Reasons for not USCF rating events

BobMessenger · March 4, 2016, 1:23pm

This topic is a spin-off from US Open 2016 TLA.

Mulfish · March 4, 2016, 2:02pm

Yes Micah, but I see you still have no answer to my refutation of your position. You can ignore it but the truth won’t go away.

tmagchesspgh · March 4, 2016, 6:14pm

As in most things, it comes down to following the money. In order to FIDE rate any event, including a national event like the US Open, there will be considerable extra costs associated in order to comply with the rating protocols. On top of that, FIDE requires that the TDs be certified as arbiters who have taken seminars and paid the fees to become arbiters. On top of that, there is the extra layer of following FIDE rules, not the national federation’s rules.

To USCF rate an event, all tournament players must have a USCF membership, a personal expense that covers more than just getting a rating. The TD must be a USCF member to gain access to the TD/affiliate area if he sends the event in online. This is also a personal expense as the TD often is a player in a few events a year. The rating fees are comparably lower than the FIDE rating fee. The level of TD certification is also comparably lower for most events than what FIDE requires. Many events can get away with a Club TD or a Local TD being the chief director. The overall fees for a local event are often less than $20.

For a NWSRS, the expenses for rating in that system are minimal, but closer to USCF affiliate costs than to the much larger FIDE costs. The requirements to be a TD are minimal, to maybe even non-existent. No one has ever indicated that a NWSRS TD have to do anything more to be a TD than volunteer his time. The biggest difference is that NWSRS members do not pay a membership fee to be able to play in tournament competition. FIDE and the USCF have greater overall costs and cannot afford to do what an essentially localized rating system can get away with. Doing things for free is not possible for a national or international organization.

The only interesting thing that has come out of this discussion is the USCF does not charge itself for rating its own national events. That is a surprise and a big advantage in comparison to all of us affiliates who pay to rate our events. I understand that it is difficult to parse out these rating costs when USCF personnel are doing so many other things with regard to a national event, but I would have expected some line item of rating fees to be noted as part of the event.

relyea · March 4, 2016, 10:10pm

Once upon a time I frequently directed a young master who had many brothers and sisters. I spoke quite frequently with his father who said that he would never take a child to a tournament unless he could mate with K+R. I think that many players participate in tournaments before they are ready, and maybe that is what turns them off. We well know that a lot, possibly the majority, of players leave after being dominated in one or two tournaments. Wouldn’t it be better if we got them to some minimum level before subjecting them to the rigors of tournament play?

Alex Relyea

Mulfish · March 5, 2016, 12:46am

Tell me again how uscf internal accounting policies for its own events is on topic for whether or not to uscf rare events.

BobMessenger · March 5, 2016, 1:22pm

I’ve created a new topic for that digression: Should US Chess charge itself for rating its own events?

Micah_Smith · March 7, 2016, 12:09am

You started a thread about getting rid of the unrated sections at the Scholastic Nationals. We’re you planning on playing? If not, then why should you care?

kevin_bachler · March 7, 2016, 1:09pm

And I don’t see cost being a big issue - especially if there is concern for quality.

kevin_bachler · March 7, 2016, 1:19pm

Chess volunteers, like all volunteers, come and go. Chess is notorious for the very active club that does great things until the volunteers burn out, or run out of time, or money, or have an argument and falling out.

Institutionalize volunteerism tends to survive this and continue to be available over time.

Hence, US Chess offers a permanence and continuity not available to local volunteerism.

If one wants to provide youth players a QUALITY chess experience, then one should do so keeping in mind that chess (like other activities that youth participate in) has the opportunity to be a life-long avocation. In fact, because of the lack of physical requirements, chess is better than most alternatives at this. One can be a youth playing with friends, a young adult playing with college friends or early in ones adult life, or an older adult involved with ones own children (or chess generally) or a retired adult looking for an avocation. Chess is semi-unique in its ability to offer this.

Consequently, one should expose children to chess AT LEAST for its potential as a lifelong avocation.

This means that youth should learn the importance of US Chess (rather than the local adults bad-mouthing US Chess and downplaying it) since one does not know at what point in their life, or where geographically, a player may be when he/she returns to the avocation. The local volunteer may or may not be there, for the afore-mentioned reasons. But US Chess will be there. And the child (now adult?) will have a connection with US Chess at any age and any US location.

THAT is why children’s events should be rated by US Chess and not by local volunteers. Because to downplay US Chess and replace it with local ratings does a dis-service to the child.

relyea · March 7, 2016, 2:05pm

kbachler:

If one wants to provide youth players a QUALITY chess experience, then one should do so keeping in mind that chess (like other activities that youth participate in) has the opportunity to be a life-long avocation. In fact, because of the lack of physical requirements, chess is better than most alternatives at this. One can be a youth playing with friends, a young adult playing with college friends or early in ones adult life, or an older adult involved with ones own children (or chess generally) or a retired adult looking for an avocation. Chess is semi-unique in its ability to offer this.

Consequently, one should expose children to chess AT LEAST for its potential as a lifelong avocation.

This means that youth should learn the importance of US Chess (rather than the local adults bad-mouthing US Chess and downplaying it) since one does not know at what point in their life, or where geographically, a player may be when he/she returns to the avocation. The local volunteer may or may not be there, for the afore-mentioned reasons. But US Chess will be there. And the child (now adult?) will have a connection with US Chess at any age and any US location.

THAT is why children’s events should be rated by US Chess and not by local volunteers. Because to downplay US Chess and replace it with local ratings does a dis-service to the child.

Mr. Bachler, of course, makes a good point, but it should be pointed out that most children are only getting the US Chess rating system, not the benefit of seeing chess as a lifelong experience.

Consider, the vast majority, I’d say over 90%, of children are stuck in the scholastic ghetto. They play all of there games under rules made by the scholastic council, not by the delegates. Many times the TDs they see only work scholastic events. Even experienced players frequently do not understand fixed round times. None of this is conducive to thinking chess can be a lifelong activity.

It’s hard to blame someone who thinks tournament chess is played by hordes of children (mostly ten or younger) with the only adults around are the officials is anything different from little league baseball, or soccer. A very few elite can play it professionally, under very different circumstances than most players do. There is no other option after high school (elementary school?).

Alex Relyea

kevin_bachler · March 7, 2016, 2:30pm

That isn’t known. Remember, the benefit is that at any point in life a growing/grown child may return to rated chess. In high school (I’ve had this happen) or as an adult with their own chess playing child (I’ve had this happen.)

That we, as an organization, haven’t done a good job of planning for this and building for it, is not the fault of the child.

In addition to the argument that this already exists, and is sufficient reason to US Chess rate children’s games, I would agree that we should do it better than we are today.

relyea:

Consider, the vast majority, I’d say over 90%, of children are stuck in the scholastic ghetto. They play all of there games under rules made by the scholastic council, not by the delegates. Many times the TDs they see only work scholastic events. Even experienced players frequently do not understand fixed round times. None of this is conducive to thinking chess can be a lifelong activity.

It’s hard to blame someone who thinks tournament chess is played by hordes of children (mostly ten or younger) with the only adults around are the officials is anything different from little league baseball, or soccer. A very few elite can play it professionally, under very different circumstances than most players do. There is no other option after high school (elementary school?).

Alex Relyea

But the second part of your argument is about the failure of US Chess to be better prepared to educate children (and parents) - not about reason to not US Chess rate events.

wintdoan · March 7, 2016, 3:07pm

Really, really, really bad analogy. The adults make the rules for scholastic nationals.

I’m sure your opinion on FIDE rating the US Open will be given the weight that it deserves.

relyea · March 7, 2016, 3:31pm

I’d still like to ask Mr. Smith what the benefit is (benefits are?) of FIDE rating the U.S. Open.

Alex Relyea

DENTONCHESS · March 9, 2016, 5:27pm

So then, it is preferable to run tournaments nonexistent of quality?? Well, obviously, that is a choice you have made, which is fine.

Rob Jones

Micah_Smith · March 11, 2016, 1:39am

Even if I’m not planning to play in the 2016 US Open doesn’t mean I can’t give my opinion on if I think it should be FIDE rated or not.

kbachler:

If one wants to provide youth players a QUALITY chess experience, then one should do so keeping in mind that chess (like other activities that youth participate in) has the opportunity to be a life-long avocation. In fact, because of the lack of physical requirements, chess is better than most alternatives at this. One can be a youth playing with friends, a young adult playing with college friends or early in ones adult life, or an older adult involved with ones own children (or chess generally) or a retired adult looking for an avocation. Chess is semi-unique in its ability to offer this.

Consequently, one should expose children to chess AT LEAST for its potential as a lifelong avocation.

This means that youth should learn the importance of US Chess (rather than the local adults bad-mouthing US Chess and downplaying it) since one does not know at what point in their life, or where geographically, a player may be when he/she returns to the avocation. The local volunteer may or may not be there, for the afore-mentioned reasons. But US Chess will be there. And the child (now adult?) will have a connection with US Chess at any age and any US location.

THAT is why children’s events should be rated by US Chess and not by local volunteers. Because to downplay US Chess and replace it with local ratings does a dis-service to the child.

Since you don’t know when a player may be geographically when they return to chess, then shouldn’t we just use FIDE? Also, we aren’t downplaying US Chess. In scholastic tournaments in the Northwest, higher level sections are often US Chess rated. This doesn’t downplay US Chess but shows it’s more prestigious.

Mulfish · March 11, 2016, 3:59am

Of course Micah has every right to tell us he thinks the US Open ought to be FIDE rated even though he isn’t going to play in it. Any argument to the contrary is either silly or rhetorical in nature. Similarly, Micah’s earlier comparisons between arguments against it and arguments against USCF rating general events were also either silly or rhetorical in nature. Perhaps both.

That said, he has yet to give any reason why he thinks it ought to be done, nor has he addressed the reasons why it shouldn’t be done (cost, availability of qualified arbiters, requirements to use different rules from what people are used to, for starters) or the reasons why it simply can’t be done (the 4-day schedule doesn’t meet FIDE rating requirements.

Accordingly, I think we all have the right to give his position the weight it deserves as an unsupported and unsupportable opinion. Which is virtually no weight at all.

kevin_bachler · March 11, 2016, 5:36am

No. Because FIDE is a organization of Federations, not of players. A player trying to play either “locally” or through FIDE has to go through their Federation. Hence it makes no sense to focus a player on FIDE.

All levels should be US Chess rated. For the child to become accustomed to it being commonplace, and not something to be nervous about, or too special, it actually needs to be commonplace.

wintdoan · March 12, 2016, 3:06pm

Define “often”. I only ran across three per year (out of many dozens of NWSRS tournaments held annually).

Micah_Smith · March 12, 2016, 7:58pm

For 2015 I came up with this list

wintdoan · March 12, 2016, 9:54pm

Thank you for demonstrating that the MSA can be used to produce vast quantities of useless information. Most of those are “boutique” tournaments run by chess instructors (primarily ChessSport.com and Orlov). They are most definitely not the type of tournament that you have been describing as somehow commonplace, which is unrated sections for the beginners and more prestigious rated tournaments for the better players. (You also, BTW, lumped in Oregon, which so far as I can tell, has never been much of an issue).

Topic		Replies	Views
US Open 2016 TLA Running Chess Tournaments	55	1033	March 5, 2016
JTP Scholastic Chess Chess Clubs	10	1002	May 11, 2007
Rated and/or Unrated Running Chess Tournaments	43	700	March 4, 2009
USCF Rating Foreign Tournaments All Things Chess	27	688	January 30, 2010
USATE: FIDE rated? Running Chess Tournaments	19	724	February 19, 2012

Reasons for not USCF rating events

Related topics