I would like some input on a “hypothetical” issue.
Let’s say there is a closed tournament with a hard rating floor of 1800. The pre-tournament publicity says players have to be that rating by the November supplement. This is a tournament that many people work all year to gain eligibility. The organizers have denied other request to exceptions based on jump in rating, being close to the cut-off, etc.
Now, in comes a new player that has never had a rating before. He does well enough in a couple of quick tournaments to gain a quick rating of 2100 (p12). However, he has no regular rating. He is wanting to play in the tournament. However, several people are concerned based on page 103 of the rule book about the pre-tournament publicity governing the tournament.
What would you do as the organizer? If possible, please cite rule references.
Please excuse the weaseling, but I’d have to know exactly what the pre-tournament publicity says. Is it correct to assume that the hypothetical organizer wants to let the hypothetical player into the hypothetical tournament?
To me, the definition of a ‘closed’ tournament is that the PLAYERS don’t get to decide whether they can play in it, the organizer decides who to invite. Specific qualification criteria may come into play, like winning some other event.
This doesn’t sound like a closed event, it sounds like one with restrictions on who is eligible to play in it based on ratings, like the US Masters tournament that Helen Warren used to run. (As I recall, Helen’s event was open to anyone who had ever achieved a rating of 2200 or to players under 21 who had achieved a rating of 2150.)
As such we would probably need to see the EXACT language defining who is eligible. (And poorly worded language can create major hassles.)
To qualify, all participants must be rated above 1800 in the November USCF supplement.
There is some debate as to whether or not the organizer is going to let the person in question in. I am simply trying to provide some expert input to the decision.
Well, that doesn’t say ‘regular’ or ‘quick’ rating, nor does it say what happens if someone isn’t in the November supplement but is in an earlier supplement, so it’s probably not as precisely worded as it should be. It does appear to apply to both provisional and established ratings. Does it intentionally exclude players rated exactly 1800?
A better wording might have been:
“To be eligible, a player’s current published regular rating (as of the November 2009 supplement) must be 1801 or higher.”
If the organizer wanted to make it even clearer, add “Players without a published USCF regular rating are ineligible.”
Does it seem like chess players are more prone to parse language for favorable interpretations or are we just more aware of them?
I’d cite the ‘reasonable person’ standard (as saying that my more precise language is what was intended) but I’m not sure there are many reasonable chess players out there.
The decision facing organizers in such a case is that if they make ONE exception, they had better be prepared to make others.
I agree with Artichoke. He doesn’t have an official rating quick or regular by the stated deadline.
If you let him in then you’re going to have players whose December rating meets the criteria say that you should allow them to play. No published rating of 1800+ by November supplement, no qualifying. End of story.
In the situation described, the interpretation seems pretty clear: If the player doesn’t have a published rating as of the November supplement, the player doesn’t qualify.
If the player had no regular rating, but had a published quick rating over 1800 in the November supplement, then the player clearly would qualify. Things would be a bit murkier if the player had a published quick rating that was over 1800 but a published regular rating that wasn’t over 1800.
A think a reasonable person would interpret “rated above 1800 in the November supplement” to mean “having a published rating over 1800 as of the November supplement”. But I can see how it could also be interpreted to mean that the player must actually have a rating over 1800 published in the composite November supplement (the argument being that it is considered important for this tournament that all participants have played in a rated tournament fairly recently, so that their rating truly reflects their current playing ability).
He doesn’t have a published rating in November, so he doesn’t qualify. Period. Personally, I would probably have refused to accept a Quick rating even if it had been published (in common usage, “rating” means “regular rating”), but there’s no need to reach that question here.
I didn’t consult the rules revision supplement, so apologies if I missed something there.
I’ll take the opposite position from others here, though with certain reservations. Based on:
Reservations: These rules apply to how to determine prizes, not admission to a tournament. But it establishes the idea that players with provisional ratings can be eligible for class prizes. So how does one become eligible for a class prize without provisional ratings being prima facie evidence that one is rated at that level? Or, to state it in the affirmative, in the absence of other publicity a provisional rating is sufficient to earn prizes and therefore sufficient to enter a tournament at that rating level.
Other reservation: Directors are “encouraged” to use such rating. Not “required.”
I could be wrong, though.
If I was looking to exclude, I would be more curious if the tournament is regular, quick, or dual-rated. Personally, I would be less inclined to accept a provisional quick rating as proof of rating in a regular rated tournament, and see ambiguity if dual-rated. And I’d use 5C to establish that the ratings are separate and common sense that one doesn’t have to accept a quick rating as a regular (or possibly dual) rating.
You are correct that the TD/organizer could use those rules to let the guy in. But he’s clearly not required to do so, and such an interpretation requires some dancing, as it contradicts the plain language of the announcement. 28D refers to unrated players in an open section, which this is not. 28D3 is a recommendation. While some TDs may disagree, my preference is for a bright-line rule: you either have a published rating or you don’t, no online ratings unless announced in the TLA. And your last paragraph seems to be confusing “unpublished” with “provisional.” A provisional rating is a rating like any other, and the distinction has probably outlived its usefulness. A player without a published rating is, well, unrated.
The most disturbing comment (and insightful observation) so far in this thread is the one posted by Martinak:
If these “tournaments” involved a total of only 12 games (by all players), all of which involved this player, and each of which involved one of only three other players, none of whom played each other, and nobody but these four players played in any of these “tournaments”, then, to say the least, the situation is ridiculously suspicious. I would likely not allow this player in the tournament, even if the 12 games were regular-rated instead of quick-rated, and even if the 12 games were rated in time for the November supplement.
I edited my original post while you were replying, I think, reflecting similar thoughts. Thanks for clarifying the parts of rule 28 I quoted.
And you’re right that I have confused the two terms. Do I have it correct now that “published” refers to the rating appearing in the supplement? And, for that matter, do I have it correct that a provisional rating might appear on the Chess Life label before the rating is published?
Am I confused beyond recognition, or am I going to take a bath and go to bed? The latter is definite, anyway.
The definitional problem is that nowadays “published” ratings are only, um, virtually published. Until fairly recently, the USCF sent out physical rating lists every two months. Those ratings were “official” and “published.” When the MSA came along, ratings were available more frequently, but the published ones were still the only official ones used in tournaments. Then they stopped printing actual lists, but the bimonthly ratings which would have been published if they were publishing anything were still the “official” ratings, and have to be used in tournaments unless otherwise announced.
Confused yet? Oh, well, when was the last time a British pound weighed a pound?
As for “provisional,” all that means is that it’s based on fewer than 25 games, and a different formula is used to compute it. Otherwise, they’re just like any other rating. It’s true such ratings tend to be somewhat less accurate than those of long-established players, but most of the time the distinction is of little importance. About the only practical value of keeping it is prevent some kid who had a fluky result from getting invited to an “Under-XX Championship.”
The issue now becomes how it should (or needs) to be enforced.
