USCF Members & Non-USCF Members In Same Tournament

Running Chess Tournaments
21

I run a “one game a week” USCF rated tournament (for a whole month) that only contains USCF members.

Each week we do not pair the round until we know who is there, so that we don’t get byes (as TD I’m usually the “odd” player in to make up the numbers). Some weeks there are new players playing and others that had already played do not show etc. When I send in the rating reports, players could have played anywhere from 1 to 4 games (very few actually play all the rounds).

I know there are rating implications on players playing a specific number of rounds, but most of the players participating are unaware of this and are obviously happy to just participate whenever they can.

Usually, in terms of the tournaments that started this discussion, 9 times out of 10 they are not USCF members because they have just started playing and wish to sample the Club, which also means they would be unrated anyway and would have little affect on the ratings. I also feel a little guilty about charging them $36 to sample something that they might not want to be a part of in a couple of weeks, one reason I have a $5 “trial” membership to the Club I run that goes towards their club membership fees if they become “full” members.

Chris

22

Players depend upon TDs to know the things they don’t know. Making sure the ratings system is not compromised is, in my opinion, one of those things.

I also believe TDs are required under the rules not to submit games for rating if they have reasonable evidence that either player is trying to manipulate his rating, ie sandbagging. Thus if a 2000 player starts losing games to 1000 players, I would have to think twice before I submitted those games for rating or permitted that player to enter another one of my events.

Look at what you’re doing from the viewpoint of a third party, perhaps someone who is competing with one of your players for a spot on the All-American Chess Team. Might it not look like that player is getting pairings designed to enhance his rating?

What you’re running, in essence, is a series of one-game matches. Perhaps you should submit them that way. You can still submit them online, in fact I’d recommend you do so on a weekly basis once we have deposit accounts implemented. (The minimum ratings fee for deposit accounts will drop to $1.00 which is just six games.)

That also means that the match restrictions on the ratings difference between the players and the total gain or loss of ratings points over a three year period would be in effect. Both of those measures are there to help preserve the validity of the ratings system.

23

You’ve lost me here! Despite the fact that there may be a few non-USCF rated people participating in a 25/30 player event, I still pair the tournament with complete integrity using WinTD. You make it sound like I do this for every tournament I run, when in fact the only tournaments it happens in are the monthly Blitz and Quickplay tournaments that we run. I honestly don’t think anyone gives two hoots about their quickplay rating, but because of the tournaments I run, players here locally have an accurate, complete quickplay rating since it is based on so many games.

For example, look at the most recent blitz tournament that was run

http://www.clarkcountychessclub.com/blitz.htm#0805

and compare it to the USCF rated event that came off it

http://www.uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200508089041

I don’t understand how you think I am manipulating the ratings, or without knowledge of the full crosstable (including non-USCF members) that someone else would think that from looking at the rated crosstable.

Having said all this, I guess I could just no longer rate the events and put the extra money into the prize fund. I’m sure the players would rather have the extra 30 dollars a month for the two tournaments rather than seeing the USCF get it.

24

It should not be done as a swiss. If it is a round robin, and reported as a round robin it should not have a problem. Think Mike and me, now on the same page that round robin events would not be a major problem. There would be a problem if it was as a swiss. Not for the same reasons Mike points out, but it is close.

My problem with it if it is a swiss, is the entry fee. As a USCF member, if I pay the entry fee of twenty dollars for four rounds: the cost per-round is five dollars. If a player plays two rated games and two unrated games, the cost per-round is ten dollars. Organizers have to figure the cost per-round, than come up with the registration fee. If the unrated games do not count, the organizer should not figure that into the cost.

If it is a swiss, the cost per-round or per-rated game would be onto the weaker players. As the weaker players in general would be paired up with the non-USCF members. The stronger players should be more able to play out the tournament with USCF members. The weaker players would have a higher risk to play out the tournament with some games with non-USCF members. That could manipulate the ratings, as the stronger players would have a balanced with their ratings. The weaker players, as the ones with provisional ratings would have a longer time to become established.

If it is just for blitz, why not have it as a round robin event. All the USCF members will have the same amount of games. The cost per-game would be equal with all the USCF members. If you have it for the blitz or the quick games at fast time controls, having it as a round robin would be better than a swiss.

25

Chris, this might sound like heresy to some, but if having the event rated isn’t important enough to the members of your club for them to become USCF members, perhaps the best thing you can do for your club may be to stop running them as rated events.

If that makes for a stronger club, then in the long run the USCF will benefit too, because the rated events you and others in the area run will be bigger and better because there’s a strong club in town.

Of that I am ABSOLUTELY convinced, I’ve seen far too many cities where rated chess dried up when the chess club folded, even though the club may not have been running more than one rated event a year. That’s part of what happened in both Lincoln and Omaha. We used to have 40-50 rated events per year in Nebraska, so far in 2005 there have been just 12, and half of those have been in cities other than Lincoln or Omaha.

As to whether or not the ratings system is being manipulated, that’s largely a matter of appearance. Rating just some games looks bad and people might misinterpret it as an attempt to fiddle with someone’s rating.

I’ve run my share of weekly club tournaments, I’m fully aware of the challenges in finding workeable pairings every week.

However, that’s not the direction I think this thread should be going. I think we should be thinking about ways to make it possible to rate your events and still have them conform to both the spirit and the letter of the USCF rulebook.

Maybe we need more membership alternatives, such as length-of-tournament memberships or special membership rules for blitz events.

Perhaps the rulebook should cover situations under which selected games from an event can be rated while others aren’t, though there are some within the USCF who might never agree to such a change because it opens the door to those who might want to manipulate their ratings. (Round robins are an obvious case where the presence of non-members whose games are not rated has no impact on the rating of the other games, ladder events may be another.)

The USCF’s decision to rate blitz games was made rather abruptly when the WBCA folded, perhaps there needs to be some additional thought given as to what makes sense both for the USCF and for blitz organizers.

26

The USCF should have an independent blitz rating. It needs to be supported, not just be part of the quick rating system. If it is supported, there is a huge market of blitz players. The USCF has supported over-the-board chess, at the slow time controls not at the faster time controls.

Think it would be a fair marketing tool, if the blitz were only round robins. If it breaks in with a mix of USCF members and non-USCF members, there would be a change the non-USCF members would join the next time around.

At a personal idea, non-rated tournaments do not follow into rated USCF tournaments. Will be a small number of the non-USCF members in the non-USCF tournaments, that will cross over into the rated tournaments. If you have non-rated tournaments, why stay as a USCF member when the tournaments do not ask for USCF membership.

It is the same with blitz tournaments, if they are non-rated there is little reason to join the USCF. If there was an independent blitz rating, the blitz tournaments can only be reported as round robins. There is a feeling there will be blitz players that will joint the USCF. The most under looked part to gain more USCF members, are the blitz players. The USCF has been looking to get the on-line chess players, but the question that should be asked about the on-line chess player, they play at fast time controls. The blitz players have moved on-line not the 40/2 SD/60 players.

If the USCF has a blitz rating, and lets a mix of players be in the tournament. If the club has blitz tournaments, with the USCF members having rated games. There is a feeling the blitz players will join up in time. If the USCF supports it and goes at it at a national level, supporting it more than words but of action. In a few years the USCF can gain around 5,000 to 10,000 new adult members.

27

The lowest adult dues rate is $27 for 6 months ($25 if the affiliate waives its commission), not $36 (the online rate for a year for new members and those returning after a sufficient lapse).

As many clubs and smaller tournaments appear to be struggling, I think USCF should help them out by bringing back the Tournament Membership. However, this will cost USCF some full members and should be possible only for these smaller events. The longer tournaments tend to have higher fees, require travel, etc. and players in them are less likely to be deterred by having to pay USCF dues of $25 or more.

I suggest that the Tournament Membership be available for events of four rounds or less, and for all quick chess events. We could price it at $10, and it would include one issue of Chess Life (as it is good business to send a sample copy with a membership offer anyway, so we may as well advertise this issue as a benefit of Tournament Membership). A weakness of the old TM was the lack of a publication and with no magazine included, affiliates often failed to obtain the player’s address so it was not available to be ordered for tournament mailings either.

With a cost of only $10 rather than $36 or $25, I hope the TM would make unnecessary any further consideration of mixing members and non-members in the same event, which is not a good idea as well as being in violation of USCF rules. Mike Nolan has pointed out some of the problems with this, and a nonmember with a low rating who does well in and learns from such events could fail to gain hundreds of points he would ordinarily obtain, and eventually upon joining USCF and playing in a major event could win undeserved prizes. Declining to join USCF might in effect become a new form of sandbagging!

Bill Goichberg

28

That would not be a bad idea, a tournament membership of ten dollars. If the player does get one copy of ‘Chess life,’ it would be a reason to become a full member. It would help with the moral issue all directors have faced, a player that registered at some other tournament without it being updated on the MSA. Faced with this problem, have gone with the trial membership.

If granting one issue of ‘Chess Life,’ why not have the ten dollar members be for one month. As the director can take care of the rule 23C rule. It would give the member one extra month. This would give the member thirteen months than twelve months. Not to have the membership type abused, it should only be sold from the affiliates that send on-line tournaments. As the goal of the on-line events, is to have the tournaments rated ASAP.

If the USCF wants to convert submitted paper tournaments into submitted on-line tournaments. This perks would be a minor reason to convert organizers/directors.

29

I would definitely prefer the membership for $10 to be a “once in a lifetime” trial for one month. But rather than them then joining the USCF and charging them $10 for one month (which is what would happen if they then had to pay the full annual subscription on top), let them pay for the membership they select minus the original $10, e.g. give them an additional 11 months to the month they have already had.

I definitely don’t want to have to charge $10 just to have them participate in a little 9-round blitz tournament.

30

The ten dollar membership would not be that bad. The old way of the two dollars a game would cost you more. If you have nine rounds, that would be eighteen dollars not the ten. Furthermore the member gets an issue of ‘Chess Life,’ now think of the reading they can do in the bathroom.

If it was for a ten dollar membership that last one month. This would be better for the director with the 23C rule. If the member has to hold out till the other tournament sends in the memberships’ forms. The extra month would be posted onto the members MSA. If the member does not want the extra month, they can get a second year. It is important to get the tournament rated as soon as it can be.

31

Bill Goichberg and I kicked a number of tournament membership ideas around last year. His latest idea is very encouraging, I think this time we might actually get something implemented.

The details are still being worked on, but will probably be something like this:

  1. I believe that the $10 tournament membership will only apply to sections with four or fewer rounds. That’s well over half of the sections rated. Bill’s logic is that someone playing in a big-money event, probably with a $75 (or much higher) entry fee, isn’t going to be as concerned about the dues rate, that’s going to be a much smaller percentage of his total costs to play in that event. Most big-money events are five or more rounds.

  2. When the $10 tournament membership fee is paid, we will send a letter to the member (or possibly an e-mail if we get a valid e-mail address) confirming that the tournament membership has been processed.

  3. That letter will include an upgrade offer to a full-year membership. The specifics of that offer are still being worked on. Probably something in the range of $30 to $40 to upgrade to a full-year membership.

  4. It isn’t clear yet whether either the $10 tournament membership or the $30-$40 upgrade offer will be eligible for an affiliate commission or online discount. Probably neither for the $10 part, possibly both for the other part.

  5. We will send that person the next copy of Chess Life that goes out through our printer. (It would cost $2 just in postage to send an issue out via first class mail, including it as part of the next bulk mailing costs around a quarter in postage.)

This will take a month or more because of the timing of how and when we send out magazines.

For example, the labels for the October issue of Chess Life were prepared and sent to the printer in Minnesota yesterday, Sep 7th. The labels for the supplemental mailing of the September issue were prepared on September 1st after the USCF office had finished processing all mailed-in memberships received by the end of August.

That means someone whose $10 tournament membership was processed late last week would probably get the October issue as part of the regular mailing, so that copy would arrive somewhere around October 1st. (My September issue arrived on August 30th.)

However, someone who joined as a tournament member today would probably get the October issue as part of the supplemental mailing, which usually goes out around the 15th of the next month, so that person wouldn’t get a magazine for about 5 weeks. (If I sent him the November issue he wouldn’t get it for more like 7 weeks.)

32

Chris, I’m not sure what to do with blitz events.

Bill’s $10 tournament membership would apply to regular or dual-rated events with 4 or fewer rounds and to all quick-only events, so in its present form it would apply to blitz events. I don’t know how attractive that would be to blitz players.

33

Thanks for the clarification Mike.

The “tournament only” fee of $10 is much more “sellable” if they think that the $10 will go towards the actual cost of their annual membership should they become a member.

Of course maybe the USCF could just have a $10 monthly membership fee that people could renew just as an existing member. I’m sure the extra fees taken in would cover the cost of mailing the membership cards monthly… :slight_smile:

34

As the organizer, would not organize any event (regular time controls) with more than four rounds. The point is clear, if someone joined the federation at a different tournament without the membership being current at the time of the tournament: would pay the limited amount of money to get the player active. As the organizer would pay for the trial membership, out of the profits of the tournament. If the tournament membership is only ten dollars up to only four rounds, or the cost of a trial membership with five or more rounds. It would be rational to limit the amount of rounds to four.

35

Now THAT’S the way to do a tournament membership – WITH a magazine (even if it’s only one issue). It’s the first intelligent tournament-membership idea I’ve heard in decades.

Bill Smythe

36

Bill, if they place you on the cover of the magazine, that would sell memberships.

37

How about clubs with weekly rounds? Some months the tournaments will be five rounds. Will the tournament membership allow them to play just four of the five rounds, or will that membership type not available for these types of tournaments?

38

Im sure it is set with the number of tournament rounds, not the number of rounds the player would play. In your idea, the member would play in four rounds and withdraw in one round: that is still five rounds.

39

I think we’re getting closer to having a fully worked-out proposal that we can circulate to the Board and others.

40

A simple monthly membership fee seems somewhat questionable as then a person could pay for just one (or two) months out of the year to play in major tournaments (a concern of Bill Goichberg’s that Mike already mentioned). The revenue gain of those spotty memberships may not offset the revenue lost by not selling a full year’s membership.

The tournament membership (up to a four round tournament) looks intriguing. It is close to being a per game charge while getting the magazine to people and being a consistent charge regardless of whether a players has byes, forfeit wins, or withdraws (a per game charge discussion should be in a different thread). I thought of and rejected a couple of other alternatives to using the number of rounds and still restrict a tournament membership to introductory tournaments. Having a maximum prize fund that such a membership would be for might be too difficult for the office to track. Having a maximum size of the tournament (number of players) could result in an organizer taking a tournament membership when it looks like the maximum would not be met and then getting burned when on-site entries are more than anticipated.