I suspect that his particular user would have to consider going with adding a time to the announcement–something like 6PM…I realize that even this statement could prove difficult to deal with (a ratings check at 6 PM for 500 players will take some time and a rating or two might change in that time); however, if you don’t mind playing the odds and dealing with the fallout…
I suppose the organizer could print individually the info on the screen when he/she looks it up at 6 PM for each palyer and then stick to that???
What if we’re in the middle of doing a rerate (which we will be doing quite often now that we’ve gone to block rerates)?
If the TD (or player) looked up someone’s rating just before we rerated his most recent events, after that event is updated on MSA the rating that the TD or player saw may no longer be on shown on the web, period!
At the site i had internet access to, I would just use WEB in the TLA, and when they come through the door, that’s what i’d use. It was pretty easy to append the querystring in the URL to the member’s USCFID, copy/paste the current rating.
It was very quick and didn’t hold up any lines.
No one complained, since it was determined in the TLA.
You are aware that we no longer show the ‘current’ rating on the ‘General’ tab in MSA, just the most recent published rating and (when applicable) the upcoming publshed rating, aren’t you?
Most of the time that’s the rating that TDs SHOULD be using, which is why that’s what we’re showing on that tab.
I think what this organizer has in mind is to go to the ‘Tnmt Hst’ tab and take the post-event rating from the most recently rated event for that player.
One problem with that idea is that may not be the most recent event for that player, just the most recently rated event.
In fact, that most recently rated event could be from several months ago. (Even though a rerate cycle just finished on Sunday, there is already one event from last July that has been rated since the rerate completed.)
This is for determination of sections in a local scholastic event.
The TD is going to use the online rating as of midnight. Since this is a local scholastic tournament, and most local scholastics are rated the night of the tournament, the ratings shouldn’t change from the last local event a week earlier.
I suiggested that the TD notify the organizer that they shouuld have an earlier cutoff date so that this type of issue doesn’t occur in the future.
The last update of the crosstables takes place at around 1AM central time, but if the local organizers are getting their events in the same day they end I would agree with you that they should not have many players with ratings in a state of flux at the time they are being looked up, UNLESS there is a rerate in progress. (The last rerate pass ended on Sunday, the next pass is likely to start on Friday, I’m still fine-tuning the scheduling program.)
In a tournament with more than a handful or two of players, or a club tournament, I wouldn’t venture down the road of using “most current ratings as of XX time/date.” I’m sure it’s possible to write an interface routine to mine each players “most current” rating from the MSA (heck, maybe we could convince the SwissSys or WinTD folks to write it?!?) … but it just doesn’t seem worth the trouble. Not to mention the heat that will ensue from players and others.
Some roads, like this one, are better left untraveled.
Mike Hoffpauir
Senior TD
Scholastics Coordinator
VA Chess Federation
The problem with web rating, is when the director is forced to give a bye. During the tournament (web rating), the unpublished player could get a forced bye during the tournament. If the web rating is not used, the unpublished player would not be forced into a bye. If the chess player has an unpublished rating, but has a web rating, if the director is going to use the web rating: would have some risk of having a bye during the tournament. If the director is going to use published ratings, since the chess player has an unpublished rating, the standing rule UNR’s should not get a forced bye during the tournament.
The reason that unrated players are generally not given a bye is to help ensure that they get the number of games it takes to get a published rating, which is four games. (The most frequent number of rounds in a USCF rated event is four rounds, I don’t think it is a coincidence that it also takes four rated games to get a published rating.)
If the player has enough games to get a published rating and the event chooses to use current ratings (as opposed to published ratings), then the rated-but-still-unpublished players should no longer be exempted from getting a bye. I actually see that as one of the few positive aspects of using current online ratings instead of published ratings.
The unpublished player could have a number of games. But, if the player does have an unpublished rating, and the director does use published rating at the tournament, the player should not get a forced bye. As the player would be an UNR, the UNR should not get a forced bye, but only if the director does not have any other choice.
If the web rating is used without a published rating, the chess player would be in risk of having a forced bye during the tournament. In this case, it would not be rational for a unpublished web rated player going to the event. One of the reason why provisional players go to an event, is to get an established over-the-board rating, or closer to having an established over-the-board rating.
I’m just looking at the theory, the longer it takes a provisional player to get an established over-the-board rating: gives the chess player better reasons for not rejoining the USCF. If the unpublished web rating player gets a forced bye, true it is one game less to get an established rating. But, it gives one number less from being an established over-the-board player. It could be the final reason to rejoin the federation or leave the federation.