Has anyone had any luck submitting a player or event correction in the MUIR era? Those possible yet?
How are you submitting event corrections? They should go to ratingsmgr@uschess.org.
Here’s a table by month showing how many events originally submitted on MUIR (ignoring ones from September and October) have had corrections made to them:
202511 107
202512 65
202601 72
202602 41
202603 2
Are they rating corrections or all types of corrections? Assuming 41 corrections were made during February 2026 and 2 during March 2026, should those corrections show up in our tournament listing at ratings.uschess.org?
I don’t know, they could be corrections that affect ratings (like results or player IDs) or they could be ones that don’t affect ratings (like the event name or TDs.)
There is no way to show what was corrected or when it was corrected. (That was true before MUIR, too.)
Are you sure? Logging DB changes is very common practice these days – I even ran into a case where the DBA said their standard was not to log for non-critical systems and they found out they forgot to turn it off – the Murphy Reverse Law - Mistake = Good Fortune.
1 Like
I didn’t say it wasn’t possible, I said there’s no way to show it. The pre-correction records are archived, but comparing two sets of data (across 6 joined tables) field by field would be a bit time-consuming manually, especially for a large event, which is probably more likely to have changes made to it.
Yes, that’s the address I’m emailing. I’ll keep pinging them. Glad to hear it’s possible at least!
I submitted a tournament result correction and received no acknowledgement either to the original email or a follow up email or call. I also had a tournament placed under review because a new member was flagged as not a member. The players affected are very frustrated and I can’t get any response.
As I recall, tournaments only get placed under review if the TD chooses to submit it with an unresolved problem that requires a review. But without the ID of the new member, it is essentially impossible for anyone to check to see what the problem was.
What email address did you use for the correction? (IMHO we need a better tracking system that logs things like correction requests, gives them a tracking number and sends a response with the tracking number, but that’s outside of my area.)
1 Like
Agreed on the parenthetical. I hope one day for TDs to be able to edit their own events within like a 24-hour grace period after submitting.
The ability for TDs to generate their own corrections, subject to staff review before they are effective, is on the project list. I’m not sure if a grace period is necessary if there is staff approval required before any correction is processed.
I suppose something like a two-month corrections window is possible, but I’ve seen corrections that took longer than that to be discovered and reported, and having an extra approval step before a TD can start working on a correction from several months ago seems like unnecessary programming.
Sure, that seems even better!
Thanks for your help. I will let you know if I hear from anyone at USCF. I emailed you the details o the two problems. Ed
I used edbattistella@gmail.com Thanks again.
I know Korey is in Baltimore for the National Elementary, I don’t know if that leaves anyone in the office to handle ratings corrections.
Thanks. I’ll give them a bit of space to catch up. It sounds like a one-person operation!
I think there are currently just 2 on the ratings department staff, and no immediate plans to replace the guy who left last October. But corrections are a bit tricky, I don’t know that I could do one without some serious thinking time making sure I’m not doing it wrong.
Thanks Mike. I hadn’t realized that corrections were so complex in the new system.
It’s more that they’re time consuming and precise.
In the six months since MUIR went live, there have been over 800 events that have been corrected. That’s around 30 a week. (That’s fairly consistent with the number of corrections we saw under the old system, so I don’t think MUIR has led to more events needing to be corrected.)
They have to make a copy of the entire event, make the changes, validate the event and then release it for rating, at which point the previous copy of the event is archived and the corrected one is rated. And until the event is rerated the corrections don’t flow through to subsequent events. (That’s essentially unchanged from the previous system.)
The challenge is many corrections don’t provide exact detail to find the right section, round, players and results to change, so there’s often some communication between the staff and the TD who requested the correction.
And staff have to go through the entire correction process for any change to the event, even those that do not affect ratings, such as changing the event name or the list of TDs. We’re hoping to have a separate method of updating events for data that have no impact on ratings, but that’s not a high priority fix
Also on the project list is giving TDs the ability to make their own corrections, which will involve the same copy-edit-validate-release process, plus a staff review step. Hopefully the TD is more familiar with their event and can drill down to the right game to change more easily.
2 Likes
There is also the possibility that enough detail could describe more than one issue and the TD just thinks it is enough (exact!).
As far as I remember any correction I needed were quite easy to document without ambiguity. I usually paste a series of screen snips to backup my words (I too often realized there could be an alternate meaning to my words after I hit the submit)