He might have improved a great deal as well.
That rating was from before the big rating inflation. An uninflated rating may now be accurate.
In any case, I would advise Micah to include the information Hal Terrie found (rating 1979 in year 1976) in the rating report – somehow. Or send an email along with the rating report. Otherwise MSA is likely to treat that player as not previously rated.
Just listing that player on the crosstable as rated 1979 will probably not suffice.
Bill Smythe
I have run into a similar situation more than once, where a player with an old rating not listed in MSA decided to get back into tournament play. Just listing that player’s rating on the crosstable will definitely not suffice. You will have to do everything Mr. Smythe suggests, and likely follow up with a phone call or two to the US Chess office as well.
(Emphasis mine…) That’s what I wondered… And it’s exactly what happened.
Interestingly, having been treated as unrated (at least for now), his provisional rating came in at 1947, not so far off from his last actual rating 1979.
Interesting, but not really surprising.
The period of significant ratings inflation (circa 1980 with lots of feedback and “fiddle” points and a low threshhold for bonus points) was when I was inactive. When I came back after a few years my rusty strength (probably a class weaker than when I originally reached my 17xx rating) matched my the weaker strength of then-current 17xx players. Once I spent 6-12 months at the 17xx plateau and blowing away the rust (and actually improving compared to prior to my break) I finally pushed up to expert (granted the K-factor was greater then so it was easier to rise).
Once that 1979 gets back into tournament form he has a very good chance at reaching expert even though breaking 2100 or 2200 may be tougher than he might have thought based on his prior experience with the K-factor.
Hmm, interesting. The player in question just played in another Oregon event run by a different TD. It was a quad, and the TD apparently treated the player as unrated and placed him in the bottom (of two) sections. Had his old rating been used to determine section eligibility, the player would have been in the top section.
The bottom section, however, was played as a 4-round Swiss with 6 players. (The TD, either by careful planning or through sheer luck, managed to avoid the infamous 6-player Swiss trap.) The player scored 4-0 against three 1500s and a 600. If MSA had used the player’s established pre-event rating to calculate the new ratings, the player would have gained probably 3 points or less.
So, methinks Micah should list the player’s rating as 1979 (or maybe 1980 or 1981 or 1982) on the wallchart for pairing purposes.
And it will probably still require direct email or phone contact with USCF to get the player’s old rating recognized properly and used to calculate ratings in present and future events. Re-rates, here we come.
Bill Smythe
If the player allowed himself to be placed in the bottom quad without telling the TD of his old rating, he might be ethically challenged. And if he DID tell the TD and he put him there anyway, he might be competency challenged.
Since Mr. Tompkins (apparently) told Mr. Smith of his 1976 rating, the former seems unlikely.
Alex Relyea
He said it was a different TD. But since he told Micah he probably told this TD as well.
In a conflict between what the player thinks and what records show, go with what records show. Every time. There be dragons the other way.
I emailed the US Chess ratings manager last Thursday and his old rating has been put into the system, uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?10485592. The one recent event he has played in should get re-rated tomorrow or Wednesday. The “live” ratings are being used for the tournament he has signed up for that I am running this weekend.
Possibly but I inquired due to him having an old ID number and a 1700 floor.
Obviously I am very different from players in the Vancouver area, and my players appear to be as well, but I can’t imagine traveling five minutes, let alone longer to a tournament and have to wait until I get there find out which sections I could play in and which prizes I am eligible for.
100% serious question. Let’s say I play an analog to the Four Rated Games Tonight! series on Friday and the tournament doesn’t get rated until Saturday afternoon. If I lose 100 points, does that mean I’m now eligible for a prize I wasn’t eligible for when I started the first round? If not, why not?
Alex Relyea
How often is that going to be an issue in practice? At the quad tournament I’ve run for 40 straight months, I’ve used the “live” ratings every time and it has NEVER been an issue. Also, based on my experience many players have no clue what the difference between “official” and “unofficial” ratings is.
The “live” ratings at the beginning of the tournament are used at my events for section eligibility, pairings, and prize eligibility.
I don’t really see a problem with using those for quads (where you might jiggle “natural” groupings anyway for various reason). For all kinds of reasons, it’s a bad idea for other types of tournaments particularly if there are rating-based prizes/sections.
In my tournaments, a great deal because I offer advance registration. For CCA which has a great deal of money at stake and players attempt to set up their ratings far in advance for specific events, far more. As I say, perhaps these things are not an issue in greater Vancouver.
Alex Relyea
I agree, for those types of tournaments I would probably use the “official” ratings as well.
I am relieved to read this. I was about to type one of those “Micah, no, you’re right more often than folks give you credit for, but just no” messages.
I wouldn’t use non-supplement ratings even in quads, but for the reasons Tom Doan mentioned, it is at least arguably reasonable in a low stakes quad.
About the only place that unofficial ratings make sense are in low-stakes events that have a high percentage of young rapidly-improving players in them.
But where there are significant prizes (especially ratings-based prizes) or sections or teams based on ratings (like the USATE), then the players benefit by using official ratings, because it gives them time to plan which events they play in.
I suspect few players would like to show up at the World Open and find out they to play up a section because he or she crossed over a ratings threshold in a small event the day before.
And the organizers/TDs of events need to be aware of the downside risks of using unofficial ratings, especially that the ratings could easily change between when the TD downloads them or looks them up and when the event starts and there may be no way to demonstrate that the ratings being used are correct.
The Castle Chess Grand Prix guarantees $13,500 in prizes, so it’s not a low-stakes event. It’s a class tournament where you have to be within 100 points of the next higher section to play up into it (2150 to play the Master Section.) We fudge that a bit by allowing players to use their latest unofficial US Chess rating for pairing and prize purposes if and only if it is higher than their official rating. Every year a couple of people take advantage of that to play up into a section for which they would otherwise not be eligible. This policy is popular with our players, and I don’t see any real downside to it.