitled to have done.
The non-members who participate in the tournament do not have any games sent in for rating and do not correspond, or have a need to contact the USCF. I keep a local rating for them to use for the next time they happen to play in such an event. The USCF is not doing any extra work to allow these players to participate in this event. In fact, I create myself the work of the USCF to enable me to keep track of these players and so indeed it would benefit me if they were members but I refuse to “force” them just so they can be an active participant in club activities.
To be honest, like Doug had previously stated, those “thematic” tournaments that are “allowed” to be rated have more chance of having a diverse affect on the ratings system than this, especially if you choose openings that say are easily in favor of white and proceed to give all the lower rated players the white pieces every time… all variations allowable as long as you “advertise” it.
You don’t think that deciding which games are submitted for rating and which are not submitted for rating could have an impact on the ratings from an event? I do!
It is obviously the case that there are areas in which you can deviate from the rulebook (with proper notice) and continue to have a ratable event, and areas where you cannot deviate from the rulebook and continue to have a ratable event. (For example, I think we all agree that games at odds are not ratable. However, can anyone find that expressly stated in the USCF rulebook?)
Personally, I would say the rule on page 260 that begins
is one of the rules that CANNOT be ignored or overridden just because it may be inconvenient to follow it.
If people think otherwise, perhaps we should clarify that rule one way or the other.
If I was going to have a thematic opening, it would be 1. f4 e6 2. g4. Is it not strange a thematic open were black should win the game is ratable.
What about this, the USCF members play each other first. When all the games are done, the USCF members play against the non-USCF members. Is it legal to be in a rated tournament, than be in an unrated tournament the same day?
Thematic events are a special case. There probably should be something in the rulebook about them, though defining what openings can be used is a moving target (at best), due to advances in opening theory.
I suspect if the opening was completely unsound (1. f3 e5 2. g4) nobody would want to play anyway.
I’d consider playing in a Fried Liver thematic tournament or, better yet, a Falkbeer Counter Gambit tournament.
If they meet the test of being completely independent events, that’s obviously fine. I’ve had non-rated playoffs for rated events. (That’s because the playoffs were at Game/15, which was not a ratable time control at that time, back in the 1980’s.)
However, if even ONE pairing would be affected by the ratability of that game, or if any member might wind up having fewer rated games because of being paired against a non-member whose game is not going to be rated, then I think it fails the independence test.
I think round robins meet the test, because (assuming no dropouts) everybody knows before the first game is played exactly how many rated games they will have and against which opponents.
Swisses, ladders, random pairings, etc, with a mixture of rated and non-rated games probably do not meet the independence test and thus CANNOT BE USCF-RATED EVENTS.
I’m sure that’s not your idea, but allowing rated and non-rated games to be mixed opens the door WAY too wide for somebody to manipulate the rating system, or to submit otherwise questionable rating reports.
Not ALL variations. Certain variations, it goes without saying, can never be permitted. How about these:
Bishops can move at most four squares at a time.
Castling is not allowed.
Stalemate counts as a win for black.
Any pawn that captures en passant is immediately promoted to a queen (on the sixth rank).
If I were to announce one of these variations in all pre-tournament publicity, could I run a tournament this way? I think not.
Frankly, I like Chris’s idea of mixing together USCF members and non-members together. Not everyone wants to be a part of USCF, and yet they like to play in tournaments. Giving them this option alows them to get an idea of their rating if they were a member, and could encourage them to become members to make it official.
But I wouldn’t consider it an event such as a USCF tournament is an event. Instead I would think of it as being a series of match games between members and skittle games between members and non-members. I think this way allows more rated games because the members would request them, and give non-members a chance to gain experience. And as such, I wouldn’t expect the result of a game between a member and non-member to affect pairings between members at all, since the result wouldn’t be ratable.
If some of your players don’t consider participation in USCF-rated events sufficient reason to join the USCF, why should the USCF risk corrupting the rating system for those who DO think it is worthwhile by permitting events that mix rated games with non-rated games?
If you do not think that mixing rated and non-rated games in the same event has the potential to affect the ratings of those whose games are rated, you will need to explain why that’s the case. So far, you haven’t made that clear.
However, rather than debate the mathematical implications of having rated and non-rated games in the same event, wouldn’t it be more productive to talk about policy changes that would make it possible for ALL of your players to participate in rated play?
For those who don’t understand how mixing rated and non-rated games can impact the ratings from an event, here’s a very simple example.
Let’s assume we have 4 players playing in a 2 round event:
Joe, a 1400 player
Bob, a 1500 player
Sam, a 1500 player
Adam, a non-member with around 1500 strength.
In the first round, the pairings and results are as follows:
Joe vs Sam (Sam wins)
Adam vs Bob (Adam wins)
In the second round, the pairings are as follows:
Sam vs Adam (Adam wins)
Bob vs Joe (Bob wins)
This means that Bob and Sam have just one ratable game each while Joe has 2 ratable games.
In other words, because there was a non-member in the field whose games weren’t going to be rated, the pairings affected how many points each player could gain or lose.
Now, what if the TD decides to flip the pairings for the first round, pairing Joe against Adam. That may also be a reasonable pairing, but the change impacts who gets 2 rated games and who gets just 1. Was this an unbaised change by the TD, or was it done with full knowledge of the impact it will have on the ratings report?
Note, however, that if this is a quad, then Sam, Bob and Joe all get 2 ratable games against each other, just as if Adam wasn’t there at all. Thus there’s no way that the pairings for the event can impact the number of ratable games for each member.
