Use of "other than" last published rating: Bad id

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I use nothing but last published rating at my tournaments (if such a rating exists). The only exception I would use is if a provisionally rated player had a much lower published rating than their online MSA. Even in that case, unless I knew of this discrepency, what good would it do? Directors can’t possibly be required to know a player’s MSA online rating.

My read of rules 28C through 28E is that any rating other than last published is a director assigned rating, regardless of the source of info the director uses. This would include mailing labels, MSA listing, or crosstable listing. The only “official” rating is the last published rating.
At least this is my read.

The rule does state that it is common practice to allow these ratings to
be used if they are higher than the last published rating. However, I do
not think it is a good practice. There are too many pitfalls.

According to 28E2, a rating may be assigned only for reasonable cause. Such causes are listed, though the list is not all-inclusive. What exactly
is a “reasonable” cause? Even the specifics are not completely clear: under 28E2: A. “The player has shown significant superiority to those in a particular class.” What is the definition of significant? My definition might vary from yours. It is a tricky rule.

I do not think whether a player informs you of his higher MSA or label rating should be the justification for using that rating. This is inherently inequitable. It is also usually impossible to verify. Most directors do not have on-site internet access, and most players do not have their printed MSA ratings or magazine labels.

Even if they do, here is a potential problem this could create: You move a player up into the next section based on their online rating. They
win a “class prize.” Would this be fair to another player who qualified for the class prize? I don’t think it would.

A printed MSA could also be from three weeks ago. There is nothing on the MSA member details giving the current date. Printed USCF labels by themselves also indicate no date. An unscrupulous player might print an MSA and use it later, or use an old USCF label. Unless the director compares this to the published rating, this trickery would not be caught. Of course this would mainly apply to players unknown to the director.

Even honest players can make mistakes about their rating. If I told you my rating is 1647 (by mistake) when my rating is actually 1646, then what difference does it make? But what if that one point qualified me for a class prize? Then it would be a big deal.

This is a very tricky rule, and there may be differences of opinion out there. I am convinced that using any rating other than last published should be the exception and not the rule. These exceptions should only be made for a reasonable cause. As a director, I would not use
anything other than last published without a compelling reason.

To allow some players to bring you a label or MSA printout while others
go by last published is not fair. All players should be required to compete from the same rating list, except under extraordinary circumstances (as
outlined under 28E2).

The TD tip under 28C states that it is “common” practice to use such
ratings if they are higher than last published. I think such use should
be uncommon, and the exception to the rule.

I welcome your opinions on this matter.

Sincerely,

William “Tom” Hales, TD newbie

Asheboro Chess Club (Asheboro, North Carolina)

2

The above should read “Bad idea?” not Bad id–

The text got chopped off!

3

True one point is not a major problem. If the player makes the statement their rating is 1637, but the official rating is 1647, this is still 10 points. If someone has a official rating of 1640, between the 10 point error in rating. This will change the roster, making the first round pairings in error. It will make a huge pairing error, as the change from the rating down one player in the roster has been as much as 300 or 500 points. If the roster place you at number 12 (with 1637) not its’ true roster number of number 11 (with 1647). With that simple change, you and the other player could be paired with someone a few hundred points difference.

4

Douglas,

Good point about the pairings!

Sincerely,

William “Tom” Hales, TD newbie

Asheboro Chess Club (Asheboro, North Carolina)

5

I’m inclined to agree with most of what you say. Certainly, a TD should not use MSA ratings at all UNLESS he has internet access at the tournament.

Also, an unofficial rating should never be used if it is lower than the last official rating.

I could see using an unofficial rating for a player who would otherwise be unrated, especially in a small tournament.

I have trouble, however, understanding one of your examples:

In this case, if you move a player up and he STILL wins a class prize, the decision to move him up was justified. In fact, it would have been even more unfair, had you not moved him up.

But, yes, be VERY wary of unofficial ratings, especially from players who plead with you to use them.

Bill Smythe

6

My problem is only if you use this player’s MSA to move him up, without
doing this for all other players. Also, did you check this player’s MSA on the internet, or just look at an undated printed copy? Even after checking to be sure this is the current MSA, you must still check to be sure this is not lower than their published rating. Whew!

A player might actually qualify for a class prize being the only player under a certain rating. What if you move up player A, who brought in
an MSA printout, but not player B? Is this fair?

I think the spirit of 28E2 A should prevail here: “A player has shown
significant superiority to those in a particular class.” Going from 1790
published to 1803 current (for example) does not qualify as “significant”
in my opinion. Should an 1803 MSA with a published 1790 be moved
up by request? I still don’t think so.

I’m just looking for all players to be treated equally.

Another thought: could you force an 1803 MSA with a published 1790
to play in the 1800-2000 section? I guess you could, by assigning them
that rating. It would hardly seem fair, though–unless the MSA is used
for everyone. This would be almost impossible to implement.

I like the point Douglas made about the effect on pairings. The higher
rated players in a section get paired with the lower rated players of the
section in round 1. Moving a player up to the bottom of the top half
(rather than the top of the bottom half) is quite significant. This makes
their pairing for round one much easier.

So I do think it can be an advantage to be “moved up.” If being moved
up can be an advantage, it should not be done “by request.” It should
only be done for “reasonable cause” (28E2).

I am afraid that many TDs are using MSA’s “by request.” I don’t think
this is good practice, or how the rules are meant to be understood.

Humbly submitted,

William “Tom” Hales, TD newbie

Asheboro Chess Club (Asheboro, North Carolina)

7

In the tournaments that I run I always use the latest Supplement/Official rating except in the following circumstances:

If a player is unrated in the Supplement but now has a provisional rating then I will use his provisional rating from the MSA.

If a player is provisional in the Supplement then I will look at the MSA and use their first “non-provisional” rating (the first rating they got when they achieved the 25 games needed), or if they are still provisional then I will use their latest provisional rating.

Both of the above ensure that I have the most accurate rating as possible for unrated and provisionally rated players, which in turn makes the pairings etc. as accurate as possible.

Of course the other thing I will mention is that I always have the luxury of having MSA access at the site I run my tournaments, which makes the above a possibility.

Regards,

Chris Bird
Clark County Chess Club
http://www.clarkcountychessclub.com

8

Chris, we start rating events at 8AM ET, and the first crosstable update on MSA is at around 9:30AM ET. That’s 6:30 AM in Las Vegas.

Do you recheck MSA ratings before pairing the first round?

9

I agree with this. If the TD doesn’t have internet access at the site, MSA ratings should not be used as a rule, or as a courtesy to some but not all. As an exception to the rule?: YES

If you check uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12492977 you will see the dates of my rating changes. This is obtained by clicking on the Tnmt History tab on MSA. So, a player who has a printed copy of this page should take care of your concern about the rating being current relative to the latest supplement. Of course, this seems to contradict what i agreed with above when one doesn’t have MSA access at the site.

NO, it isn’t fair, if I understand the situation correctly: only one player entering a class prize category, by use of MSA, and therefore guaranteeing him/herself of a prize. This would be equally unfair to the organizer.

Determining that a player is, or has been, “showing significant superiority to those in a particular class” can, indeed, be a subjective decision on the part of the TD, and the TD should avoid all subjective decisions, where possible. But the TD has to have options to preventing players from using sandbagging tactics to win prizes. This is what this rule’s about. It can allow the TD to be objective by excercising his/her right to assign ratings to those whom he knows, without a doubt, is a superior player to others in a class. I’m not understanding, however, how a player could be using devious conduct by requesting to be placed in a higher section.

Take for instance a player who has a 1308 published rating based on 4 games (it could also be an established rating - it makes no difference to my point) that were played 5 years ago and he hasn’t played a rated game since then. During this time, at the local club, he has shown at least a 1700 playing strength, beating class Bs as well as As and on occasions, Experts. You find out also, that, on ICC, he currently holds a standard rating of 2200. This player has, indeed and clearly, shown significant superiority to players in class D, and should, therefore, be placed in Class B (at least) with or without his/her request. Clearly, the rule was intended to allow TDs to prevent sandbagging.

Yes, if you know that a player may be sandbagging. Remember, not all lawbreakers are caught, but the ones who are, should be punished. See above!

Yes, rating assignments can affect everything, including pairings. Douglas does, sometimes, make good points…but only when he’s brief! However, his first reply to your first post was still off-point, so to speak, as your question did not ask about the affects on pairings :smiley:

I’m still not clear as to what advantage this would entail on the player being moved up, other thna the case where he/she is the only one eligible for a class prize. Bill Smythe’s point is the correct in that if the player wins the upper class prize, then it would have been unfair not to have him in that class.

Terry Winchester

10

The latest published rating is the best rating to use. Players deserve fair and objective pairings; if a published rating can substantiate those pairings then so much the better.

On the other hand, if there is reasonable cause to assign a higher rating then the TD should do it. Pairings will be affected, but they should be!

-Kevin Hyde

11

At my tournaments do have a on-line computer, can use the MSA at will to get everyones ratings. Only the official rating, not the unofficial rating of the MSA will be used for the roster. Since the MSA will be updated during the tournament, one or more of the players ratings can change during the event. If the players MSA was at 1605 at the first round, then the MSA was at 1595 at the end of the tournament – should now the player have the right to win the under 1600 prize? This should be a small chance at a category D event, it would be a greater risk at a category B event over a number of days. Only the official ratings should be used, if the organizer/director open up the unofficial ratings (MSA) for the event: the director needs some cut off time for the ratings.

12

If a TD/organizer decides to vary from using the “official” ratings that come out once every other month (that way at least players have some idea what prizes they are playing for from event to event during that 2 month period) then their method should be posted and probably advertised.

There are a lot of interesting ideas posted on this forum. Perhaps one of them will catch on as the standard in the future?!

Tim Just
5th edition rulebook editor

13

Tim, I can almost agree with your statement here, though IMHO the word ‘probably’ is wrong, deviations from the rules should ALWAYS be both advertised and announced. This is especially true with any deviations from the ‘last published rating’ rule.

Also, your statement seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the following sentence in the Rulebook after rule 28D3:

I don’t believe the rulebook (and by extensions, the USCF) should EVER encourage the use of unofficial ratings, though it should permit it.

Mike Nolan

14

The MSA is checked for unrated and provisionally rated players once registration closes (usually 15 minutes before the first round). Since 95% of the players that play in the tournaments I run usually have an official rating then this doesn’t pose too much of an inconvenience, especially since we only get around 30-40 players.

Chris

15

I think that 28D3 falls under methods used to assign ratings. So if a director must assign a rating for some reasonable cause (28E2),
it is preferable to use the labels or printouts without adjustment.

I guess the confusion is that 28E should probably come before 28D.

To me, the most confusing part is the 28C TD tip. Taken alone, it seems
to condone the use of other than official ratings if the rating is higher. Yet this seems to go against the spirit of 28E2. It is my understanding that
any rating other than the official rating is assigned, regardless of the source of info the TD uses to assign it.

If this is the case, TDs should not use labels, MSA printouts, etc. without
a reasonable cause. I would even go so far as to suggest “reasonable
cause” should be “a compelling reason.” I do not think a player’s desire
to go by that higher rating is a “reasonable cause.”

Just because such a rating is higher, this doesn’t mean the player cannot gain from it. The effect on his pairing may be advantageous, or he may
“jump sections” to win a class prize. This would not be fair to others who did not bring in printouts. Everyone’s rating should be from the same source, or it is inherently unequal treatment.

Personally, I will not use anything other than official published ratings without a compelling 28E2 reason. I started this thread because:

#1. I wanted to be more sure of the correctness of my interpretation.

#2. I’m afraid a lot of directors are allowing people to use their MSA
“by request.” This doesn’t seem correct.

#3. Worst of all, I believe some directors may just “take your word
for it” if you tell them your rating. I have had this experience as
a player. Even honest players may not recall accurately–so this
is a terrible practice.

Humbly submitted,

William “Tom” Hales, TD newbie

Asheboro Chess Club (Asheboro, North Carolina)

16

There’s nothing in the rules that say you have to go by any list other than the last supplement, so there’s nothing at all wrong with your personal policy.

On the other hand, if another TD wants to allow a player to use a higher rating than last published, there’s nothing wrong with that either. The idea that a lower rated player (based on the official list) may beat a higher rated player out of his/her class prize being unfair is not compelling to me. I would feel rather emabarrassed, as a player, to complain that a 1400 rated player was allowed to compete with me in my class and beat me.

Terry Winchester

17

There are a few tournaments, when someone will bring a printed copy of their rating. The majority will have the copy of their official rating not the unofficial ratings. The last time that happened, he also had the email printed out to show he was a current USCF member. Since I do have a on-line computer, the MSA was all I needed.

If you feel the players use the official and unoffical ratings, just have the tournament be a open. Players use the ratings to get into or out of one section. If it is a open, it is only one section. With all being equal, if the rating between official and unofficial would change the roster. It would a flip of a coin to see what rating would be best: even then it would be what if. If you have a open, whats the point to change the roster.

There will always be tournaments like that. They are very small and very local. They are small category D events, the players have been paired up with each other in the past.

If the director is just going to take my word of my rating, its’ like a red flag going up. When a director just takes my word of my rating, they do take a long time to get rated. If you are a local player going to just a local tournament. Will have to accept a director being a little slow sending in the report.

18

I must humbly disagree that the TD should “allow” a player to use a
higher rating (at the player’s request) than that published. This could
be used by a savvy player to affect his pairings. Players using this
higher rating do not always jump sections.

If such a player affects his pairings, he affects all players in his section.

Does a director who allows players to use the higher rating offer this
to every player who enters? It just seems inherently unfair to use more
than one source for the ratings of one tournament.

The rule allowing TDs to do this was meant to be used rarely. The 28C
TD tip refers one to 28E1, which seems to indicate such ratings are
assigned ratings. Assigned ratings must fall under 28E2, and should be
done for a reasonable cause. Examples of reasonable causes are given.

28D3 refers to people who have yet to be published a rating at all, not
players who are published but wish to play up.

However, I will be the first to admit that the 28C TD tip and 28E2 appear
to be in conflict. If a rule is in conflict with a TD tip, I would have to go
with the rule.

I think there are two questions to resolve here:

#1. Is it correct to allow players to use higher ratings than their last
published without a reasonable cause as outlined in 28E2?

#2. If it is correct (legal), is it good practice to allow this? Isn’t it
extending certain privilages to some, and not others?

As a new TD, I have been reading and re-reading the rules. I don’t even
know who gives the ultimate ruling on things like this. There must be a “correct” way to do things, and that is all I am looking for.

I am in no way wanting to give offense. I certainly would never go to a
tournament and question a TD who wanted to use unofficial ratings. So
I figure this is the place to ask the hard questions.

Sincerely submitted,

William “Tom” Hales, TD newbie

Asheboro Chess Club (Asheboro, North Carolina)

19

No, it is not correct without reasonable cause.
A simple player request is not reasonable cause, but I would allow a player to point out that he has shown “significant superiority to those in a particular class” (one of the suggested causes in 28E2).

If every player has the opportunity to point out that he has shown significant superiority, then it is not extending privileges.

By the way, I don’t recall ever having a request to adjust a rating. It is usually a request to avoid a pairing (family members, etc, as in 28J).

20

There is no correct way … it is all trial and error. Myself, would only use the rule 28E2 if the player would be in 28E1. Would use the players USCF Quick rating (very few offical quick ratings without a offical regular rating) under 28D1 to settle the 28E2 claim. Any other claim would be rejected. In the end it would be up to each and every director. There is no wrong answer.

28E2. Cause for assignment. A rating may be assigned only for reasonable cause, including, but not limited to, the following: …

The rule 28E2 is the most liberial rule around. Any director would be right to give any assignment they want, if the player points out the other rating.

28E3. Notification. The director should notify a player assigned a rating, in advance of the tournament if possible, so the player will have this information when deciding whether or not to enter. However, such notification is not always possible, since the cause for assignment may not be evident to the director untill the late-registration period, or even during the tournament.

This is the reason I never give out 28E2 assignments. There is no simple way to tell the player in advance of the assigned rating.