Martin Brown wrote:


Over the last decade I've been acquainted with at least 30 adults and
children rated below 1000. Maybe 50.

I don't doubt it. But I think they are rare in competitive chess
tournaments (at least on this side of the pond). I'm surprised that the
US ratings pool is calibrated that low.

come to the USCF National Elementary Championships. There, you will
find a KINDERGARTEN section (which I directed for many, many years)
chock full of players. I'm talking about approximately 100 players
(every year) - all with ratings below 1000. I would estimate that, on
average, there will be 2 players in the field who literally do not
know how ANY of the pieces move. This can be a challenge for the
floor directors.

It also offers a wealth of opportunity to watch players who are properly
rated at 0200, 0150, 0100, and (if only the system would assign such
ratings) -0500.

Over the last decade, I've directed events with more than 1000 players
rated under 1000.




--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Martin Brown wrote:
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
One way of determining the original rating of a complete beginner is to
accept that they will improve with each game played and then model it.
Afterwards you can compute the intercept of their rating vs number of
games played at the 0 games played axis to get a fair estimate.

My instinct is that you would work hard to find someone with an ELO
rating below 500 (who wasn't deliberately playing to lose).
If you are restricting the population to "adults of normal
intelligence", then I would agree. However, if you include
all players, regardless of age or intelligence, I can find at least
10 players with deserved ratings 0000.

and hundreds upon hundreds of players with deserved ratings 0500

I may have been a little optimistic about the weakest player who knows
the basic rules (or perhaps more accurately doesn't break any of them
in a game). Or in beginners chess that no-one has noticed any of them
being broken...


I'm sorry - I wasn't clear. Most of these VERY low rated players do NOT
know the rules! Believe it or not, there are thousands of players
entering rated tournaments who do NOT know all the rules. And, many of
them are children with undeveloped attention spans. And, of course,
SOME of these will grow up to be "not so smart" adults. And, some of
them are only there because Mommy dropped them off and said she'll be
back at 5:00.

A motivated adult novice of normal intelligence, who has studied the
game enough to know all the rules of play is light-years ahead of
such seasoned tournament veterans!

"Knowing the rules" is by no means the bottom rung on the ladder.

And...oh yes...I think we all know chess players who "know a lot about
chess - especially the history and culture". They can perhaps even
quote famous games and pontificate on the relative merits of past
Champions. But, they can't actually *play* worth a damn. My point is
that "knowing much more than the rules" doesn't *necessarily* give you
an edge over the board against someone who *only* knows the rules.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote

"Knowing the rules" is by no means the bottom rung on the ladder.

We needn't have a philosophic debate about what it means to "know the
rules." I drew a game I should have won several years ago (against a young
man who is probably of IM strength today) because I did had forgotten the
rule for time forfeits that requires the winner keep a complete scoresheet.
Your original statement, I believe, mentioned a player who knows how the
pieces moved, not someone who knows as much about chess legal trivia as an
international arbiter.

So now that I know you are a director, and have seen 100s and 1000s of
sub-1000 players, do you have any data on, say, 900-rated adults vs.
900-rated kids? I'd bet there's no difference (except maybe the kids are
improving quickly and the adults are stuck).


And...oh yes...I think we all know chess players who "know a lot about
chess - especially the history and culture". They can perhaps even
quote famous games and pontificate on the relative merits of past
Champions. But, they can't actually *play* worth a damn. My point is
that "knowing much more than the rules" doesn't *necessarily* give you an
edge over the board against someone who *only* knows the rules.

Sadly, this is what I am becoming except I'm forgetting the history,
culture, and classic games as well.

Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote

"Knowing the rules" is by no means the bottom rung on the ladder.

We needn't have a philosophic debate about what it means to "know the
rules." I drew a game I should have won several years ago (against a young
man who is probably of IM strength today) because I did had forgotten the
rule for time forfeits that requires the winner keep a complete scoresheet.
Your original statement, I believe, mentioned a player who knows how the
pieces moved, not someone who knows as much about chess legal trivia as an
international arbiter.

I'm not talking about trivia. I'm talking about en passant, castling,
and of course the classic "how the horsey moves", etc. When I say
"knows the rules", I mean someone who does not need
to think hard, or resort to a cheat sheet, to immediately see all of the
legal moves in a position.

He need not know the proper procedures for claiming a draw due to
repeated positions when the arbiter asks him to seal his next move.

If you haven't watched thousands of sub-1000 rated kids playing
tournament chess, you may not be able to appreciate hoe HIGHLY you
can be rated (that is, how strong a performance you can turn in) without
yet reaching the stage of "knowing the rules".

On the other hand, it's possible for a player to be absoutely BRILLIANT
most of the time - but have gaping holes in his basic competence.


So now that I know you are a director, and have seen 100s and 1000s of
sub-1000 players, do you have any data on, say, 900-rated adults vs.
900-rated kids? I'd bet there's no difference (except maybe the kids are
improving quickly and the adults are stuck).

Data? No.

Observations. Yes.

0900 rated kids are usually excellent tactical players who like to go
for quick kills. They are always dangerous, because sometimes their
suicide attacks can occasionally succeed.

0900 rated adults simply play 3rd best moves, all game long, with little
imagination and no flair. They can beat players who drop pieces faster
than they do, but no one else.

Given the choice in a "win this game, or die" situation, I'll take the
0900 rated adult as my opponent. All I need to do against him is
develop my pieces into the center and wait for him to give me pieces.
Against the kid, I actually have to stay awake and not fall for a cheapo.

Note that these are comments about players with reasonably STABLE
ratings of 0900. There's also the issue of how fast the player is
improving. Kids improve in fits and starts (very Piaget-like), and
sometimes play in pools that deflate their ratings. So, the 0900 rated
kid is even *more* dangerous. He might be underrated because we
measured him badly, or he might be underrated because he just learned
how to checkmate with only one rook. Yes, indeed, in my experience there
are lots of 1000 rated players who cannot mate with KRk. Over and over
again I've seen sub-1000 players who have memorized the Morphy Opera
House Game, love the Fried Liver Attack, and know the Albin
Counter-Gambit 15 moves deep - but cannot mate with KRk. To draw
against such a player, you simply have to ward off the cheapos. You can
sac a rook to get out of immediate trouble and then wait for them to
flounder in the endgame. You can't *win* that way, but you can draw.
Even the worst player in the Kindergarten section occasionally scores a
draw by sacrificing all of her pieces and then walking into stalemate.
Of course, there is also the small problem of *recognizing* stalemate
(knowing the rules, again). I've seen tens of games where both players
were in check for more than 10 consecutive moves. Unless you've been
there, you really don't know the rich texture of sub-1000 chess.


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:


There are 9104 in the database. 1974 have a USCF rating. 784 have a
non-provisional USCF rating. The NWSRS has a practice of
periodically bumping up the NWSRS ratings of those with
higher non-provisional USCF ratings. Currently there are
156 players whose rating have been bumped up in that way.
This suggests that most have higher NWSRS ratings.


They bump ratings UP to conform to USCF but not DOWN? And you think
it's the higher floor that generates higher ratings?


As I said, the number who receive points that way is minimal. I think it is
an odd practice, to say the least, but it's inflationary effect is very small.
Some
of those receiving points that way are the older players who have stopped
playing games in the NWSRS, so it has no effect other than symbolic.
The bump occurs once or twice per year and the number of points added is small.

On the other hand, people playing at their floor pump points into
the system every tournament. Also, the initially imputed rating
is in most cases higher than the USCF - it's changed over the years
and the details have never been clear. But for most age groups its
higher than 50*Age.

Also, consider the "bonus point" mechanism for inflating the ratings.
Imagine two identical pools of players, but players in pool A play
twice as frequenctly as those in Pool B. Ratings in Pool A will inflate
faster than those of Pool B. My guess is that our pool is more active
than the USCF Pool.

And ratings of players who play more frequently in the NWSRS will
not have the lag that their USCF ratings have. There have
been comic misjustices in tournaments where USCF ratings were used -
e.g. one boy won the "biggest upset" prize every round even though
in the NWSRS system he had the highest rating and was winning
as expected. But his USCF rating was several years old, and
600 points out of date.

I don't believe trying to align the scales would have any practical
advantages.

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...


Data? No.

Observations. Yes.

0900 rated kids are usually excellent tactical players who like to go
for quick kills. They are always dangerous, because sometimes their
suicide attacks can occasionally succeed.

0900 rated adults simply play 3rd best moves, all game long, with little
imagination and no flair. They can beat players who drop pieces faster than
they do, but no one else.

Given the choice in a "win this game, or die" situation, I'll take the 0900
rated adult as my opponent. All I need to do against him is develop my pieces
into the center and wait for him to give me pieces. Against the kid, I
actually have to stay awake and not fall for a cheapo.

Note that these are comments about players with reasonably STABLE ratings of
0900. There's also the issue of how fast the player is improving. Kids
improve in fits and starts (very Piaget-like), and
sometimes play in pools that deflate their ratings. So, the 0900 rated kid is
even *more* dangerous. He might be underrated because we measured him badly,
or he might be underrated because he just learned
how to checkmate with only one rook. Yes, indeed, in my experience there are
lots of 1000 rated players who cannot mate with KRk. Over and over again I've
seen sub-1000 players who have memorized the Morphy Opera House Game, love the
Fried Liver Attack, and know the Albin Counter-Gambit 15 moves deep - but
cannot mate with KRk. To draw against such a player, you simply have to ward
off the cheapos. You can sac a rook to get out of immediate trouble and then
wait for them to flounder in the endgame. You can't *win* that way, but you
can draw.
Even the worst player in the Kindergarten section occasionally scores a draw
by sacrificing all of her pieces and then walking into stalemate. Of course,
there is also the small problem of *recognizing* stalemate (knowing the rules,
again). I've seen tens of games where both players were in check for more
than 10 consecutive moves. Unless you've been there, you really don't know
the rich texture of sub-1000 chess.


Of course, watching games like that *is* painful.
But the mistake is in comparing their play to the
play of the adult 1500's at your club . In fact,
quite a lot of those sub-1000s are better players
than their parents, adult friends etc. I frequently
watch kids play with their parents. Guess what -
they miss checks, they leave pieces en prise,
they miss mates in one etc.

The one place where adults do seem to do better
is in "solving problems",i.e. things that could be
considered more "strategy". How do I win from
here? How do I mate with K+Q? But the kids
overcome that deficit by seeing the tactics on the
board better.

Oh dear...where to start?

David Kane wrote:

...
As I said, the number who receive points that way is minimal. I think it is
an odd practice, to say the least, but it's inflationary effect is very small.
Some
of those receiving points that way are the older players who have stopped
playing games in the NWSRS, so it has no effect other than symbolic.
The bump occurs once or twice per year and the number of points added is small.

OK

On the other hand, people playing at their floor pump points into
the system every tournament. Also, the initially imputed rating
is in most cases higher than the USCF - it's changed over the years
and the details have never been clear. But for most age groups its
higher than 50*Age.

That can be seriously wrong for Seniors...

50*Age is probably too low for anyone aged lower than 20.


Also, consider the "bonus point" mechanism for inflating the ratings.
Imagine two identical pools of players, but players in pool A play
twice as frequenctly as those in Pool B. Ratings in Pool A will inflate
faster than those of Pool B. My guess is that our pool is more active
than the USCF Pool.

You are assuming that the net effect of play is inflationary. That's
certainly not the usual starting point for most Elo-based systems.
Unadorned Elo is usually a deflating system. If the bonus point system
you are using is more inflationary than necessary to buck the natural
deflationary pressure, perhaps you need to fix it. In the current
USCF system, the bonus points threshold has been adjusted to be
mildly inflationary, by design. We have a political mandate to
re-inflate ratings to the 1997 standard.


And ratings of players who play more frequently in the NWSRS will
not have the lag that their USCF ratings have.

What lag? USCF events are now rated the same day they are played.

There have
been comic misjustices in tournaments where USCF ratings were used -
e.g. one boy won the "biggest upset" prize every round even though
in the NWSRS system he had the highest rating and was winning
as expected. But his USCF rating was several years old, and
600 points out of date.

Probably because he was playing "rated" chess under a competing system
which reduced his incentive/opportunity to play in USCF-rated events.
It's a bit twisted to discourage USCF play...and then use USCF ratings.


I don't believe trying to align the scales would have any practical
advantages.


Depends on what you mean by "align the scales". Elo points out a need
for a national rating service to attempt to keep the rating scale stable
over time (so that historical comparisons are at least in the right
ballpark).

The same requirement holds for multiple systems at the same time. If
the scales overlap at all, it's nice if "2000" on one scale roughly
matches "2000" on the other scale.

Note that that is NOT the same as saying that every individual should
have his rating adjusted so it's the same in both systems. In fact,
that is the mark of a bad ratings administrator! if a player is active
in both systems, and OTHER means are used to effectively align the
scales, then the player's two ratings should be reasonably close, and
there should be NO NEED to "adjust" one or the other.

Systems which *use* USCF ratings, but which do not submit their events
for USCF rating, are doomed to create these "comic injustices".

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
Oh dear...where to start?

David Kane wrote:

...
As I said, the number who receive points that way is minimal. I think it is
an odd practice, to say the least, but it's inflationary effect is very
small. Some
of those receiving points that way are the older players who have stopped
playing games in the NWSRS, so it has no effect other than symbolic.
The bump occurs once or twice per year and the number of points added is
small.

OK

On the other hand, people playing at their floor pump points into
the system every tournament. Also, the initially imputed rating
is in most cases higher than the USCF - it's changed over the years
and the details have never been clear. But for most age groups its
higher than 50*Age.

That can be seriously wrong for Seniors...
50*Age is probably too low for anyone aged lower than 20.

I thought that is what the USCF used (for kids). Again I haven't looked
into the details but it is a possible explanation for
different ratings.





Also, consider the "bonus point" mechanism for inflating the ratings.
Imagine two identical pools of players, but players in pool A play
twice as frequenctly as those in Pool B. Ratings in Pool A will inflate
faster than those of Pool B. My guess is that our pool is more active
than the USCF Pool.

You are assuming that the net effect of play is inflationary. That's
certainly not the usual starting point for most Elo-based systems.
Unadorned Elo is usually a deflating system. If the bonus point system
you are using is more inflationary than necessary to buck the natural
deflationary pressure, perhaps you need to fix it. In the current
USCF system, the bonus points threshold has been adjusted to be
mildly inflationary, by design. We have a political mandate to
re-inflate ratings to the 1997 standard.

You completely miss the point. Simply, the bonus point
mechanism will inflate the ratings differently depend on the
activity level of the players. So it is a possible explanation
for why the scales do not align exactly.

Personally I don't think bonus points make sense for
this pool, but I don't see it doing significant harm.


And ratings of players who play more frequently in the NWSRS will
not have the lag that their USCF ratings have.

What lag? USCF events are now rated the same day they are played.

If people play one USCF event per year and 10 NWSRS events per year,
then their NWSRS rating will be up to date; their USCF rating will be
old. Given that players of this age improve, the NWSRS rating will be
higher.

The rating formulae do not factor in the time (though probably could
or should for kids) At these ratings, ratings are determined over ~10 games,
and the formulae makes no distinction whether they were played last week, or
3 years ago. But the predictive value of 3-year-old results is very low when
you are talking about a 9-year-old.


There have
been comic misjustices in tournaments where USCF ratings were used -
e.g. one boy won the "biggest upset" prize every round even though
in the NWSRS system he had the highest rating and was winning
as expected. But his USCF rating was several years old, and
600 points out of date.

Probably because he was playing "rated" chess under a competing system which
reduced his incentive/opportunity to play in USCF-rated events.
It's a bit twisted to discourage USCF play...and then use USCF ratings.

I agree that it would have been more intelligent to use ratings
from the more accurate NWSRS system for that award. But
that would have undercut the organizer's purpose to "sell" USCF ratings.
It's a free country. No one was coerced into playing that event,
and the organizer was allowed to do whatever he wanted.



I don't believe trying to align the scales would have any practical
advantages.

Depends on what you mean by "align the scales". Elo points out a need
for a national rating service to attempt to keep the rating scale stable over
time (so that historical comparisons are at least in the right ballpark).

The same requirement holds for multiple systems at the same time. If the
scales overlap at all, it's nice if "2000" on one scale roughly matches "2000"
on the other scale.

Note that that is NOT the same as saying that every individual should have his
rating adjusted so it's the same in both systems. In fact, that is the mark
of a bad ratings administrator! if a player is active in both systems, and
OTHER means are used to effectively align the scales, then the player's two
ratings should be reasonably close, and there should be NO NEED to "adjust"
one or the other.

Systems which *use* USCF ratings, but which do not submit their events for
USCF rating, are doomed to create these "comic injustices".


People who play in the NWSRS are ranked quite accurately
by it. If people want to know what their rating would be in the
USCF, they could look for USCF events and play in them.
Or they could look at ratings of players who play in both and
try to figure out a correction. You're starting to sound a bit
like those "innumerate" folks you deride. Do I have to remind
you that ratings are not an absolute scale?

BTW, do you also denigrate online ratings, ratings from other countries,
etc that are not under your control? Or is it the particular fact
that this one facilitates an active scholastic chess scene that has
you so upset?

David Kane wrote:


You completely miss the point. Simply, the bonus point
mechanism will inflate the ratings differently depend on the
activity level of the players. So it is a possible explanation
for why the scales do not align exactly.

How does this bonus point system work? It's surely not the same as
the USCF bonus point system. USCF bonus points do not reward
*play* - they reward *good performances*.


Personally I don't think bonus points make sense for
this pool, but I don't see it doing significant harm.

What is it about the pool that obviates the need for bonus points?


And ratings of players who play more frequently in the NWSRS will
not have the lag that their USCF ratings have.
What lag? USCF events are now rated the same day they are played.

If people play one USCF event per year and 10 NWSRS events per year,
then their NWSRS rating will be up to date; their USCF rating will be
old. Given that players of this age improve, the NWSRS rating will be
higher.

Theres a solution for that...


The rating formulae do not factor in the time (though probably could
or should for kids) At these ratings, ratings are determined over ~10 games,
and the formulae makes no distinction whether they were played last week, or
3 years ago. But the predictive value of 3-year-old results is very low when
you are talking about a 9-year-old.

do you have data to support that?

I mean...it *sounds* right - but not everything that sounds right
pans out.



There have
been comic misjustices in tournaments where USCF ratings were used -
e.g. one boy won the "biggest upset" prize every round even though
in the NWSRS system he had the highest rating and was winning
as expected. But his USCF rating was several years old, and
600 points out of date.
Probably because he was playing "rated" chess under a competing system which
reduced his incentive/opportunity to play in USCF-rated events.
It's a bit twisted to discourage USCF play...and then use USCF ratings.

I agree that it would have been more intelligent to use ratings
from the more accurate NWSRS system for that award. But
that would have undercut the organizer's purpose to "sell" USCF ratings.
It's a free country. No one was coerced into playing that event,
and the organizer was allowed to do whatever he wanted.



Perhaps the organizer means to reward players who have AVOIDED
USCF-rated play over the last year? There exist coaches who steer
their kids away from USCF-rated play during the year, so that they will
be radically underrated when they go to Nationals.


I don't believe trying to align the scales would have any practical
advantages.
Depends on what you mean by "align the scales". Elo points out a need
for a national rating service to attempt to keep the rating scale stable over
time (so that historical comparisons are at least in the right ballpark).

The same requirement holds for multiple systems at the same time. If the
scales overlap at all, it's nice if "2000" on one scale roughly matches "2000"
on the other scale.

Note that that is NOT the same as saying that every individual should have his
rating adjusted so it's the same in both systems. In fact, that is the mark
of a bad ratings administrator! if a player is active in both systems, and
OTHER means are used to effectively align the scales, then the player's two
ratings should be reasonably close, and there should be NO NEED to "adjust"
one or the other.

Systems which *use* USCF ratings, but which do not submit their events for
USCF rating, are doomed to create these "comic injustices".


People who play in the NWSRS are ranked quite accurately
by it. If people want to know what their rating would be in the
USCF, they could look for USCF events and play in them.
Or they could look at ratings of players who play in both and
try to figure out a correction. You're starting to sound a bit
like those "innumerate" folks you deride. Do I have to remind
you that ratings are not an absolute scale?


No, but perhaps I need to remind you to "read Elo". If you are running
an Elo-like system and report ratings on a scale of roughly 1000-3000,
then it is irresponsible (bordering on fraud - which is the usual
motivation in these cases) to *not* try to keep roughly aligned with the
FIDE scale.

If you want to avail yourself of the "the scale is arbitrary" argument,
then perhaps you should choose a different scale? Here, I'm repeating
the same argument when I opposed the transition in USCF from the old
Postal Rating scale to a new one which appears to be 'aligned' with the
USCF Regular OTB scale. The problem, of course, is that it is *not*
"aligned" at all.


BTW, do you also denigrate online ratings, ratings from other countries,
etc that are not under your control?


What rating system have i "denigrated"?

Or is it the particular fact
that this one facilitates an active scholastic chess scene that has
you so upset?



Doesn't upset me at all.

If it's "for the children" it must be OK.





--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:


You completely miss the point. Simply, the bonus point
mechanism will inflate the ratings differently depend on the
activity level of the players. So it is a possible explanation
for why the scales do not align exactly.

How does this bonus point system work? It's surely not the same as
the USCF bonus point system. USCF bonus points do not reward
*play* - they reward *good performances*.

Sigh. It uses the USCF formulae. But if there are two
identical pools, pool A and pool B, but pool A plays more
frequently than pool B, then pool A will get more bonus points.

Why? Because there will be more performances, and hence
more "good" performances.





Personally I don't think bonus points make sense for
this pool, but I don't see it doing significant harm.

What is it about the pool that obviates the need for bonus points?

It is a scholastic rating system with no old-timers to protect.

I have seen the following many times: play, get a good result,
get bonus points. Next week, play again, underperform
the new rating. If we looked at both tournaments as one
"performance" there would be no bonus. But with bonus
points applied to each week, players come out ahead of
where they would have been. Not only does this
have the "desired" effect of pumping points into the system
(what the USCF wants to keep grandpa happy) but it also *distorts*
the system for those playing actively. I am not saying it is a huge
or significant distortion, but a needless one.



And ratings of players who play more frequently in the NWSRS will
not have the lag that their USCF ratings have.
What lag? USCF events are now rated the same day they are played.

If people play one USCF event per year and 10 NWSRS events per year,
then their NWSRS rating will be up to date; their USCF rating will be
old. Given that players of this age improve, the NWSRS rating will be
higher.

Theres a solution for that...


The rating formulae do not factor in the time (though probably could
or should for kids) At these ratings, ratings are determined over ~10 games,
and the formulae makes no distinction whether they were played last week, or
3 years ago. But the predictive value of 3-year-old results is very low when
you are talking about a 9-year-old.

do you have data to support that?

I mean...it *sounds* right - but not everything that sounds right
pans out.

I've already given anecdotal evidence.




There have
been comic misjustices in tournaments where USCF ratings were used -
e.g. one boy won the "biggest upset" prize every round even though
in the NWSRS system he had the highest rating and was winning
as expected. But his USCF rating was several years old, and
600 points out of date.
Probably because he was playing "rated" chess under a competing system which
reduced his incentive/opportunity to play in USCF-rated events.
It's a bit twisted to discourage USCF play...and then use USCF ratings.

I agree that it would have been more intelligent to use ratings
from the more accurate NWSRS system for that award. But
that would have undercut the organizer's purpose to "sell" USCF ratings.
It's a free country. No one was coerced into playing that event,
and the organizer was allowed to do whatever he wanted.



Perhaps the organizer means to reward players who have AVOIDED USCF-rated play
over the last year? There exist coaches who steer
their kids away from USCF-rated play during the year, so that they will
be radically underrated when they go to Nationals.

Not at all. This is a well-meaning director trying to encourage
USCF play.


I don't believe trying to align the scales would have any practical
advantages.
Depends on what you mean by "align the scales". Elo points out a need
for a national rating service to attempt to keep the rating scale stable
over time (so that historical comparisons are at least in the right
ballpark).

The same requirement holds for multiple systems at the same time. If the
scales overlap at all, it's nice if "2000" on one scale roughly matches
"2000" on the other scale.

Note that that is NOT the same as saying that every individual should have
his rating adjusted so it's the same in both systems. In fact, that is the
mark of a bad ratings administrator! if a player is active in both systems,
and OTHER means are used to effectively align the scales, then the player's
two ratings should be reasonably close, and there should be NO NEED to
"adjust" one or the other.

Systems which *use* USCF ratings, but which do not submit their events for
USCF rating, are doomed to create these "comic injustices".


People who play in the NWSRS are ranked quite accurately
by it. If people want to know what their rating would be in the
USCF, they could look for USCF events and play in them.
Or they could look at ratings of players who play in both and
try to figure out a correction. You're starting to sound a bit
like those "innumerate" folks you deride. Do I have to remind
you that ratings are not an absolute scale?


No, but perhaps I need to remind you to "read Elo". If you are running
an Elo-like system and report ratings on a scale of roughly 1000-3000, then it
is irresponsible (bordering on fraud - which is the usual motivation in these
cases) to *not* try to keep roughly aligned with the
FIDE scale.

No one has ever pretended that these are USCF
or FIDE ratings. They are clearly marked appropriately
on each and every tournament flyer. The vast majority of readers
of these flyers will never have heard of the USCF or
FIDE, of course. To them, it's just their rating.

Your accusation of fraud is unfounded and desperate. I think
that most would consider the systems "roughly" aligned by the way.
The NWSRS is probably much closer to USCF than most
online ratings, e.g.


If you want to avail yourself of the "the scale is arbitrary" argument,
then perhaps you should choose a different scale? Here, I'm repeating the
same argument when I opposed the transition in USCF from the old Postal Rating
scale to a new one which appears to be 'aligned' with the
USCF Regular OTB scale. The problem, of course, is that it is *not*
"aligned" at all.