Hi,
I have to correct a tournament I submitted Saturday night.
Is there an automated process, or do I need to contact someone?
Thanks!
You need to send the correction request to ratingsmgr@uschess.org with the original event id and the details of the change.
Note: changing the date is more involved since the date is part of the event ID.
1 Like
Our hope is that the new Leago system will let TDs enter corrections to their events (to be reviewed by staff before being processed.)
Currently, changing the event ending date causes a new event ID to be generated. I do not know that will still be the case under Leago.
1 Like
Splitting multiple sections of one tournament into multiple tournaments also requires new IDs. Changing the results of a game or the ID of a player or adding a skipped over TD are all fairly straightforward changes that the office is used to doing.
Lots of changes might be easier if the old tournament is cancelled and a corrected one is submitted. Adding a section would likely require such a replacement, but Iâve simply submitted such sections as a different event with the same name and the section name appended as part of the tournament name. Cancelling an event is done by the office and needs to be coordinated with it. If the replacement event is already submitted, validated, and merely pending final processing then the cutover is easier.
1 Like
I moved a player from one section to another after round 1 instead of withdrawing them and reentering them. So the game from the first round got dropped. I was confused when the TD submit screen gave the guy a W but not an opponent, so I forced it to a 1 pt buy. But then later realized he wouldnât get the ratings points that way.
Moving players from one section to another creates multiple issues. The round 1 game in the original section can be put in an extra games section, and the opponent who stays in that section can be handled several different ways in terms of pairing/standings in that section.
However, having one game in the extra games section and the rest in the new section can also impact whether or not the player who was moved gets bonus points from the event. That can work either way, either keeping a bonus from happening or gettng a bonus because a round 1 result isnât factored in to the bonus formula in the other section.
1 Like
If the extra games section has only one game then you run the risk of triggering match limitations (400 rating points) and many of the games that would go into such a section exceed that limit.
Sometimes an extra games section is used for the actual result of games that are corrected very late in the tournament (think a four-round tournament where the round one result is corrected after the fourth round is played). In such cases it is urged that the original (wrong) result be used for prize purposes with the actual result used for rating purposes. In such cases I prefer to convert the recorded game to a non-rated result (after any awards using tie-breaks were calculated with the original reported result) and then re-enter the two players into the section so they actual round one result can be entered. That retains the original scores used for prizes and allows any bonus points to be properly calculated (all iterations of a player in a section are merged for bonus points and post-tournament rating). It also avoids any match trigger.
1 Like
A one-game section shouldnât trigger a match warning, but a two-game one currently might. However, the RC is working on some changes to the match regulations that might redefine a match as being 3 or more games etc.
One game sections have triggered match warnings for me so I moved those single games into other sections (helped with the bonus points anyway).
Did you code those extra game sections as matches?
I just created a test event with three one-game sections in it, one between a 1400 established rating and a 2200 established rating, one between a 1400 established rating and a 500 provisional rating and one between a 1400 established rating and an unrated player
All three sections passed validation without generating match warnings. (I will use this event to test the Leago system at some point, but I donât think their database is ready for that type of testing yet, though I may try it later this week anyway.)
They were coded as Swisses with only two players in the section.
If that is no longer an issue then it might have been fixed, but my work-around is better for handling bonus points anyway so I will probably continue using it for one-game sections.
Iâve never attempted to run a study of it, but my gut feeling is that more players are likely to miss out on bonus points if their first round win/draw is in an extra games section than earn bonus points because their first round loss/draw is in an extra games section, so finding ways to get all those games into the same section is probably an advantage. But that works both ways, the player who is moved and the player who faced the player who is moved both have the potential of having that affect bonus points and thereâs probably no way to treat both players the same.
Mark Glickman and I looked at the possibility of rating all sections of an event at the same time (similar to how we treat withdraw/re-enter situations), but that raised other complications. Quads probably shouldnât be rated that way, for example.
Looks like its not fixable from a tech standpoint. So the work around is to resubmit the tournament and then the admin will delete the old one
Deleting a section is easy, adding a section or adding players to a section is not, at least in the current structure.
Likewise, changing the event ending date currently requires issuing a new event ID. (Changing a section ending date may or may not change the event ending date.)
Whether all of these will continue to be handled the same under Leago is not yet clear.
Nolan or Jwiewel,
When having to set a game as an extra rated game during a tournament, how is that shown in the reporting of the game when the whole tournament is reported to the USCF? Also, is it true that players in the extra rated game must be within 400 rating points apart?
Generally in an âextra rated gamesâ section. It works best if there are multiple games between different people (the bye players in rounds one and three for instance) and you do not need to worry about tying the rounds in the extra games section to the main tournament (for that matter if there are only extra games in rounds two and three the upload may simply shift them to rounds one and two). A single extra rated game risks being considered a match with 400 point limit but multiple games, especially if all extra games are listed in the same round, do not have that issue..
If the extra rated games section is reported online, is there a menu choice to choose âExtra Rated Gamesâ before typing the actual game data?
There is no âextra rated gamesâ category, and I donât think adding one would be particularly useful, what additional information does it provide for the purpose of rating the game or understanding the crosstable, especially if the section name is something like âExtra Gamesâ which is often the case. I would probably use the âotherâ category since it really isnât a Swiss and unless there are just 2 players it isnât a round robin, either.
This issue came up at the Ratings Workshop earlier this week:
The ratings committee is studying the issue of rating matches, starting with what qualifies as a match. A section consisting of a single game between two players does not currently qualify as a match and is unlikely to be defined as one in the future. (But, the Ethics Committee has had to deal with complaints about events that consisted of numerous sections with just 1 or 2 games each, presumably to get around the match limitations.)
This issue arises because US Chess rating system rules state that in order to be ratable matches, both players must have established ratings and those ratings must be within 400 points of each other.
Some leeway is probably needed in the second of those criteria, because the TD might rely on information from the published ratings list or from more recent unofficial ratings in order to see if the 400 point criteria was met, whereas during validation it isnât clear whether the playerâs current ratings would be used or their latest published ratings.
However, we have in excess of 300 sections in the crosstable history, some going back to 1992, where these conditions were not met but the section was allowed to be rated anyway.
A lot of these happened after we opened additional ratings systems, for example the OTB blitz system or the 3 online systems. Thatâs because the two players in many cases DID have established ratings within 400 points in another system, such as OTB regular, but not in the newer ratings system under which the section was played.
One current thought line is consider an event a match if the two players had 3 or more games, but treat it as if it was a 2 game event for the purpose of ratings changes.
Example: Suppose two players play in a 4-game match and the results are 3-1.
Then for the purpose of computing the new rating using the formula
New rating = old rating + (expected score - actual score) X K
both the expected and actual score would be multiplied by .5, meaning one player scored 1.5 and the other scored .5.
Presumably bonus points would still be disallowed because the players met 3 or more times. I do not know if the committee is also looking at the match rule limits (100 points over 180 days or 200 points over 3 years) as those limitations came from the Delegates or Executive Board.
I got one of these rated where there was an out of town player looking for rated games in every state several years ago.
Nolan & Anyone Else,
The September 13 tournament, if we have it, will be my first tournament after becoming a TD. When reporting a tournament online, is there a preset from you fill in with all the data or do you just freely report all the data?