I hope that GO way seeing that CHESS way can have 1 player in 1 section twice or even more:
Sample here. Because 32006453 re-entered in 1 section of a tournament, is 32006453 only rated 1 time? I hope this is only UI that showing no rating adjustment for the other one. If this is not a UI and 32006453 only rated once, then it is bad and not acceptable in CHESS way. This should have been in the first week of design/talking points between GO and CHESS re-write the whole system.
The games were all rated, it just shows the pre and post ratings under one of the pairing numbers, that’s on the list of things to fix.
good. I am waiting for that fix.
I think we’re starting to get past the urgent fixes and on to the ones that are just annoying. 
Ok. If it is UI, then not urgent ones. Does that mean in this case 32006453’s live rating is 1563? Or unseen one?
The post-event rating of 1563 includes all 8 games he played in that event. (I show his game count going from 561 to 569.)
Of course that rating could change slightly any time the event is rerated.
This is a display issue, not a ratings issue.
Where is that? What is 561 to 569? Line numbers? Screenshot please.
That’s in internal records, we don’t show the game count online once a rating gets established, but since 2005 we have continued to track games. I suspect if you could access the ratings API, you’d get all those data fields.
I’ve raised the possibility of adding dropdown showing how the new rating was computed, ie, showing K, expected score and bonus points, kind of like how the ratings estimator does. Not sure if that will make the work list, some people may think showing all that would result in even more complaints. About the only thing we wouldn’t want to show is the initial estimate for a newly rated player because that can leak information about the player’s age.
During static testing of the ratings programming, we checked nearly every event between 2004 and mid 2025, which would have included a lot of events where players had multiple pairing numbers, so that’s one thing that I’m very sure works.
I thought the empty ratings due to that he entered twice to the section. I guess I was wrong. What is the problem that these view do not have ratings?
Saeed is in that section twice, possibly as an error.
So is Bauml.
Ah thank you! I did not check them. I was trying to calculate manually the rating to double check if it was calculated all games or just one entry, and I found so many empty ratings in the section. From one manually calculation, it looks like that post ratings of the double entry players are the correct post ratings for both entry. So that I can use post rating in this case for their Live Rating.
Yes, most of the 1.0 group with 4 unplayed games for rounds 3-6 appear to be duplicate entries. I’m not sure what that tournament was doing.
It is 3-day entry then some players will re-entry to 2-day entry. I was onsite.
I would have expected those to be indicated as re-entry, but apparently not.
There are multiple reasons why a player might have more than one pairing number in an event, and we have no flag for notating that reason anyway. (In a multi-schedule merged event I don’t think WinTD even tracks which pre-merge section had which games.)
I think this is another UI issue, whether it’s in-scope or out of scope is above my salary level.
Ideally the crosstable should show something like (also pairing number xx) but that would definitely be out-of-scope because it wasn’t something MSA did.
I would think the data trail would go pairing number => member id => ratings record, but I’m still learning the differences between this data design and the legacy one. I am sure that all the games under multiple pairing numbers with the same member ID are being rated as one block of games.
I do not have any problems rate those games to be 1 block (2/8) instead of (0/2 then 2/6). What I care in this case is if I can see the live rating or not, so I will treat 1563 as his live rating.
In a re-entry situation wintd does indicate it in the player name, if I recall correctly, although of course the name tends to get lost along the way.
Most US pairing programs notate a re-entry somehow, but the rating system has always just used the name in the US Chess database, regardless of what names you put in the pairing software. So long as the US Chess ID is correct, then that is used to determine the player in the event.
The new system complains if the names don’t match but sometimes that’s more of a nuisance than an aide to finding potential incorrect player IDs.
