When running a tournament, which ratings list do you use to establish pairings? Do you use the most current, that is what’s currently online, or do you use the latest published ratings supplement?
The director should use the last published classical (G/30 or slower) rating. Number of directors like the web rating, there are problems with that theory.
Even with a quick only event, most directors will use the classical rating than the quick rating for pairings. Not all chess players have a quick rating, or the quick rating is still provisional, or the quick rating is older than their last correction of the classical rating.
The rating for the pairings, should have the published rating. The web rating could be used, as an assignment of a rating. But, the director has to make that choice on a case by case … and make the choice during the day of the tournament. The goal of the director is to have the best pairings, and understand the problem of a prize. If the web rating and the published rating have some conflict with a prize – than use the published rating.
Thanks. So, is the February ratings the latest?
FYI, there’s a more extended discussion of this issue at:
secure.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=938
It turns out to be awfully tricky to use “current” ratings from MSA for tournament purposes.
Until April 1, the February list is the “last published,” and should be used unless you announce otherwise in advance.
It seems to me that a quick-only event (ie, one with a time control of G/5 through G/29) should have to use current quick ratings unless otherwise announced.
I don’t have my rulebook handy, so I don’t know if there is a formal policy on this in the book.
Sure … the director needs to make a statement the classical ratings will be used for pairings. With every quick tournament (as a player only) the classical rating was used for pairings.
This is plausible, but it does not seem to be stated in the rules. I would be interested to know if someone can prove otherwise. I know at least one NTD who strongly disagrees, on the grounds that Quick ratings, with a few regional exceptions, tend to be grossly inaccurate. My own opinion is that there are so few Quick tournaments that the question is hardly worth arguing.
Most players have a lower quick rating than their regular rating.
I’m not sure if that means quick ratings are less accurate, though.
Quick tournaments are nice, but quick tournaments are more common at the local level. Quick tournaments are more common for the younger group of players. Quick tournaments are your fun tournaments. Not the type of rating you care to get established before your classical rating.
If the players do not care about their quick rating just as equal as their classical rating. Than the quick rating does not show the true level of the chess player. If the director wants a quick tournament, the classical rating will (at this time and years to come) give a better rating for pairings.
The problem is that many people do not have Quick ratings. (Less true than it used to be, but still common.) So you have to use their “real” ratings. Mixing the two leads to some real disparities in pairings and prize distribution.
Here’s a table drawn from the people listed in the April 2006 supplement, showing players who have an established regular rating and what percentage of them also have an established quick rating:
rtg | reg | quick | pct
------+------+-------+-------
100 | 182 | 157 | 86.3
200 | 234 | 200 | 85.5
300 | 381 | 314 | 82.4
400 | 636 | 531 | 83.5
500 | 846 | 717 | 84.8
600 | 1009 | 835 | 82.8
700 | 1142 | 940 | 82.3
800 | 1231 | 1016 | 82.5
900 | 1215 | 1016 | 83.6
1000 | 1051 | 860 | 81.8
1100 | 1113 | 857 | 77.0
1200 | 1013 | 744 | 73.4
1300 | 946 | 632 | 66.8
1400 | 928 | 613 | 66.1
1500 | 970 | 624 | 64.3
1600 | 981 | 622 | 63.4
1700 | 972 | 664 | 68.3
1800 | 776 | 531 | 68.4
1900 | 590 | 439 | 74.4
2000 | 451 | 327 | 72.5
2100 | 222 | 167 | 75.2
2200 | 247 | 183 | 74.1
2300 | 68 | 55 | 80.9
2400 | 50 | 36 | 72.0
2500 | 33 | 27 | 81.8
2600 | 16 | 16 | 100.0
2700 | 3 | 3 | 100.0
I assume this is a result of dual-rating of G/30 through G/60, because the number of quick-only events is quite small. (I posted stats on that in an earlier thread.)
Thats the problem with the quick rating! If the master does not have a quick rating, (if the director only use the quick rating) the master could win the UNR prize.
TDs have the authority to assign ratings to unrated players if they believe that would be appropriate. It would certainly be appropriate to do that to a regular-rated master with no quick rating.
(I should also point out that the table only tabulated those with ESTABLISHED quick ratings, there are many regular rated players with PROVISIONAL quick ratings.)
A more interesting and potentially controversial issue may be what to do with someone who has a 2200 regular rating but only a 1900 quick rating.
Than it would be more appropriate to use the regular rating than the quick rating. If it is appropriate for a master without a quick rating, when would it not be appropriate for any rating without a quick rating?
It would not be appropriate to use regular rating and quick rating. It would not be appropriate to use a mix of regular and quick ratings for the pairings. Directors have the authority to assign ratings, but not to give an assignment of ratings to a large group of players. The assignment of a rating is uncommon in the first place. The assignment of ratings for a larger group of players … that would be abuse of the rule. If the quick tournament has ten percent of the players without a quick rating, the assignment of a rating to ten percent of the total would be controversial.
There are a number of chess players with more than a 300 point difference. There are a number of chess players with an old quick rating, with the last change in the quick rating of over ten years. These same chess players, can have a regular rating change within a year. Simple question, what is a more appropriate rating: a rating that has not changed since 1996 or a rating that changed within the given year?
28D1 hints at this, perhaps a bit fuzzily:
In other words, for a regular tournament, use the regular rating, unless the player has only a quick rating, and for a quick tournament, use the quick rating, unless the player has only a regular rating.
Nevertheless, organizers of the larger quick events (such as quick-rated side events of monster regular-rated tournaments) often use the regular ratings for both pairings and prizes, and announce this fact in the TLA.
Bill Smythe
Bill Smythe
Most quick events with a prize will use the regular rating and the regular rating for the prize. That has been the standard rule for organizers and directors. Has there been quick events with quick ratings for pairings – have used quick ratings. If there is going to be a prize, would use the regular rating and the regular rating for the prize.
The rules are very silent on this issue … it has just left the organizers to deal with the problem. Once again, the organizers set the rules … the chess players will accept … the rules are changed for the common practice.
If quick ratings aren’t used for pairings and prizes for quick events, THEN WHAT’S THE POINT OF HAVING QUICK RATINGS?
This has to be one of those things that SEEMED so self-explanatory that it didn’t need to be explicitly listed in the rules. Yes, quick ratings are to be used for pairings and prizes for quick events or there would be NO POINT IN HAVING THEM.
There IS another point – to allow players to compete in faster events without affecting their regular rating, while allowing everyone to compete for SOME kind of rating.
So, if regular ratings are used for pairings and prizes, there is LESS point (but not NO point) in having quick ratings.
Bill Smythe
Well, I just can’t agree with you here. A rating that’s NEVER used for anything is pointless. Meaningless score-keeping and an exercise in futility.
If it wasn’t to be used just like regular ratings (but for quick events), we should have been told that from the beginning. I don’t think they’d have gotten much support for a truely “USELESS” rating. You might as well have the tournaments be unrated.