I’ve always interpreted this as “at registration”. Is this an incorrect (or uncommon) assumption? Actually, I’ve never had to assign ratings, either. One of my assistant TDs assigned a rating to an unrated player recently. It actually took the upset prize away from my wife when this player won his last round game.
Most of the time that will be perfectly adequate. What the drafter of the rule probably had in mind was something like the TD deciding to kick a player up one or two sections in the World Open. In that case, the player really ought to be informed before he buys his ticket and reserves a room.
Want it before registration, like a week before the tournament would be best. If I have it at registration, then anyone could ask during registration. Trust me, would be shocked to have someone with a FIDE rating come to my tournament for the first USCF event. From Canada, that could still happen.
The August Bits & Pieces quote seems to be a distinction without a difference. If you use the online “published” rating, it will be exactly
the same as your printed copy. If it is not in print yet, you would still
be allowed to use it under 28D3.
Does this mean that we may use the player’s highest online rating? It
does not seem to state that. Surely it does not mean one might use a
lower rating than published. Of course, using the same variation for all
players is implied.
The requirement of publishing this practice in advance seems to indicate
that this variation would be different than using the rating supplement.
I do not really understand exactly what this quote means.
It is the quote itself, and not your use thereof, that I found a bit confusing.
Hopefully I did not give offense.
I just don’t find it specific enough: when it says you may use OTB ratings
from the website, does this mean only the official rating (which is really
no different than using the supplement), or the highest? The Bits & Pieces quote doesn’t seem to specify that clearly, at least in my mind.
I would think that if one did use a player’s highest rating (as opposed
to the official rating), then one should use the same variation for all.
I don’t have a problem with that, as long as it is done for everyone
consistently. I can see this advantage to it also: you can better judge
exactly how your rating will be affected by your opponent.
The disadvantage is that not everyone has internet access, so going by
two different standards may get confusing. Pairing programs like SwissSys are also designed to use imported database format. Perhaps
in a later incarnation, there will be a dynamic database at USCF that could be imported pre-tourney.
As I use SwissSys at my tournaments, using everyone’s updated rating
would not be practical (unless there are methods I’m unaware of).
Thanks for your input, and also everyone else’s. I think these forums are great. I can’t imagine having to TD without them!
I’m getting confused by this discussion as well. My understanding of the rule is:
In general, last published (aka “official”) rating should be used for pairings and prize purposes.
An organizer may use the most recent rating (aka “website” or “unofficial”) provided this is announced in advance (not defined, and may vary by circumstances) and done consistently.
Unpublished ratings may be used for previously unrated players without special notice.
Whether using unofficial ratings is a good idea is an entirely different question. I don’t, but there are circumstances (e.g. a scholastic tournament with many rapidly improving players) in which there is much to be said for it.
That would be a open ended answer. As it would be a case by case issue … from one event to the next. The roster line up should be uniform from one event to the next. If the event only has a place prize or a plus score prize, it would not be a major issue. If the event has a unrated or class prize, there would be a conflict for the assignment from unrated to a rating. It would be ideal to be uniform from one event to the next.
I tend to agree, and if you want to say that a player is unrated until his rating is published, that’s fine. However, problems may arise if, for example, a new player has an unpublished rating of 2100 and wants to play in the U1400/Unrated section.
There have been very few players that started out unrated, to have their first rating over 2000. The players that have, do have foreign or FIDE ratings. If a player does come in with a unplublished 2100, wanting to play in the U1400/unrated section – even if he/she wins – it would drop the players rating.
The second point, if a player does have a unpublished 2100 rating, as it is not common to have so many games rated and still not published. If the player is a smart player, would only go to a category B event or stronger. The author of this tread, should be like most directors going to have only category D events. If the unpublished 2100 player wants to go to a category D event to play in the U1400/unrated section – in my judgment the player would not be an expert when the rating is established. If the player does have an unpublished 2100 rating, the goal should be to keep the rating up not the prize money.
Problems only arise from unusual cases. I know of two or three instances where a player had an not-yet-published ~2100 rating but still wanted to play in a lower section. You probably do not have many Eastern European emigrants in your tournament.
If you mean “should” as a moral exhortation, fine. If you mean that’s the way people will actually behave, you are mistaken.
Most unpublished ratings would be a performance rating. If a person wants to risk a unpublished 2100 rating to be in a U1400/unrated section: that is fine. Most category D events as most directors will perform, have very small prize money for the bottom of the event. If the prize has to be split, the winner of the section can take home a prize not equal to the entry fee. Its’ not a question of being moral, its’ a question of being rational. The player can have other ideas, as the player could feel happy even when the act is not rational.
