The current rating supplement file format has space for just two types of ratings in it.
What we plan to do to make Blitz ratings available is publish a second set of files (current format), which would give TDs the ability to have a second set of ratings if they want to run events using Blitz ratings. They could store those files in a separate directory or use a different computer for them.
But the question is, what should the two sets of ratings in that file be?
Should that file have:
A. Blitz ratings only
B. Blitz and Regular (in that order)
C. Regular and Blitz (in that order)
D. Blitz and Quick (in that order)
E. Quick and Blitz (in that order)
I believe there will also be a file available in the new XML-based format, but I don’t know when the major pairing programs will be able to read that file. Eventually that XML-based file format will replace the DBF-based ones, but no date for that has been set yet, and it will probably be December 2015 or later.
That would work for me, because now that there are blitz ratings I don’t expect to be directing any more quick tournaments, or at least not a lot of them. I could load the (Regular,Blitz) database as my primary database which would work for most tournaments, and I’d only need the (Regular,Quick) database for the rare occasions when I directed a quick event.
Blitz, then regular, wouldn’t be so great because everybody is accustomed to regular as being the “first” rating.
Quick and blitz, in either order, also wouldn’t be so great, because of the current problems with the quick system, and also because quick events are now likely to decrease in number, and also because blitz ratings will be initialized from regular rather than from quick.
Blitz-only would simply leave unnecessary blanks in the file.
Is everyone’s regular rating going to be assigned to them as a blitz rating right off the bat, even before their first blitz event?
Or is it the case they won’t have a blitz rating until after playing in a blitz-rated event, and USCF will use their regular rating as the pre-event rating which will then be adjusted based on their performance in that event, to arrive at their first blitz rating?
After giving it some more thought, I’ve changed my mind and agree regular and blitz, in that order, would probably be best. That maintains consistency with the regular ratings database which lists regular and quick in that order, so the regular rating will always be first no matter which database one is using. Much less confusion than listing the regular rating first in one and second in the other.
My initial reaction would still be to use a player’s quick rating for pairing purposes if they don’t yet have a blitz rating, since that was earned under conditions that most closely resembles the blitz tournament.
If the powers that be have decided to start computing blitz ratings off the regular rating, fine, but if the regular is deemed to be more predictive than the quick rating as a blitz starting point, I think we’re back to the argument about why do we have a separate quick rating in the first place? (Except this time, it seems to me the ratings guys are the ones arguing against the accuracy of quick ratings for a change.)
I’m not really trying to start that conversation again, I’m just pointing it out as a reason I would be inclined to start with the quick rating in my tournaments for pairing purposes, in the absence of a blitz rating. But if I have to use regular ratings as an interim solution, I guess I could live with that.
Players will not have a Blitz rating until after they play in a Blitz-rated event, just like they do not have a Quick rating until after they play in a Quick-rated event (which includes dual rated events) or a regular rating until after they play in a regular-rated event (which includes dual rated events.) And they still have to have 4 or more ratable games to have a published Blitz, Quick or Regular rating.
Right now it looks like between 600 and 800 players will have a blitz rating when the April Ratings List is generated early Saturday morning.
I guessed a bit high, there are 523 players on the April 2013 rating list with a published Blitz rating.
April Blitz ratings should now be showing up on the MSA general tab and on the rating supplement tab. Other pages will be updated to include Blitz ratings over the next several days.
Why in Heaven’s name is such an expense and effort being made to
service a demand that really so few even have an interest in??
It seems to me that this is the more important question to ask!!
what are we talking about–1-1.5% of the membership base??
How certain are we that the cost for this will not outweigh the
new revenues provided??
Since Blitz ratings are now displayed at the top of the page, next to Regular, on the General tab, it makes sense to bring the Quick ratings up there as well.
Edit: Correspondence ratings can stay down where they are now
I thought it might be interesting show the differences between regular and blitz ratings for the first list with Blitz ratings in them, so I have put two graphs on the website:
The second graph show the difference between a player’s regular and Blitz rating, which Mark Glickman says is easier to read.
So far, it appears that the number of players with a Blitz rating higher than their regular rating is about the same as the number who have a Blitz rating lower than their regular rating.
However, this is a small data set (523 players), most of the Blitz ratings are based on less than 26 games, and the Regular/Quick divergence probably didn’t happen all at once.
I figure we have at least 5 good years before any meaningful Regular/Blitz divergence due to the improving kids that play in a Blitz rated event once in a blue moon.
I was thinking the exact same thing. We seem to agree on a lot of things Michael!
I don’t think the page is too cluttered and I think we should add a few more thinks. I like the fact that the quick rating (and now blitz) is higher up and closer to the regular rating as this will make people more aware of quick (and now blitz) ratings. Here are the changes I would make to the page:
Add an ‘s’ after rating where it says “Current Published Rating” and “Published Rating as of”.
Add quick, blitz, absolute, and soft floors so people can easily see what any player’s floor is in all of the systems and so people don’t incorrectly think their are no quick, blitz, absolute, or soft floors.
Put titles right below the regular rating so people know they correspond to the regular rating. This will also help people become more aware of the titles, especially the norms based titles.
Add quick (and blitz) rankings. With all 3 ratings being at the top, it’s not clear what rating the rankings and titles apply to, although I’m sure most people will correctly assume it’s the regular. The rankings can stay where they currently are on the page. (The FAQ here that says: “I just played in my first quick or dual-rated chess event? Why doesn’t my tournament record indicate I was previously Unrated in quick chess?” should probably now be expanded to include Blitz)
Add a history graph for blitz ratings (This is probably already in the works).
Explain what “Last Change Dt.” means.
Format the page better for players that have the Life Master Norms based title so everything isn’t so far to the left and right of the screen (presumably due to the note that is below the Life Master Norm).
