‘in your opinion’?
Sorry, but you have to offer REASONS, not just unsubstantiated OPINIONS, if you want to change anyone else’s opinion.
I thought it was obvious. Some of the reasons have already been discussed as well.
I think there are plenty of ways to cheat in internet chess, that are not present in OTB play, thats all. And playing in front of the computer screen is not the same as otb-- they are different animals… so the two shouldnt be combined. If the USCF is going to rate internet games, then it should have its own catagory, just like postal chess.
The USCF already has three ratings systems: regular, quick and correspondence. Some people want to add blitz, you want to add Internet.
How many rating systems is too many?
Not all online play can be USCF rated, only those events that the TD (and the online service itself, as the sponsoring affiliate) believe comply with USCF regulations, including those regarding computers, etc.
Both of you seem to be falling into the fallacy of the excluded third.
Should on-line play be rated under the same system as OTB play? In my opinion, no for the reasons already pointed out – the playing conditions are quite different, and it is extremely difficult to insure integrity of play. (Please do not offer irrelevant counterexamples of shady behavior in OTB games. It is a question of degree.)
Should the USCF create yet another rating system for on-line play? In my opinion, no – there are too many rating systems already.
John, the difference is that USCF regulations already permit rating of online play under certain conditions. That is the status quo.
If you feel that’s not something the USCF should be doing, work to change the policy.
While I do, in fact, think that rating on-line games was a bad idea, I have no particular interest in working to change the policy. My point was that you and Mr. Ryson seem to be assuming (fallaciously) that there are exactly two mutually exclusive options: rate those games under the regular rating system, or create (yet another) rating system for them.
As Roger Ebert is fond of saying when asked how long a movie should be, no good movie is too long, no bad movie is short enough.
How many rating systems is too many? So many that there is substantial overlap among them, in the types of events covered.
How many is too few? Few enough so that vastly different types of events must be rated under the same system.
Five seems about right – regular, quick, blitz, correspondence, and internet.
That’s the theory. In practice, some say there may be too few events in some departments to support a reliable system in a couple of the above categories. Personally, I think that’s a weak excuse. Once a system is started, the number of games in that cateogry will increase over time.
Bill Smythe
The problem I see with internet, there are only a few people that play rated internet chess. It would be a small group of people with that type of rating. Some people that do play on the internet, they want to get a quick rating or want to get an established quick rating.
There are directors not going to have any event at G/60 or slower. If the area does not have an active director, or the director(s) are not going to have quick or dual rated events. The players in the area will not have a quick rating, only a few will have any quick rating if they play out of the area.
With the internet, the players can get their quick rating established. The player does not have to look for a director, or become a director to get the quick ratings the players wants. If there was an internet rating, I feel you would see a sharp decline.
I’m sorry, but the post about only a few people having an internet rating just made me laugh…no offense intended. Why does USCF always think it has to be the only organization to do ratings, etc. And why in the world can it not establish a favorable relationship with ICC who has thousands and thousands of players worldwide already established with internet ratings? Obviously, ICC already has the system set up. I really wouldn’t think it would take an Act of God to develop a co-hesive partnership with them for USCF sanctioned internet ratings and adopt their formula for calculating same.
Internet and Quick are not the same thing. I’ve got thousands of internet games between ICC and USChessLive (I think my percentage of life online is close to 10%…I know I need a life.)
Internet means the phone rings, someone walks in, the buzzer goes off on the stove, your kid comes home, someone starts talking to you, and of course the unexpected disconnection.
Quick means your opponent starts slamming the timer down on the clock and moving pieces to four squares at once or doesn’t realize they are low on time and the clock runs out. Quick also means game 59 and Internet often means game 5.
Just my two cents.
The reason why the USCF will not have USCF internet ratings with other groups, it is rule 23C. If the internet group has a tournament with a mix of USCF and non-USCF members – the USCF will not rate the event. If the USCF did join up with an internet group, it would only accept the tournament for rating if it was 100% current USCF members.
Joining the group, the USCF members will be small, as the management would have to set up USCF only tournaments. The amount of the tournaments would be small, as the management would need a certified tournament director for the small amount of USCF members. What is cheaper, having the computer do all the pairings and set-up of the tournaments, having the computer change your rating right after the game, or a real life director on the other end of the line doing all that work. They could use the Local TD 25000000, but I think ‘it’ is a fake director. Other than the director 25000000 (check the MSA), they would have to pay the director.
The overhead to start up and maintain another ratings system (or two of them) is significant enough that such a decision should not be made lightly.
I personally don’t see why the USCF needs to compete with the online chess providers by offering its own Internet rating system.
Further, there are thousands of games being played online, but only a handful are being submitted for USCF rating, and those are ones where the online provider chooses to make the event USCF rated and all of the players choose to participate in a USCF rated event.
Well, I understand the USCF is the only organization that matters in the world philosophy. Except here’s a thought. How about, since ICC has a rating system already, if USCF created a joint effort with ICC and basically ran all their events into ICC’s system, then any person entering a USCF internet rated event could use their ICC rating. See, then all internet events could be ICC rated since they also already have the system in place to deal with disconnects and have done a wonderful job of setting up internet chess systems for years. And whenever someone entered a USCF event, they would have an established rating. In essence, I tend to think globally and see no need to recreate a wheel that works just fine.
Of course, the USCF has always thought parochially so has wanted all the pie instead of only a piece of it.
And the rule that Doug mentioned is designed for over the board events to encourage people who live in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to join USCF who are not members.
However, in the internet world, there is no need to limit players geographically or to expect that everyone who plays needs to be a member of the U.S. organization in order to play U.S. players.
Just another two cents from an out of the box thinker
Donna:
The USCF does not understand how to think out side the box. How many chess players, have left the USCF because the online chess tournaments has a vast field of players. The USCF has limited itself to the over-the-board, right or wrong it is a limited policy. If the USCF does jump into the market, there would be growth in the adult membership, but they have to bend the rules to get greater growth.
The USCF has kicked around the idea of internet chess, but they are in the mind set that internet chess should be a clone of over-the-board. The USCF has walked away from a great deal of adult growth, like blitz chess as well. Who knows, there could be just a membership fee to only play in internet or blitz chess only. There is a market out there, if there are fresh minds other than the old school.
This really has little to do with ‘thinking outside of the box’.
IMHO the USCF completely blew the Internet opportunity in the early 1990’s, both from the standpoint of online chess as well as using it as a marketing tool for book and equipment sales. That window of opportunity is essentially closed.
I’d rather work with the online chess vendors in areas that are mutually beneficial than try to compete against them. If their online ratings systems meet the needs of the online chess community, why should the USCF try to get involved in a separate online rating?
Some online chess services see a market for holding USCF-rated events, although that’s a small percentage of the number of games rated under their own online ratings systems. That’s fine too, under appropriate conditions. Whether those conditions are adequate is a separate issue from whether online USCF-rated play should be permitted at all.
The USCF does not use correspondence ratings to seed regular or quick ratings, I see no compelling reasons for using online ratings (ours or someone else’s) for that purpose either.
This topic has gone way off of topic, which my initial simple post was:
“Since the game was a draw, position wise, why can’t I be a good sport and claim it as a draw”.
I don’t see how sandbagging, cheating, USCF’s rating etc has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Technically, according to some, I deserve a win, but shouldn’t I have a say in the game play since the TD didn’t look at the game and ask for my opinion?
Couldn’t this be the same in a real tournament? I had a game this weekend where the player lost on time, then declared a draw. I went ahead and argued I had a win, even though it was a clear draw. I decided that arguing over a few rating points was stupid and agreed on a draw, 5 minutes after the game was over, because when it comes down to it, who really cares about a silly rating anyway?
Thunderchicken:
Let me get this, your opponent flag fell and lost on time because you still had mating material. You asked the director to over turn the win into a draw. Question, were you director of this tournament?
It is not the question of the rating Thunder, it is the question of the next round pairings and the final score of the tournament. Having the win turned into a draw, your opponent gets a half a point than a zero. This can change the pairing for the next round, and any other round after that. With your opponent getting a half a point, this can change the balance of the prize money.
The ratings are a major problem too, as a simple change in a few rating points has an impact on any other games you and your opponent will have.
No, it was a KP v K, my opponent claimed 3 move rep after his flag fell, which I don’t think it was 3 moves. There were no witnesses to confirm it, and it was his word against mine.
The TD said he didn’t know what to do. I was not directing this tournament.
It was a round robin, so the next round’s pairing was already determined.
I felt had my opponent had 3 seconds more, the position would have reoccured again and I could be for certain it was a 3 move rep.
Well, I hate to start a new firestorm, but the director should have known what to do or at least how to look that one up in the rulebook. A pawn is considered mating material and you were entitled to the win.
What your opponent should have done BEFORE his clock ran out was to stop the clocks and say that he had insufficient losing chances requesting a TD to declare a draw. Obviously you must have not been playing with a time delay clock. The TD would then have been required to put in the delay clock and I’m sure that with the 5 seconds, it would have become the draw.
In sudden death, a player cannot claim a draw after flags have fallen unless there is not mating material on the board.
As far as going off topic from your original post, it really isn’t as far off as you might think…the two issues you raised are: what is the procedure is on US Chess Live for disconnects and what will the results be of that procedure/how it affects ratings. Obviously the procedure on USCL is not a clear as other servers which then brings the issue of why does USCF allow those games to be USCF rated quick chess.
I think the discussion as a result of your bringing this issue forward is a productive one. Hopefully some of the posters or lurkers here are delegates and USCF Board members who have the ability to have these issues addressed.
If you had the KP and your opponent had the K, the flag fall ends the game. Your opponent has to make the claim when your opponent flag is still up. You let your opponent steal a half a point.
The TD should have known that a claim of triple occurrence is not valid after the claimant’s time has expired, EVEN IF a triple occurrence has indisputably occurred. The claimant must stop his clock, before his time expires, and make the claim then.
The TD should also have known that, if there is a dispute as to whether there has been a triple occurrence, the burden of proof is on the claimant (socre sheet, neutral witnesses, whatever).
Bill Smythe