This was posted December 25 by NM Rex Blalock (NM Reb), who now lives in Lisbon, Portugal. Reb is from my native state, Georgia, USA.
“I recently noticed that my uscf rating had changed due to some events I had played in Portugal ! I was astonished and so wrote an email to the USCF to see if this were some sort of mistake. Their reply said they had started doing this in 2008 due to the directions of their policy board !? What kind of nonsense is this ?! I am not even a current member of the USCF and yet my uscf rating changes when I play in fide events abroad ?! Does this make any sense to anyone? It certainly makes none to me.”
I was unaware USCF rated games played in other countries, especially by non-members. This is news to me. I find it quite bizarre, to say the least.
Further communication via chess.com private message continued:
Mike,
Merry Christmas !
Yes, please do put it anywhere you like with my permission ! I am completely against this and wrote to the uscf about this and all they told me is they started doing this in 08 due to " policy board directions " ! If they are going to do this, against my wishes, I think I at least should be allowed to play rated chess when visiting the US without having to renew or pay a per game rating fee. I think my position is sensible.
Mike,
I would like to be able to see the USCF forum if I can ? I am a lapsed member though and may not be able to.
I have also read that they now rate G/30 to G/60 as both quick and regular chess ?! This is also hogwash in my view and I wonder do they always do this or just sometimes? Is it announced in advance when an event is rated as both ? I do not wish to play in any event that affects more than one rating, its ridiculous. Are they doing this in order to make more money from rating the games ?
Rex
Reb has been an expatriate for many years, playing in tournaments in the US when he returns to visit, with the last being the 2008 Ga State Championship, where he finished in a four way tie for third place with 3 1/2 points. Although from Georgia, as were the other three players with whom he tied, he was not eligible for the title of State Champion. Checking his MSA, one finds the last three rated tournaments were in Portugal! Reb will be coming home to live soon. I have informed him of some of the many changes he can expect in the chess world, and would have to say he seems to be in a state of ‘culture shock’!
The rating of all USA-flag players in foreign FIDE events is a Board policy, one that has evolved a bit over the last three or four years to its current form. (It started out as only rating participation in a small set of events, such as the Olympiads and the World Youth Championships.)
Similarly, I believe there is a Board directive that only current USCF members have access to the USCF Issues forum.
Dual rating of G/30 to G/60 as both regular and quick rating dates back to 2001, as I recall, and was the result of a Delegate motion in 2000.
Please inform him that the dual rated event policy has a purpose which is to have more reliable Quick ratings for those fast imprving players who rarely play at G/5 through G/29
The USCF has been rating G/30 events under the regular rating system for as long as they have permitted G/30 as a USCF-ratable time control.
I’ve been a USCF member long enough that I remember when 30/30 (and NO sudden death) was the fastest USCF-ratable time control, now I’m not sure when it was last used as the time control for a USCF-rated event.
Every Game/30 game in all the tournaments in the entire USCF/MSA database has been rated in the regular rating system (assuming the TD reported the time control correctly to the USCF). It’s enough to make one want to pack up and set sail for Portugal.
No, only those who are USA flag players. Those who are not USA flag players may have their FIDE games rated by the USCF if they pay a fee for that. As far as I know, only one player has ever done this, Fabiano Caruana, currently playing under the Italy flag.
USCF has rated foreign tournaments at military bases for a long time. I remember ads for them in Chess Life in the late 1970’s when I first started getting the magazine.
By the way, does the USCF have any reciprocal agreements with either the CFC or the LFQ?
The difference is that even though they are held outside the USA, those tournaments are held by USCF affiliates, directed by USCF certified TDs and are for USCF members. Carol Jarecki has held a USCF rated tournament in Bermuda for several years, too.
The lead post is objecting to the USCF rating some games from some FIDE rated events, those played by USA-flag players (plus those who specifically request it in advance and pay a fee) in events that are NOT being held by USCF affiliates, probably not directed by USCF certified TDs, and where most of the participants are probably not USCF members (and may not even have a USCF ID much less a USCF rating.)
However, the place to file such an objection is with the Executive Board, whose policy this is.
I am unaware of any reciprocal agreements with other chess federations.
The strange thing about this is it’s applying FIDE ratings to a USCF rating system. As FIDE ratings are usually lower than USCF ratings, this seems like it’ll just have a negative impact on the USCF rating. I don’t really see the point of it.
Actually, we start by converting the FIDE ratings of the opponents to USCF ratings using the conversion formulas. Then we plug those converted ratings into the ratings formula (including bonus points.)
FWIW, of 446 FIDE event adjustments made using the current method, 72 have resulted in bonus points.
I suppose the other odd question is… Why should players be allowed to play under the USA flag in FIDE events if they are not active USCF members?
OK, I know the answer is that FIDE can rate whatever FIDE wants to rate and that the flag affiliations are probably set by FIDE policy… But that just begs the question why USCF would continue to allow USCF rating the inactive player if they are played by [non-JTP] players. What a way to save a few bucks if you’re an expat.
Though I’m certainly not aggrieved about it to advocate a change. Heck, I’m not aggrieved by it at all.
What’s your alternative? Insist that FIDE list them as “Stateless”? The Soviet Union used to do that, and I believe Cuba still does, but this was widely disapproved. The point of the FIDE-tournament adjustment (calling it “USCF rating the inactive player” is a terminological inexactitude) is to keep the USCF ratings of people who rarely play in the USCF reasonably close current playing strength. If they want to play in a USCF-rated tournament, they have to join USCF. If they play only in non-U.S. tournaments, a kluge factor is needed.
I think you’re a little confused. Let’s say that, for example, Josh Friedel playes in the World Cup. He plays under the USA flag, and as a GM he has been given life membership, but the World Cup is not USCF rated. This adjustment keeps track of the changes in his strength.
Granted this also works for non-USCF members, but I think you’ll find most of the cases are something like this.
In Friedel’s case, he has had 6 FIDE events with a total of 47 games rated in the last year under the current policy, during which time he has also played 67 games in 14 USCF rated events.
My alternative is even more of a kluge and can’t be enforced by USCF policy alone: Have FIDE require that a player playing in a FIDE rated tournament be a member in good standing in the body of the flag they are playing under. Or they don’t play. I don’t like that alternative, as it gives authoritarian states the ability to “un-person” a player. Presumably that’s how the ‘stateless’ designation came up?
Doing so could also allow national/world political machinations, and would force a potentially ridiculous condition of FIDE organizers having to check statuses of players in different languages and even alphabets. That might be addressed by FIDE requiring membership expiry data and a golden database equivalent. Again, the possibility of being very inelegant and inefficient.
I can see what you mean as to the point of the FIDE-tournament adjustment, but it can have the side effect of the USCF rating the play of members not in good standing. Although from a ratings equity standpoint I see the point, one of the reasons I renewed my membership is to finally obtain a rating. The USCF Rating is regarded as one of the benefits membership offers. I suppose the case could be made that a member is paying a fraction of for the entire ratings service, but it still has my brain ticking that someone is bestowed membership benefits without supporting the USCF dues-wise.
I wasn’t concerned with any member in good standing, life or otherwise. Just that someone can go and enjoy “La FIDE Loca*” and have their USCF rating adjusted without having paid the piper for that.
I do see the point of correcting a USCF rating based on FIDE rated play, and can see why it is necessary.
And NB: As I mentioned initially, my knickers weren’t in a twist over this and still aren’t. Certainly not enough to worry about the issue, though it is interesting that there is apparently at least one player who didn’t enjoy the adjustment.
[size=90]*Note to self… consider creating a filk with the title La FIDE Loca… Ricky Martin would spin in is grave. What, he’s not dead yet? He seems that way on the hit charts![/size]
This originally came up (decades ago) because of a few GMs who played almost exclusively in foreign tournaments, resulting in distortions in invitations to things like the U.S. Championship and the Olympiads. Many things have been tried – weighted averaging USCF and FIDE for invitations, activity bonuses, etc. The current version is fairer and less arbitrary. It does have a minor effect on lower-rated players, who might conceivably get in a rated game in some country without paying USCF dues. But this effect is utterly trivial, and is an awfully minor side effect of adjusting the ratings for greater accuracy. If, instead or “rating foreign tournaments,” the USCF simply described it as “calculating a FIDE-rating adjustment factor,” it would have the same effect without allowing the verbalisms which underlie your complaint.
