Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 08:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Rob
 
Posts: n/a
Default Washington State Scholastic Rating System

I found this thread from two years ago. Please forgive me for reposting
it. I found the information quite interesting and I was hoping to learn
more about it and the possibility of expanding it beyond it's current
geographic boundaries. Below is the post:

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
David Richerby writes:

What matters in economic terms is not the number of people who are

members
but the income from those members. Economically speaking, it's better to
have one member paying $10 than to have two paying $4 each.


But what about 3 at $4 each? To extend your analysis to the real world,
where there are costs, you need to consider the cost of supporting each
member in addition to the revenue each member brings in.
--
Mike Nolan


The State of Washington (pop. 6 million) maintains its own
scholastic rating system independent of the USCF. There is
no annual fee, and the base rating fee is $0.125 per rated game,
with discounts for large events. No doubt this contributes to
scholastic chess being so big here (e.g. ~100 events
per year, 8000 players, 16000 games this year so far) A
five-round tournament usually costs $15 to enter, with
trophies/medals to somewhere between 20% and 100% of
participants.

I very seriously doubt that the USCF has anything to offer the
vast majority of scholastic chess players here. According
to the rating database, less than 1/4 of scholastic players
have a USCF rating.

Dave Kane


Thanks,
Rob

  #2   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 09:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Washington State Scholastic Rating System

"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
I found this thread from two years ago. Please forgive me for reposting
it. I found the information quite interesting and I was hoping to learn
more about it and the possibility of expanding it beyond it's current
geographic boundaries. Below is the post:

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
David Richerby writes:

What matters in economic terms is not the number of people who are

members
but the income from those members. Economically speaking, it's better

to
have one member paying $10 than to have two paying $4 each.


But what about 3 at $4 each? To extend your analysis to the real world,
where there are costs, you need to consider the cost of supporting each
member in addition to the revenue each member brings in.
--
Mike Nolan


The State of Washington (pop. 6 million) maintains its own
scholastic rating system independent of the USCF. There is
no annual fee, and the base rating fee is $0.125 per rated game,
with discounts for large events. No doubt this contributes to
scholastic chess being so big here (e.g. ~100 events
per year, 8000 players, 16000 games this year so far) A
five-round tournament usually costs $15 to enter, with
trophies/medals to somewhere between 20% and 100% of
participants.

I very seriously doubt that the USCF has anything to offer the
vast majority of scholastic chess players here. According
to the rating database, less than 1/4 of scholastic players
have a USCF rating.

Dave Kane



This year the system was expanded beyond Washington
and it is now knows as the "Northwest" system instead
of the "Washington" system. A number of events from
Oregon have been rated. I don't think there have been
any from BC yet.

There are now about 11000 players in the database.
(Unlike the USCF, the list is purged after inactivity) About
5000 have been active this school year in about 15,000
games. In WA, there are a handful of dual-rated
USCF/NWSRS scholastic tournaments, but most are
NWSRS-rated only.

In addition to being free, the system is also fast. Events
are rated in a few days so the most recent rating can be
used for every tournament. Old ratings are meaningless
in the scholastic world.

It would be very interesting to hear from anyone familiar with
the scholastic situation in Oregon. Comments on the impact
of the rating system would be illuminating.

The system is maintained by one volunteer. I am unaware
of any plans to expand further. It should not be difficult to
establish your own system.



  #3   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 09:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Rob
 
Posts: n/a
Default Washington State Scholastic Rating System/NWSRS Expansion


David Kane wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
I found this thread from two years ago. Please forgive me for reposting
it. I found the information quite interesting and I was hoping to learn
more about it and the possibility of expanding it beyond it's current
geographic boundaries. Below is the post:

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
David Richerby writes:

What matters in economic terms is not the number of people who are

members
but the income from those members. Economically speaking, it's better

to
have one member paying $10 than to have two paying $4 each.

But what about 3 at $4 each? To extend your analysis to the real world,
where there are costs, you need to consider the cost of supporting each
member in addition to the revenue each member brings in.
--
Mike Nolan


The State of Washington (pop. 6 million) maintains its own
scholastic rating system independent of the USCF. There is
no annual fee, and the base rating fee is $0.125 per rated game,
with discounts for large events. No doubt this contributes to
scholastic chess being so big here (e.g. ~100 events
per year, 8000 players, 16000 games this year so far) A
five-round tournament usually costs $15 to enter, with
trophies/medals to somewhere between 20% and 100% of
participants.

I very seriously doubt that the USCF has anything to offer the
vast majority of scholastic chess players here. According
to the rating database, less than 1/4 of scholastic players
have a USCF rating.

Dave Kane



This year the system was expanded beyond Washington
and it is now knows as the "Northwest" system instead
of the "Washington" system. A number of events from
Oregon have been rated. I don't think there have been
any from BC yet.

There are now about 11000 players in the database.
(Unlike the USCF, the list is purged after inactivity) About
5000 have been active this school year in about 15,000
games. In WA, there are a handful of dual-rated
USCF/NWSRS scholastic tournaments, but most are
NWSRS-rated only.

In addition to being free, the system is also fast. Events
are rated in a few days so the most recent rating can be
used for every tournament. Old ratings are meaningless
in the scholastic world.

It would be very interesting to hear from anyone familiar with
the scholastic situation in Oregon. Comments on the impact
of the rating system would be illuminating.

The system is maintained by one volunteer. I am unaware
of any plans to expand further. It should not be difficult to
establish your own system.


David,
Do you know what program formula is being used? Is it part of Chess
Express? WHo would the contact person be for this program?
thaks,
Rob

  #4   Report Post  
Old May 23rd 06, 10:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Washington State Scholastic Rating System/NWSRS Expansion


"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

David Kane wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
I found this thread from two years ago. Please forgive me for

reposting
it. I found the information quite interesting and I was hoping to

learn
more about it and the possibility of expanding it beyond it's current
geographic boundaries. Below is the post:

"Mike Nolan" wrote in message
...
David Richerby writes:

What matters in economic terms is not the number of people who are
members
but the income from those members. Economically speaking, it's

better
to
have one member paying $10 than to have two paying $4 each.

But what about 3 at $4 each? To extend your analysis to the real

world,
where there are costs, you need to consider the cost of supporting

each
member in addition to the revenue each member brings in.
--
Mike Nolan

The State of Washington (pop. 6 million) maintains its own
scholastic rating system independent of the USCF. There is
no annual fee, and the base rating fee is $0.125 per rated game,
with discounts for large events. No doubt this contributes to
scholastic chess being so big here (e.g. ~100 events
per year, 8000 players, 16000 games this year so far) A
five-round tournament usually costs $15 to enter, with
trophies/medals to somewhere between 20% and 100% of
participants.

I very seriously doubt that the USCF has anything to offer the
vast majority of scholastic chess players here. According
to the rating database, less than 1/4 of scholastic players
have a USCF rating.

Dave Kane



This year the system was expanded beyond Washington
and it is now knows as the "Northwest" system instead
of the "Washington" system. A number of events from
Oregon have been rated. I don't think there have been
any from BC yet.

There are now about 11000 players in the database.
(Unlike the USCF, the list is purged after inactivity) About
5000 have been active this school year in about 15,000
games. In WA, there are a handful of dual-rated
USCF/NWSRS scholastic tournaments, but most are
NWSRS-rated only.

In addition to being free, the system is also fast. Events
are rated in a few days so the most recent rating can be
used for every tournament. Old ratings are meaningless
in the scholastic world.

It would be very interesting to hear from anyone familiar with
the scholastic situation in Oregon. Comments on the impact
of the rating system would be illuminating.

The system is maintained by one volunteer. I am unaware
of any plans to expand further. It should not be difficult to
establish your own system.


David,
Do you know what program formula is being used? Is it part of Chess
Express? WHo would the contact person be for this program?
thaks,
Rob


It's a home grown program. (minor differences compared
to USCF algorithm). You can find info at www.whsca.org

I have often felt that it would be a great idea for the
USCF to help States establish their own scholastic
rating systems. With a little thought you could make it
very easy for a State/Region that has a volunteer willing to
undertake the effort. Integration with USCF ratings could
even be anticipated.




  #5   Report Post  
Old May 24th 06, 12:27 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
 
Posts: n/a
Default Washington State Scholastic Rating System

"...The system is maintained by one volunteer..." (David Kane)
=================
Is he paid for his service? If not what kind of fool would do all that
work for nothing? What happens to the system if the volunteer gets
tired of it all and quits?

Old Haasie



  #6   Report Post  
Old May 24th 06, 12:48 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
David Kane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Washington State Scholastic Rating System


wrote in message
ups.com...
"...The system is maintained by one volunteer..." (David Kane)
=================
Is he paid for his service? If not what kind of fool would do all that
work for nothing? What happens to the system if the volunteer gets
tired of it all and quits?


Last I heard, he does everything on a purely
volunteer basis. I do not consider him a fool.
If he gets tired of it, the likelihood is that
someone else would take his place.









Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [1/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 7th 06 05:30 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [1/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 3rd 06 06:04 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [1/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 19th 05 05:36 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017