I’m largely done with the process for generating Krause format reports with WinTD. On two of the three tournaments that I’ve done so far, there has been a non-FIDE ratable section that’s been merged into a FIDE-ratable section. Please, if you have a non-FIDE ratable schedule, make sure you turn the “FIDE ratable” flag off for it. If you do that, the games automatically get non-ratable flags. Then when you merge into the main FIDE-ratable schedule, the FIDE report will not include those early rounds (actually, it will give byes with the appropriate score, so the overall score will work out). If you run a non-ratable section with the FIDE-ratable flag on, once it’s merged, it’s a flaming pain to fix the games. (If you run some rounds with the flag set wrong, you can fix it by selecting the games and changing the FIDE-ratable flags off on the Games menu).
Not really a response, but how can I get the latest and greatest (I’ve used it and I love it) release? I am the current owner of the NJSCF licence.
I’m a little surprised that FIDE would even accept an event with so many non-ratable games – or, as the FIDE software would see it, an event with so many full-point byes, half-point byes, unplayed games, etc, and many players with multiple such non-results.
I have a hunch that, sooner or later, FIDE will crack down and begin refusing to rate such events.
Bill Smythe
My understanding is that they are ratable, but not eligible for norms.
This is correct. Furthermore, a tournament with multiple schedules would not be eligible for norms even if all the game were ratable. (Think, for instance, of the nine day and six day schedules of the US Open for an example.)
OK. My concern is not with the current FIDE policy, but with what FIDE might do with it in the future. FIDE seems to have a history of viewing various USCF actions as pushing the envelope just a little too much. Then FIDE tries to crack down, but sometimes later relents after seeing the damage done to its piggy bank by the exclusion of so many USCF events that were formerly FIDE-ratable.
Bill Smythe
If a tournament with multiple schedules cannot be eligible for norms, how is it possible, for example, that Joshua Colas achieved an IM norm at the 2016 World Open, a tournament which has several possible schedules?
The Open section was 5-day only - Open players could not play the 4-day or 3-day schedule.
Players in the lower (U2200 through U1200) sections could choose between 5-day, 4-day, or 3-day schedules.
This is completely correct. Also, while I may be pointing out the obvious, FIDE isn’t concerned about other sections of the tournament that aren’t FIDE rated. In fact, FIDE doesn’t really “do” sections; tournaments with more than one FIDE rated section appear as separate events to FIDE.
Correct. And to our utter annoyance, they get charged that way too. If you have two sections FIDE rated, then both sections are subject to the $60 minimum fee meaning you’re minimum cost is $120 for what we would call “one tournament”.
Or, if you try to create a combined crosstable so that the two sections look like one, first of all you’ll have a mess on your hands trying to get your pairing software to do that, and second, the FIDE software would probably notice that the pairings look fishy (two players with a perfect score, one rated 2500 and the other 1399??). And third, you then might have to submit it that way to USCF too (since USA FIDE events must go through USCF), creating a crosstable not at all in keeping with what MSA viewers are expecting.
Bill Smythe
I’m not sure that’s true. Think of what the report for something like the USAT would look like.
The FIDE report isn’t taken off the USCF report since the latter might include non-ratable games (and is missing other information that FIDE wants). The FIDE report for a single section may already have “merged” information from multiple schedules. FIDE doesn’t try (a la mode MSA) to reconstruct a tournament cross table:
ratings.fide.com/view_source.phtml?code=125871
The players presumably are listed in the order from the report from USCF (which here would probably be in the order in which they registered for the tournament).
Although I know combining sections into one FIDE report has been done in the past, I don’t think you’re supposed to do that. I wonder how the billing would work. You get charged based on the MSA report. If the MSA report is split up, then the FIDE fee may not be correct. I have a tournament coming up in April that normally has 3 FIDE rated sections. Each section is relatively small, so I would really love to combine these. I probably will even if I have to have it that way on the MSA report. The FIDE fee is ridiculous otherwise.
I would think that reporting sections contrary to the way they actually happened might get an arbiter in trouble with FIDE through the FIDE Events committee. The USA has a richly deserved reputation for playing fast and loose with the rules and FIDE has started to crack down.
If FIDE fees are too high, don’t rate the tournament!
Alex Relyea
This is a perplexing crosstable. All the rest I’ve seen are in MSA order. Perhaps the tournament didn’t use a compliant pairing system and Tracey had to construct it by hand?
Alex Relyea
Well, I certainly hope you get away with that, but I’m not exactly optimistic. FIDE has a tendency to be penny-wise and pound-foolish in these sorts of situations.
Now THAT might be the only way to shake some sense into FIDE.
Bill Smythe
It hasn’t shaken any sense into USCF about their high fees
This is the first time I’ve seen anyone complain 25c per game is too high. Nevertheless, I think Mr. Smith has a point and I was going to address it with an ADM, but time got away from me this year.
Alex Relyea
I don’t know if this really pertains to the question directly … but, when I have a (USCF) tournament with a FIDE-rated section … I submit the tournament to the USCF as two tournaments … e.g. Peach State Open – for all non-FIDE sections … and Peach State Open (FIDE) – for, obviously, the FIDE-rated section.
Then again … I am using SwissSys instead of WinTD nowadays.
What high fees?