Very good point, and queries for clarification. I thank you for that.
If the change increases accuracy but chases away existing members, the change should not be adopted. If there is ample evidence to support that new members would be brought in (at least over those
lost, perhaps) then the change should be made. So yes, I would agree that an unpopular change should not be made for a perceived
increase in accuracy. USCF has made such decisions in the past without regard its effect on the USCF membership base, and the results in possible non-renewals. Many years ago USCF “adjusted” ratings out of concern for a USCF and FIDE ratings “balance”, with some established ratings dropping by over 100 points. This caused scores of members to leave, never to return.
One of my students came to a tournament, very late, only making the
last round. He defeated a player substantially lower, and for the first time in his chess playing career of over 100 tournaments, had a perfect 1-0 score and not even a point in ratings improvement. Now, even though such a point may not be justified in terms of ratings accuracy, whatever need for this accuracy should be over-ridden by
this point-- do we want players to be skipping tournaments or not playing at all because the playing field available is gives them no possibility for a positive ratings increase?? And with that, do we truly wish to penalize the local USCF tournament organizers and affiliates with a potential loss of revenue when these players do not attend paying the entry fee. And, though the per-game ratings fees are small, do we wish to deprive USCF of this revenue as well. A point is
we cannot assume that a passion for accuracy does not have a financial cost associated.
I teach dozens if not hundreds of kids in various settings each year. A key motivation for many of them to study and learn about the game is the resulting positive jump in ratings that most often come with hard work prior to the tournament. A key here for the new player is the “candy effect”. ie, instant gratification. Go 2/4 in your second U400 tournament section, and wallah your rating can jump to 500. Thrilling, helps create the passion for additional work. Do well in the next U600 section, and bang, new provisional rating of 876. Are these
initial provisional ratings really all that accurate, or for the established young player, are these ratings really reflective of their actual ability, either?? In most cases, probably not. As I tell parents, until a player has defeated someone with a rating similar to their “new” rating, such new ratings should be taken with a grain of salt.
Thus, should the rating system be changed to “restore” accuracy to scholastic chess?? Certainly, many have so proposed. My thought here is that the necessity to promote our federation, and keep these new players passionate and involved far outweighs any need to “purify” the ratings system.