# Heartbeat of Current Ratings **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [September 2, 2012, 10:37am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872 "2012-09-02T10:37:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/41 "2012-09-13T15:28:13Z")
> [@eastside](#): > > I was thinking of players whose rating improvement one could graph to illustrate the point of how unusual continued, uninterrupted ratings improvement is. > > If you look at the [ratings history of Sam Shankland](http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12852765), you will see an approximate hyperbolic curve at the beginning of his career. Even with the younger Shankland, though, you can see the occasional dips and plateaus that correspond with his “apprenticeship” periods that I mentioned earlier. However, his ratings graph on the whole is amazing to look at. > > Perhaps the best example of a parabolic ratings graph can be found with Bobby Fischer. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any place that has his complete USCF rating history available. What I do know is that his first rating, in May 1956, was around 1700. By the May 1957 rating list, he was around 2250. Such an increase by itself is remarkable. When you factor in that he won the first of four consecutive US titles later in 1957, you don’t really need to see a graph to understand how quickly his rating must have gone up. Note that particularly early (lower rating and less rating stability) you can see, volatility, drop/plateau, improvement, and it repeat. If you could highlight graph chunks (assuming there is sufficient underlying data) it would be interesting to look at. ---
**Author:** ![eastside](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/eastside/32/3726_2.png) [@eastside](https://forum.uschess.org/u/eastside)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 3:38pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/42 "2012-09-13T15:38:56Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > Note that particularly early (lower rating and less rating stability) you can see, volatility, drop/plateau, improvement, and it repeat. If you could highlight graph chunks (assuming there is sufficient underlying data) it would be interesting to look at. You can do this for any player by simply copying their rating supplement history out of MSA, pasting it into an Excel spreadsheet and then creating a graph of any period you like. In the case of Shankland, he appears to have ratings updates in most supplements since he started playing in 2002, so my guess is that sufficient data exists to do reasonable yearly analysis. ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 3:50pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/43 "2012-09-13T15:50:05Z")
> [@eastside](#): > > > [@kbachler](#): > > > > Note that particularly early (lower rating and less rating stability) you can see, volatility, drop/plateau, improvement, and it repeat. If you could highlight graph chunks (assuming there is sufficient underlying data) it would be interesting to look at. > > You can do this for any player by simply copying their rating supplement history out of MSA, pasting it into an Excel spreadsheet and then creating a graph of any period you like. In the case of Shankland, he appears to have ratings updates in most supplements since he started playing in 2002, so my guess is that sufficient data exists to do reasonable yearly analysis. Too bad I’m not teaching Stats… be a great project to assign to a student! ---
**Author:** ![nolan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/nolan/32/174_2.png) [@nolan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/nolan)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 4:08pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/44 "2012-09-13T16:08:54Z")
FWIW, a recent change to the ratings graphs on MSA shows any period of inactivity (over 90 days between events) in green. This is particularly useful for spotting inactivity on Quick ratings graphs ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/45 "2012-09-13T18:45:52Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > > [@tmagchesspgh](#): > > > > What Boyd points out concerning the process of learning chunks of information and improving as steps upward with periodic plateaus has been studied and documented in many fields. I have looked at ratings charts of hundreds of promising juniors and noted this progression. In only a few cases was there a huge spike , or what I call a “rocket,” of ratings improvement. At a certain point there is always a slowing down or plateauing of the rating until another surge occurs. If the player is satisfied or stops pushing himself, the rating curve stabilizes in a narrow rating range or degrades over time." > > I haven’t gone and double checked, but IIRC, Elo also documented this in “The Rating of Chessplayers Past and Present.” It’s a very well known phenomenon. As I said in my initial post, good, experienced instructors know this. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > > [@kbachler](#): > > > > > > Your argument that we should stress ratings because kids get excited about them makes me think that we should feed kids nothing but candy because they like that too. > > > > Frankly, if candy truly gets a player to study chess a little longer, provide better notation, etc, then it might be a good motivation technique to use. Whatever withing reason that fuels the passion. (however, for the most part, if the spark is not internal, good luck with fueling the passion). > > First, I would disagree with using that kind of external motivation (and to what end?) but secondly my comment was about giving candy to kids simply because they loved candy - without regard to the impact it has on their health - simply because they love candy. > > BTW, I recall a promising student who, in his second year of scholastic tournaments had a sudden drop off in performance. For two months we were trying to figure out why until my wife discovered that the boy - who was not allowed candy at home - was sneaking off to the tournament concession stands to buy and consume a couple of chocolate bards prior to the first round. Once we stopped this process, his prior promising results immediately returned. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > Secondly, both players, and their supporting parents quite often need a tracking mechanism, which ratings are, to measure progress. Trophies won, quite often at in-school tournaments, and small local clubs quite often do not accomplish this, for > > being “king of my hill” may or may not be relevant in terms of comparing to a larger setting. And, sometimes, motivating these kings of their hill to higher accomplishments is difficult because of their current satisfaction levels. > > > > Rob Jones > > While ratings are “A” tool they are not “THE ONLY” tool to measure improvement. A good coach can watch the quality of play and see what is working and what is not over several games. Moreover, ratings have their faults. As noted, improvement comes in pieces and only when enough pieces are in place does “coordinated improvement” along with winning and a ratings jump occur -thus ratings increase at the end-part of the improvement process. Secondly, as a player continues to improve they will plateau and often even get a little worse. If one uses ratings as the primary tool one will always be behind the process and will - without a deeper understanding - misunderstand the process. This is something good coaches know, which is precisely why they do not stress ratings. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > Last, ratings improvement hopefully does not happen at the end of a learning process, but is continual throughout this process. Playing frequently, and playing with principles is a key to this process. > > As we note above, improvement leads to changes in results - but not necessarily immediately. Ratings change ONLY WITH changes in results. Thus, while learning may be a continuous process (but not necessarily continuously increasing/ improving of strength process) the calculation of ratings is definitely discontinuous, being reliant upon individual game results, which are also discontinuous. Hence your statement is necessarily incorrect. There are many of us, Kevin, with different approaches, that have been, for a fact, highly successful. I can see that your approach fits your style, probably to the benefit of your students. Just as in chess, many have different styles, and approaches. The best response I have for you is this: results speak for themselves. Wishing you the best. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![mfschulte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ee59a6/32.png) [@mfschulte](https://forum.uschess.org/u/mfschulte)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 1:10pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/46 "2012-09-14T13:10:36Z")
> [@nolan](#): > > FWIW, a recent change to the ratings graphs on MSA shows any period of inactivity (over 90 days between events) in green. This is particularly useful for spotting inactivity on Quick ratings graphs Useful if you can see green. ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 1:48pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/47 "2012-09-14T13:48:50Z")
> [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > There are many of us, Kevin, with different approaches, that have been, for a fact, highly successful. I can see that your approach fits your style, probably to the benefit of your students. Just as in chess, many have different styles, and approaches. The best response I have for you is this: results speak for themselves. Wishing you the best. > > Rob Jones Even so, this doesn’t change the basic fact that while ratings reflect current performance, they are not necessarily a good measure of the process of improvement. It is easy to motivate without focusing on something that has such a downside. We see this with young women, for example, where we now encourage them to focus on HEALTH rather than the number representing their WEIGHT because of the potential damaging effects. So while there are different approaches, some ideas are still just bad. Stressing ratings is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![eastside](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/eastside/32/3726_2.png) [@eastside](https://forum.uschess.org/u/eastside)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 2:39pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/48 "2012-09-14T14:39:16Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > For two months we were trying to figure out why until my wife discovered that the boy - who was not allowed candy at home - was sneaking off to the tournament concession stands to buy and consume a couple of chocolate bards prior to the first round. Once we stopped this process, his prior promising results immediately returned. Allowing students to gorge themselves on life-size chocolate Shakespeares is probably bad for performance. ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 3:43pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/49 "2012-09-14T15:43:52Z")
> [@eastside](#): > > > [@kbachler](#): > > > > For two months we were trying to figure out why until my wife discovered that the boy - who was not allowed candy at home - was sneaking off to the tournament concession stands to buy and consume a couple of chocolate bards prior to the first round. Once we stopped this process, his prior promising results immediately returned. > > Allowing students to gorge themselves on life-size chocolate Shakespeares is probably bad for performance. LOL!! 😃😆❗ ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/50 "2012-09-14T15:57:22Z")
> [@eastside](#): > > > [@kbachler](#): > > > > For two months we were trying to figure out why until my wife discovered that the boy - who was not allowed candy at home - was sneaking off to the tournament concession stands to buy and consume a couple of chocolate bards prior to the first round. Once we stopped this process, his prior promising results immediately returned. > > Allowing students to gorge themselves on life-size chocolate Shakespeares is probably bad for performance. This is incredibly hilarious. What a pun!! Wonderful. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/51 "2012-09-14T16:06:37Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > There are many of us, Kevin, with different approaches, that have been, for a fact, highly successful. I can see that your approach fits your style, probably to the benefit of your students. Just as in chess, many have different styles, and approaches. The best response I have for you is this: results speak for themselves. Wishing you the best. > > > > Rob Jones > > Even so, this doesn’t change the basic fact that while ratings reflect current performance, they are not necessarily a good measure of the process of improvement. It is easy to motivate without focusing on something that has such a downside. > > We see this with young women, for example, where we now encourage them to focus on HEALTH rather than the number representing their WEIGHT because of the potential damaging effects. > > So while there are different approaches, some ideas are still just bad. Stressing ratings is one of them. Ratings while they most often are behind the curve of those active youngsters, are the best tool for measurement that we have available. In this they are an EXCELLENT measure of the process of improvement. Further, it is merely your opinion, not shared by a great many others, that there is a downside. I do respect that your thoughts, as thy are probably based on your experience, are very real and valid for you. But, as stated before, many of us have used different concepts that have, over time, proven themselves to be highly effective. Thus, we cannot share you opinion that “focusing on something that has such as downside”. Your example regarding women really is irrelevant, for the subject matter is quite different. And the subject of weight and women does have a direct bearing on health. And again, lets not confuse facts and opinion, understanding that “stressing ratings” is merely that, an opinion. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/52 "2012-09-14T22:15:26Z")
> [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > Ratings while they most often are behind the curve of those active youngsters, are the best tool for measurement that we have available. Measurement of strength, not for tracking improvement. Direct observation by a coach is much, much better. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > In this they are an EXCELLENT measure of the process of improvement. As already demonstrated, this is incorrect. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > Further, it is merely your opinion, not shared by a great many others, that there is a downside. Actually, it is the opinion of many, and several spoke up in this forum. One can easily talk to strong instructors - GM’s, IM’s, Masters, etc. I suspect that the feeling is almost universal today that while ratings are a tool they should not be over stressed and are not the only nor necessarily even the best tool. Just look at this thread Rob. Even people who often vehemently disagree with me expressed the same opinion in this very thread. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > I do respect that your thoughts, as thy are probably based on your experience, are very real and valid for you. But, as stated before, many of us have used different concepts that have, over time, proven themselves to be highly effective. Thus, we cannot share you opinion that “focusing on something that has such as downside”. If you are stressing ratings then you are not teaching kids or developing them to the best ability. Ratings are not grades. They do not measure knowledge (not that grades always do, but they are closer than ratings.) > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > Your example regarding women really is irrelevant, for the subject matter is quite different. And the subject of weight and women does have a direct bearing on health. As does the subject of ratings. When over stressed, kids think like kids, and just as they do with weight they begin to attach the worth of people - both others and themselves - to a number. It’s a bad, bad idea that many of us have seen go wrong in the past. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > And again, lets not confuse facts and opinion, understanding that “stressing ratings” is merely that, an opinion. > > Rob Jones Its an opinion shared by the best teachers; Given that there are no facts other than anecdotal information. ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 10:42am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/53 "2012-09-16T10:42:48Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > Ratings while they most often are behind the curve of those active youngsters, are the best tool for measurement that we have available. > > Measurement of strength, not for tracking improvement. Direct observation by a coach is much, much better. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > In this they are an EXCELLENT measure of the process of improvement. > > As already demonstrated, this is incorrect. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > Further, it is merely your opinion, not shared by a great many others, that there is a downside. > > Actually, it is the opinion of many, and several spoke up in this forum. One can easily talk to strong instructors - GM’s, IM’s, Masters, etc. I suspect that the feeling is almost universal today that while ratings are a tool they should not be over stressed and are not the only nor necessarily even the best tool. > > Just look at this thread Rob. Even people who often vehemently disagree with me expressed the same opinion in this very thread. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > I do respect that your thoughts, as thy are probably based on your experience, are very real and valid for you. But, as stated before, many of us have used different concepts that have, over time, proven themselves to be highly effective. Thus, we cannot share you opinion that “focusing on something that has such as downside”. > > If you are stressing ratings then you are not teaching kids or developing them to the best ability. Ratings are not grades. They do not measure knowledge (not that grades always do, but they are closer than ratings.) > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > Your example regarding women really is irrelevant, for the subject matter is quite different. And the subject of weight and women does have a direct bearing on health. > > As does the subject of ratings. When over stressed, kids think like kids, and just as they do with weight they begin to attach the worth of people - both others and themselves - to a number. It’s a bad, bad idea that many of us have seen go wrong in the past. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > And again, lets not confuse facts and opinion, understanding that “stressing ratings” is merely that, an opinion. > > > > Rob Jones > > Its an opinion shared by the best teachers; Given that there are no facts other than anecdotal information. Again, while I am sure many good teachers do share your opinion, I also know many just as excellent do not even come close to sharing your opinion. And further, that someones lofty title as a player, quite often means very little in regards to their ability as a teacher, esp for beginning and intermediate level players. There simply is not a necessary direct correlation between the two. For an example, some of the best books I have seen written for the beginning and intermediate player were written by those in the primary and secondary teaching field, not titled masters. The important question at this level is not necessarily what the teacher knows, but the effectiveness in communicating their knowledge to the average student in their charge. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/54 "2012-09-16T19:57:20Z")
> [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > Again, while I am sure many good teachers do share your opinion, I also know many just as excellent do not even come close to sharing your opinion. Please name them. I’d like to discuss it with them because I currently know of no good reputable teacher that stresses ratings. Besides the ones that are apparent in this thread, I could name a number of GM’s, IM’s, FM’s and top trainers in the U.S. who would disagree with your assessment, so I’d like to see just who thinks that its wise to stress ratings for kids. Kids already do enough to be too ratings conscious. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > And further, that someones lofty title as a player, quite often means very little in regards to their ability as a teacher, esp for beginning and intermediate level players. While I am aware this can be true, I am also aware that there are a good many strong players who can do quite well with with beginner and intermediate students. I have personal experience with a number of GMs, IMs, FMs, WGMs, etc. who do quite well in this respect. While a strong player is not necessarily a good teacher, the best teachers are very often fairly strong players, because they have to have a mastery of the game to understand what is truly important. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > There simply is not a necessary direct correlation between the two. For an example, some of the best books I have seen written for the beginning and intermediate player were written by those in the primary and secondary teaching field, not titled masters. I haven’t had that experience. > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > The important question at this level is not necessarily what the teacher knows, but the effectiveness > in communicating their knowledge to the average student in their charge. > > Rob Jones Both are important. You’re underplaying teacher knowledge. I’ve watched many an undirected B player send novices down the wrong path - I’ve watched few if any masters do so. But even so, Rob, this is all off the track. Here is what you claimed: > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > 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. I find this statement to be false for all of my students. I find it to be false in the best chess programs. I find that kids play because they enjoy chess, support each other and support their school team. You stated: > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > 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. I find that attitude to be irresponsible and harmful to kids, and I hope that you change that attitude soon. ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/55 "2012-09-16T20:21:00Z")
One problem with stressing ratings is that kids see their ratings grow from 300 to 500 with some effort, then from 500 to 700 with a lot more effort, then only reach 850 with an even greater incremental effort. Some of those kids then get frustrated because the almighty rating number isn’t going up as fast. At least one coach has reacted to the extent of having students skip USCF rated play so that they don’t get caught up in ratings over-expectations. ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 10:44am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/56 "2012-09-17T10:44:13Z")
> [@kbachler](#): > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > Again, while I am sure many good teachers do share your opinion, I also know many just as excellent do not even come close to sharing your opinion. > > Please name them. I’d like to discuss it with them because I currently know of no good reputable teacher that stresses ratings. > > Besides the ones that are apparent in this thread, I could name a number of GM’s, IM’s, FM’s and top trainers in the U.S. who would disagree with your assessment, so I’d like to see just who thinks that its wise to stress ratings for kids. Kids already do enough to be too ratings conscious. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > And further, that someones lofty title as a player, quite often means very little in regards to their ability as a teacher, esp for beginning and intermediate level players. > > While I am aware this can be true, I am also aware that there are a good many strong players who can do quite well with with beginner and intermediate students. I have personal experience with a number of GMs, IMs, FMs, WGMs, etc. who do quite well in this respect. > > While a strong player is not necessarily a good teacher, the best teachers are very often fairly strong players, because they have to have a mastery of the game to understand what is truly important. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > There simply is not a necessary direct correlation between the two. For an example, some of the best books I have seen written for the beginning and intermediate player were written by those in the primary and secondary teaching field, not titled masters. > > I haven’t had that experience. > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > The important question at this level is not necessarily what the teacher knows, but the effectiveness > > in communicating their knowledge to the average student in their charge. > > > > Rob Jones > > Both are important. You’re underplaying teacher knowledge. I’ve watched many an undirected B player send novices down the wrong path - I’ve watched few if any masters do so. > > But even so, Rob, this is all off the track. Here is what you claimed: > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > 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. > > I find this statement to be false for all of my students. I find it to be false in the best chess programs. I find that kids play because they enjoy chess, support each other and support their school team. > > You stated: > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > 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. > > I find that attitude to be irresponsible and harmful to kids, and I hope that you change that attitude soon. First, you can “find” whatever you wish. For they are so far afield of reality, in the opinion, and let me stress the word, once again, “opinion”, just as you have an “opinion”, of many including titled players, that do not come close to sharing your “opinion”. For starters, in regard to authors, Google this name-buy his books, for your students will prosper JOHN A BAIN. I have known other talented writers, Al Woolum for another, that have written very successful books. In fact, Bain’s books are the de facto text books for some school-system wide chess programs that I know of. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 11:13am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/57 "2012-09-17T11:13:18Z")
DENTONCHESS wrote: 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. Kevin you might not agree, or have seen this in many of the bright young players across our federation. But, there are some outstanding chess clubs in DFW that could very well influence your opinion, if ever visited. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 12:23pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/58 "2012-09-17T12:23:17Z")
> [@jwiewel](#): > > One problem with stressing ratings is that kids see their ratings grow from 300 to 500 with some effort, then from 500 to 700 with a lot more effort, then only reach 850 with an even greater incremental effort. Some of those kids then get frustrated because the almighty rating number isn’t going up as fast. At least one coach has reacted to the extent of having students skip USCF rated play so that they don’t get caught up in ratings over-expectations. And that is generally the coach who apparently lacks the ability to properly emphasize and use ratings. But, a key here is that the major education process is very often with the parents. The coach must be involved in explaining the K factors, and the increasing difficulty level. One cannot have a hands off approach. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 5:59pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/59 "2012-09-17T17:59:42Z")
> [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > And that is generally the coach who apparently lacks the ability to properly emphasize and use ratings. But, a key here is that the major education process is very often with the parents. The coach must be involved in explaining the K factors, and the increasing difficulty level. One cannot have a hands off approach. > > Rob Jones Even with a hands on approach, far to many parents get focused on little Johnny’s rating to little Johnny’s detriment. This is stuff that people have figured out for years, Rob. It’s a BAD idea. Do me a favor. Write a description of the rating system here that you would give a standard parent. ---
**Author:** ![tmagchesspgh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@tmagchesspgh](https://forum.uschess.org/u/tmagchesspgh)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872/60 "2012-09-17T20:25:07Z")
We can focus the kids on: a) ratings b) trophies c) winning d) scoring at some level in a tournament e) quality of the game f) development of socialization skills g) learning multiple thinking techniques h) having fun We can do some or all of the above. Some of the metrics we use have upsides and downsides. Each individual student has their own individual needs and what motivates them to learn. A chess teacher tries to push enough buttons to get the kids to study and play. We can influence them concerning what we feel is important. Ultimately, they will decide what pleases them and drives them to perform. I personally do not emphasize ratings that much. When the rating increase slows down, as will always happen, frustration on the part of the student and the parent rises. You have to explain the nature of learning and the obstacles. Some of the greatest rewards come not from watching a rating rise but from the growth of the student into a thinking person who understands his potential, his limitations, and how he copes with adversity. I certainly prefer to see a student who loves to play chess more than he/she loves their rating. [Previous page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872.md?page=2) [Next page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/heartbeat-of-current-ratings/16872.md?page=4)