I disagree with the analysis/answer to one of the questions in TD Corner. Question: Barry is seven years old and has not lost a rated game in three recent scholastic events. His rating, available at the USCF site, is unofficially 1200. His official published rating is Unrated. His parents are concerned that something is amiss within the USCF rating system because other players his age in his school are rated only in the 900-1000 range. When Barry enters the State Grade School Scholastic Championship what rating does the TD assign him? (a) 1200 (b) Unrated (c) 1300 (d) Any of the above.
Answer: Based on Rule 28D4, Director Calculated Ratings, D is the correct answer. The TD has a lot of latitude here but should use common sense when applying this rule. Yours truly would go with the 1200 rating; however I could be persuaded to use “Unrated” on the wallchart for this young person. While it is technically possible to assign a 1300 rating to this player I would be hesitant to do so for someone so young. The child’s parents may find any assigned rating, other than Unrated, out of place when they compare it to other kids their child’s age; however, the child has not lost a game over several other events while other kids have probably posted a few goose eggs.
The question was inspired by a query received from Mike Nolan from a parent.
Input from me, Jack Cashman: The first thing the parents, the child, the question presenter and the question framer and answerer must do is understand that chess skill (and thus ratings) has nothing to do with age. So age should not be a factor in the answer (7-years-old is not “too young" to be possibly rated 1300.) Also, since ratings are determined on a national basis, how one stands in relation to ones geographical peers (at ones school) is not a basis for determining rating accuracy. Everyone needs to remember that a rating of 1200 is not an absolute, carved in stone. Even if it is accurate, it only means that at some point in time, in the past, the player earned a rating of 1200. The player’s current rating may be, probably is, different. And that a 1200 rating does not mean that the player most likely will draw another 1200 player, beat an 1100 player, and lose to a 1300 player. In any one specific game, the player may play 1200 chess or significantly better or worse (as will his opponent).
I do not think the facts as given in the question support an answer of (c) or (d) because: “not losing a game in three recent local scholastic events” is useless for determining how well the player is playing without knowing the ratings of the opponents in those events and the results of the games. (All his opponents could have been rated below 1200 and he could have drawn every game—not winning any game at all in the three events; in a six player round robin, one could not lose a game and still end up in 5th place). What is missing from the question and answer is whether the purpose of assigning the rating is for pairing purposes or for prize eligibility purposes. For pairing purposes in a Swiss, the Director should try to assign as correct a rating as possible. Any “unofficial” rating (a rating based on rated games played) is more accurate than “Unrated” and should be used. For prize eligibility purposes, it is generally considered that all the players’ ratings should come from the same database. So it would be unfair to use “unofficial” ratings for some and official ratings for others. But, it seems to me the idea behind having an “Unrated” prize is to give those just starting to play chess a chance to win a prize even though they don’t play well. Therefore I think it is appropriate for a director/organizer to make ineligible for Unrated prizes any player who he has reason to believe is a strong experienced player or who has actually earned a rating. So, I believe the correct answer to the question is to assign the player a rating of 1200 for both pairing and prize eligibility purposes. Assigning “Unrated” would be an acceptable choice if the desire is to use only published ratings and to give all official Unrateds the same chance to win an Unrated prize. Jack Cashman, Local Tournament Director, Ventura County Chess Club
I am inclined to agree, but I think you’re making a bigger deal about this than it deserves. The Q/A made it clear that “c” was not a good choice, even if legal. Now, I’m not entirely convinced about the “legal” part – 28D4 would seem to me to apply only if the TD knew of some additional tournament results which had not yet been rated – but if the answer is “don’t do it,” there’s no point in staking it twice. In my opinion, the correct answer should have been “a or b.”
It could be in my point of view only ‘a’ or ‘b’, if the director would have place the player as unrated in the roster. The age of the player, the unofficial rating of 1200, the past tournaments of rated or unrated does not make a difference. The assignment of a rating, should only be used with a player with a FIDE or a rating of one of the member states of FIDE. The other assignment of a rating, is a past member of the USCF, without a way to check the MSA or the supplements.
FIDE ratings and past USCF ratings are not the only basis for which someone is assigned a rating. This isn’t a supported idea in the current rules, Douglas.
While I agree with your assessment, Jack, the problem is lack of consistency. Unless you can guarantee that you know the past histories of every player in the tournament, you will have a problem with the parents and coaches.
That being said, tho, I absolutely agree that the player should take the unofficial rating due to the fact that his unofficial rating in the supplement AND your knowledge of his past results are consistent.
The way to be semi-objective here is to simply advertise that players with unofficial ratings will use those ratings rather than being placed as Unrated. Then again, another problem exists. Upon how many games is that rating based? If it’s still provisional, you may have a problem. If it’s an established rating (not likely, as that would probably span enough time for it to be “OFFICIAL”), then you have no problem at all.
If a 1200 unofficial rated player entered my tournament with rating restrictions for sections, (say 6th & under JVu1200), I would not allow that player in that section, given what I know. Instead, (s)he’d have to play in the 6th & under Championship.
edited: The TD Corner column’s answer was correct, tho The TD has the discretion to assign any rating in certain cases, and not limited to those posed by douglas, above
I don’t think there is any dispute that using the unofficial 1200 rating and having the player compete as unrated are both acceptable choices. While I agree that the TD has the authority to assign a higher rating under exceptional circumstances (so please don’t pester me with hypotheticals), I don’t think the case as described comes anywhere near justifying the excercise of this power. The fact that the TD believes the player’s rating to be inaccurate is not enough.
The problem I have to use the assignment of the web rating (unofficial rating), as the web rating can change during the life of the event. The rating of 1200 or UNR is not a huge difference in ratings, as adults starting out for the first rated game at 1300.
The assignment of the rating is only a wise idea if the event has a number of sections. The assignment of the rating is not going to make much of a impact, if the player is still in the same section. It would remove the player from the unrated prize.
The personal reason I do not like assignment of the web rating, so much so with the unofficial without any published rating. As the assignment of the rating can change the amount of the players in any UNR prize. As the director has little final clue of how many players will be registering on the floor.
My goal in presenting this question was to make TDs aware of the rule allowing them to assign a rating. I only threw in that c) 1300 choice because some organizers/TDs as a rule assign a rating that high to prevent “sandbagging.” Also, I wanted 4 multiple choice answers.
I am glad the question has set off such a fine discussion!
The TD has the discretion to assign any rating in certain cases, and not limited to those posed by douglas, above