I am going to organize and run an RBO. I am probably going to run it as a 5-round G/30. If I announce it in advance, can I use the higher of the quick or regular rating for eligibility and section placement? I really don’t want the kids who have 1000 regular ratings, but 1500 quick ratings in the tournament since that will make it not fun for the “real” beginners.
Any thoughts?
Thanks.
Are there many kids with much higher “quick” ratings than regular? We’re discussing issues on other threads that have to do with mixing of scholastic and regular rating pools, so I’m interested in these sort of “demographic” data. One problem is that as the pools come into alignment, some of the scholastic ratings might be forced below zero.
Perhaps you could hold it as a “quick” tournament, since the beginners tend to play very fast anyway, and then those kids with 1500 quick ratings would be ineligible.
Actually, here, there are. We have very few regular tournaments, but there are weekly quicks. Almost no scholastic tournaments are rated here. The only place the kids get ratings (usually) are from Class Championships and the yearly amateur, the weekly quick, and the VERY rare rated section in a scholastic.
I really want to hold it in a dual rated time control so everyone gets a chance to start or work on their regular rating.
This will not be a scholastic only event. We do have adults that are below 1200.
I’m not sure of the final details or timing yet, but the Ratings Committee recommended to the Delegates that ALL events be rated under the Quick system (which now probably needs to be renamed).
We’re still working out exactly how and when this is to be effected.
BTW, here’s a scattergram with everyone (22,414 players) who had established regular and quick ratings in the December 2006 Annual List:
You can see that the majority of people are below the ‘no difference’ line, meaning that their quick rating is lower than their regular rating.
You could consider announcing (in your ads/promo/entry time) that you are going to use the higher of the two ratings for pairing and prize purposes.
Good Directing,
Tim
Thanks Tim. Since I am just getting started in directing, I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t breaking any rules in doing so. 
Mike,Are there plans to program the “titles” system:if so,how far back does it stand in the queue? Does the “all rated” as Quick have any effect on this or will it be based strickly on the newly defined “regular rating”?
Well, I’m sure at least one person on the Board see that as a high priority project, and I recently got a note from the Ratings Committee Chair that seems to be proposing something else along those lines.
I can’t give you an exact standing, because the list isn’t organized like that–yet, and not everybody would give a task the same priority if it were.
One of the things on the list is better project management software. 
Moreover, things don’t just get worked on because they’re at the top of someone’s hot list. Sometimes they get worked on because they’re related to something else, or because they have a deadline associated with them, or I’m looking for a change of pace, or because they’re ‘interesting’, or because I’m looking for something that can be done relatively quickly or are something I can work on while doing something else (like watching football.)
What was the rationale?
It looks to these eyeballs like the average quick rating is about 50 points below the average regular rating. Not a trivial difference. Mine are 3 points apart, but that’s just a coincidence.
I think this was in the RC’s report to the Delegates, I know it was discussed at the Ratings Workshop in Oak Brook.
I think the short version is this: the number of quick games is too small for that system to be viable.
Ken Sloan has posted on this, try searching for his recent posts.
If I remember right, the average quick rating is more like 95 points below the regular rating.
Sort of off the subject, but here’s another scattergram plot:
This one shows the relationship between the USCF and FIDE rating for the 968 players on the 2006 Annual List who were also on recent FIDE Ratings Lists
That wouldn’t help chesschick’s wish to get more REGULAR rated games for the players. It sounds like she has the unusual situation of the quick ratings having more games than the regular ratings.
