The thump heard is from the USCF ratings system. The passion fueled
by the ratings system, gain or (for the youngster) hopefully, not too
great of a loss, in their “number” after the tournament’s completion.
More than trophies, more than placement, more than cash, this is the
key reason most of our advancing youngsters play. Nearly EVERY one
of them want to see INSTANTLY at the end of the tournament what
their rew ratings will be–if they have achieved new milestones.
The use of published ratings exclusively for the very active tournament
player, in weekly events, can be a disservice both to USCF and the
player. In particular those just starting, namely youngsters. I do
encourage pre-pairings announcements that current ratings, esp
for the U sections will be used, and that further, if a players
current ratings would “allow” them to play “up” that they be allowed
to do so.
I have found that Novice U300-U400 sections are ideal for new
students, for this ensures that their opponents are also “green as
grass”. After a tournament or two, depending on their number
of games played, and strength of opponents defeated, forcing
movement up regardless of their now hopelessly outdated and
obsolete “published” rating, is ideal. The same thought process
applies to intermediate U sections as well.
Interest is heightened when youngsters who achieve new plateaus
do not have to wait weeks to enjoy those fruits. Also, is it truly
reasonable to place these players into sections, ignoring their
track records, into sections which their current ratings show they
are too strong for?? How does this serve USCF, the player, or
the tournament??
The key to developing and growing a strong and passionate youth
base is sparking the fire of passion. This must be a key goal of
our emphasis in ratings. A continued inflexible use of the published
ratings thus would seem to be a detriment at least at a good percentage of USCF events.
Rob Jones