An interesting situation has occurred with the USCF rating system. My question is two part: If you break 2200 at any time are you automatically a USCF Master? I first thought yes. But, what if a tournament re-rates everything and you never actually break 2200 ever, r u a master?
I ask this question because a top scholastic player broke 2200 at the Marshall Chess Club in December and he was announced as a master on several prominent websites. However, unfortunately the USCF took a long time to rate the 2010 World Youth Chess Championships. Once the ratings for this tournament came in and re-rated everything, the player in question never broke 2200. Did he technically become a master if the ratings are actually accurate and he did not break 2200.
This issue brings up a larger question about our rating system. Why does it take so long to rate these events, and how long should we wait before we certify someone as a master. According to one website, Bill Hall certified this player and will use this example as a way to change the rating policies.
The player in question will no doubt become a master and possibly IM or GM one day. However, with many players interested in owning youngest master titles, the question needs to be asked----when does one officially become a master? Does a re-rate cancel a master achievement, or lack there of?
This post is all about USCF rating policy and I would like this to be cleared up, since this can happen over and over again. For example, I can run a tournament on Saturday and a student rated 2186 has a bad tournament. However, I do not plan on rating the event until Monday since there are a lot of memberships to buy. However, on Sunday the player has an amazing tournament and breaks 2200. Then on Monday the rating of my event comes into play and re-rates everything making it so the player never actually crossed the 2200 threshold. Is the player still a master or was he ever master?
What r your thoughts? I would be interested to hear from Bill Hall since he certified this player as a master.
My take: You are a Master Rated Chess Player only if your current rating is at least 2200. The only way to earn the TITLE of Master is to have a 2200 floor. the reasoning goes like this: A title is something that cannot be taken away. If you have a floor of 2200, then your Master rating cannot be taken away, and so it can be called a title.
I agree with your take. I like the idea of having to play 300 rated games without going under 2200 to become a master. But it seems there are many ways to became a master, even if just for a moment. My post is more about the kind of path where someone gets to 2200 once and say hey I made master…In particular I want to know if someone can claim they are a master if a re-rate made it so they never crossed 2200 at all. For example, many youngsters claim they made master at 12 or 9 and broke a record…I am looking for thoughts on this. Also, what does it mean that Bill Hall certified someone as a master. Is this even possible if the player never officially crossed 2200?
There are multiple issues here, none of them easy to resolve to everyone’s satisfaction.
The question of what happens if someone hits 2200 for the first time and then loses that due to rerates is a somewhat different (and newer) issue than someone whose rating is above 2200 but then drops down below 2200 due to subsequent events.
In the days when we didn’t have ratings on the website and people only found out what their new rating was when the next published supplement came out, the first of the above issues was not a problem.
In fact, it happened only very rarely (if at all), because we weren’t doing rerates back then, so about the only time it would have happened is if there was a correction made after the 2200 rating was achieved but before the next ratings list was published.
But with ratings available online, often within hours of when an event ends (and usually without any review or intervention by the USCF office), there’s a lot more opportunity for those ‘temporary’ master ratings, as well as increased opportunities for ratings manipulation. And the pressure to break a record or be the first to announce that someone has made master compounds the problem.
Most or all of these issues could also surface with regards to player milestones, norms-based titles or Victory Points.
As noted, the only time someone’s rating can NEVER drop below 2200 again is if they have a 2200 floor.
Currently the only way to get a 2200 floor is to play 300 rated games with a pre-event rating of 2200 or above, the so-called OLM (Original Life Master) designation.
Even then, we have had some (usually older) players who request that we lower their 2200 floor because they are no longer able to play at a 2200 performance level.
Not under the current ratings system rules. The highest peak-rating based rating floor is 2100.
There may have been a time in the past when higher peak-ratings floors were used, but I’m not an expert on USCF ratings system policy history over the past 50+ years (and some of those who do claim that expertise have made statements that are conflicting with each other.)
Similarly, I think there may have been a time when it was possible to get a 2100 or higher money prize floor, but the highest money prize floor these days is 2000.
I’ve also been told that there may have been a time, many years ago, when a player got a floor of 2200 (or possibly higher) when he received the International Grandmaster title from FIDE.
It is likely the case that a player strong enough to get to 2400 and even moderately active would over time get the 300 games with a 2200+ rating it takes to get the OLM designation and a 2200 floor.
Under the new title system, wouldn’t getting the requisite norms for the senior master title give a player 2200 floor? Seems strange if that was not the rule. Would think that would be one of the perks of earning the norms.
This thread has jumped a little bit to cover floors, which was not my original intention. Can someone help answer my original questions? Can and does a re-rate cancel the master achievement?
I don’t know the answer to that question, I’m not sure USCF has an established policy on this because we probably haven’t looked at that specific issue with regards to rerates.
You may need to contact the Executive Director or Executive Board, they set policy.
Unfortunately, anyone can and does call himself a master if he believes his rating has ever touched 2200 and can convince someone else of it. There are no real rules.
I can think of at least one person who has called himself a Master despite there being no evidence in USCF records that his rating has ever been much above 2100.
US Chess Online publishes stories of young/youngest “masters” which lends credence to their claims (and perhaps fuels the unhealthy drive to set records). A clear policy by USCF executives, followed in USCF publications, would be very helpful.
But if the story about player X becoming the youngest master winds up on some other website before it shows up on the USCF’s site, people will complain that the USCF is not on the ball, they can’t even get the word about about their own rising stars!
I have tried calling ED Bill Hall for two days straight to get information on this topic and find out how he can certify a master if they have no record on the MSA of breaking 2200. He has yet to return my call.
If there is a policy to back it up, then fine. But where is this policy?
Also, I think since the USCF is now using norms again in the hope of encouraging more USCF players and playing, I thought the USCF should also post all these records (youngest master by age, race; most active players by state and country and other interesting records----State, National, and International).
Often times top players get interviewed and should the media needs to verify facts related to stories they are about to publish—wouldnt it be nice if the USCF verifed these records and posted them on their website?
True, people will complain. But if these players are not really “rising stars” (at least not rising as fast as their rating may appear), then isn’t it the responsibility of the USCF to come out and set the record straight rather than contribute to the hype? Doesn’t the publicity over Nicholas Nip a few years ago seem rather embarrassing in retrospect?
There is a tacit assumption that such stories are somehow “good for chess,” but is that really a defensible position in light of the harm such mis-emphasis does?