Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 27th 04, 05:48 AM
Miriling
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

From the pages of Chess Life (example: Winter 2004 issue, page 60):

"You never lose your rating no matter how long it has been since you last
played. If you return to tournament play after a long absence, please tell the
Director your approximate rating and year of play. If you rejoin USCF after
many years without being a member, please provide this information for the USCF
office as well."

This policy, unfortunately, does not apply to all former USCF members who have
had ratings. At my local club recently a player returned to play after an
absence of 21 years! He rejoined the USCF and I provided the office with
detailed information, including his ID number and his expiration date,
requesting that it retain this ID number when processing the membership
renewal. I specifically requested that the office not issue him a new number.
Instead, the office issued him a new ID number! Also, the office ignored the
fact that this player had an established rating from the past and chose to
process him as a brand new player with no rating! This also happened to one
other player at the club last year, whose established rating from the past was
ignored and he had start all over as an unrated player. In that case, however,
the USCF office retained his old ID number.
The bottom line is that "Once Rated, Always Rated" is a joke. I get the
impression that some USCF office workers - not all - could not be bothered
taking the detailed information they are given and are too lazy to look in the
supplements they should have at the office to verify the information that is
paintstakingly provided them by sellers of USCF memberships, especially those
who have been selling USCF memberships for more than 30 years.
It is no wonder that the USCF membership database contains errors, especially
in the way of erroneous information, misspellings of names, the same person
listed with more than one ID number, the same person listed with different
spellings of his/her name and consequently different IDs and in many cases
different ratings.
I wish the "Once Rated, Always Rated" policy could be adhered to 100 percent.
Unfortunately, it isn't.

George Mirijanian
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 27th 04, 06:30 AM
LeModernCaveman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

"You never lose your rating no matter how long it has been since you last
played. If you return to tournament play after a long absence, please tell
the
Director your approximate rating and year of play. If you rejoin USCF after
many years without being a member, please provide this information for the
USCF
office as well."

This policy, unfortunately, does not apply to all former USCF members who
have
had ratings. At my local club recently a player returned to play after an
absence of 21 years! He rejoined the USCF and I provided the office with
detailed information, including his ID number and his expiration date,
requesting that it retain this ID number when processing the membership
renewal. I specifically requested that the office not issue him a new number.
Instead, the office issued him a new ID number! Also, the office ignored the
fact that this player had an established rating from the past and chose to
process him as a brand new player with no rating! This also happened to one
other player at the club last year, whose established rating from the past
was
ignored and he had start all over as an unrated player. In that case,
however,
the USCF office retained his old ID number.
The bottom line is that "Once Rated, Always Rated" is a joke. I get the
impression that some USCF office workers - not all - could not be bothered
taking the detailed information they are given and are too lazy to look in
the
supplements they should have at the office to verify the information that is
paintstakingly provided them by sellers of USCF memberships, especially those
who have been selling USCF memberships for more than 30 years.
It is no wonder that the USCF membership database contains errors, especially
in the way of erroneous information, misspellings of names, the same person
listed with more than one ID number, the same person listed with different
spellings of his/her name and consequently different IDs and in many cases
different ratings.
I wish the "Once Rated, Always Rated" policy could be adhered to 100 percent.
Unfortunately, it isn't.


If you play in even one Megaswiss, it is.

Trust me.


  #4   Report Post  
Old February 27th 04, 06:42 AM
John McCumiskey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

Greetings!

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but didn't something happen at USCF HQ in
the mid to late 1980s that destroyed a lot of records, including rating
records, that they were unable to reassemble in full?

John McCumiskey

Miriling wrote:
From the pages of Chess Life (example: Winter 2004 issue, page 60):

"You never lose your rating no matter how long it has been since you last
played. If you return to tournament play after a long absence, please tell the
Director your approximate rating and year of play. If you rejoin USCF after
many years without being a member, please provide this information for the USCF
office as well."

This policy, unfortunately, does not apply to all former USCF members who have
had ratings. At my local club recently a player returned to play after an
absence of 21 years! He rejoined the USCF and I provided the office with
detailed information, including his ID number and his expiration date,
requesting that it retain this ID number when processing the membership
renewal. I specifically requested that the office not issue him a new number.
Instead, the office issued him a new ID number! Also, the office ignored the
fact that this player had an established rating from the past and chose to
process him as a brand new player with no rating! This also happened to one
other player at the club last year, whose established rating from the past was
ignored and he had start all over as an unrated player. In that case, however,
the USCF office retained his old ID number.
The bottom line is that "Once Rated, Always Rated" is a joke. I get the
impression that some USCF office workers - not all - could not be bothered
taking the detailed information they are given and are too lazy to look in the
supplements they should have at the office to verify the information that is
paintstakingly provided them by sellers of USCF memberships, especially those
who have been selling USCF memberships for more than 30 years.
It is no wonder that the USCF membership database contains errors, especially
in the way of erroneous information, misspellings of names, the same person
listed with more than one ID number, the same person listed with different
spellings of his/her name and consequently different IDs and in many cases
different ratings.
I wish the "Once Rated, Always Rated" policy could be adhered to 100 percent.
Unfortunately, it isn't.

George Mirijanian


--
--------------------------------------------------------
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but to save the world through Him. John 3:17

  #5   Report Post  
Old February 27th 04, 08:17 AM
Mike Nolan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

John McCumiskey writes:

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but didn't something happen at USCF HQ in
the mid to late 1980s that destroyed a lot of records, including rating
records, that they were unable to reassemble in full?


Possibly. Here's what I've learned over the years.

The USCF's first minicomputer was installed in the late 1970's. There
was an equipment change in the mid 1980's, a move to PC-based systems in
the early 1990's, and we're in the process of moving to a relational
database on a Dell two-processor system running Redhat Linux today.

Standard practice at the USCF in the 80's and 90's was to purge the
computer files every couple of years because of a lack of disk space.
The new system has 320 GB of RAID 0+1 hard drive space, so I don't think
we'll run out of disk space for a while. :-)

The January 1987 ratings supplement was just before one of those purges,
they chose to print a cumulative supplement that covered about 4 years
worth of memberships. The practice of deleting expired records from the
'live' records continued after the ratings software was rewritten in dBase
in around 1991, but they rolled those deleted records over to an 'expired'
members file, so they can generally be resurrected if the member rejoins.

By processing that file plus other files of deleted records, I was able
to locate at least some data for about 97% of the ID's issued from the
mid 1980's on.

I'm not sure just how far back my data goes, I have most of the ID's above
12515000, which I think was issued in 1987 or 1988, including 50,000 ID's
that start with the number '2' from the green prenumbered forms.

The new membership table currently has over 588,000 rows in it, all
of it is accessible via MSA.

I probably do not have any information if an ID was physically deleted from
the COBOL file prior to about 1998, deletions are primarily for deceased
members or duplicate ID's.

Some day (in my spare time!) I plan to work through that data to see how
many of those deleted records I can restore (as inactive records).

There are presently 1068 ID's in the crosstable records that don't
have counterparts in the membership table, I think most are the result
of deleted records.

I know that they threw out a bunch of paper records in the mid 1990's.

Coincidentally, BIll G, Judy and I were talking about this when I was in
New Windsor earlier this month. I think Judy said they threw out most of
the original ratings reports from prior to about 1990, but that they have
the computer printouts from the early 1980's on stored in the trailer in
back of the office. What shape they're in is anybody's guess at this point.

I think they have all of the ratings supplements and annual ratings lists
from Chess Life through the years, and they microfilmed the old ratings
cards, so they should have all the historical ratings information, though
not in computer readable form prior to 1992.

To find an old rating could require looking through 8-10 different
supplements plus the microfilm. The more information a TD can supply
about a long-time lapsed member the less time it may take to locate
that person's rating.
--
Mike Nolan


  #6   Report Post  
Old February 28th 04, 04:59 AM
NoMoreChess
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

..
Perhaps my memory is faulty, but didn't something happen at USCF HQ in
the mid to late 1980s that destroyed a lot of records, including rating
records, that they were unable to reassemble in full?



Maybe someone tried to blow-up the USCF headquarters? Too bad it didn't
work....





For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but to save the world through Him. John 3:17



John, your prose is a tad repetitive. For example, in the above single
sentence, you managed to repeat the same phrase ("the world") no less than
THREE times! Also, it is not crystal-clear which one of Them is referred to by
the "Him" at the end of that sentence.
One of the drawbacks to having an inutterable name and all that respect, is
that sometimes a writer's meaning is blurred by overuse of pronouns -- albeit
understandable since it was not allowed to say "Chuck," or "Fred," or whatever,
in reference to God/Amen/He who has no name/Yahweh/etc.

Sorry for the nitpick, John. Generally speaking, I liked your book (though
it didn't quite 'fit-in" with some of the others).








  #7   Report Post  
Old February 28th 04, 07:00 PM
Recmate
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

Subject: Once rated, always rated?! No siree!
From: John McCumiskey
Date: 02/27/2004 1:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: m

Greetings!

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but didn't something happen at USCF HQ in
the mid to late 1980s that destroyed a lot of records, including rating
records, that they were unable to reassemble in full?

John McCumiskey


A lot of crosstable printout books, as well as rating cards from pre-computer
days, were foolishly thrown away. Precious collectors items were lost that
should be in the Hall of Fame, such as the rating cards (lifetime rating
histories) of players like Reshevsky and Fine (Fischer's had mysteriously
disappeared earlier). Also lost was a rating card for Humphrey Bogart in
Kenneth Harkness' handwriting; Bogart played in one tournament in the 1940s and
had a Class A rating, about 1939.

However, annual rating lists were saved, and USCF has them on microfilm going
back to at least 1961. So it is usually possible to enforce "once rated,
always rated," but without an indication that a player has an old rating and an
approximate year, it's an enormous amount of work. And mistakes are made
even when the TD indicates on the rating report that a player has an old
rating.

When our rating software is rewritten later this year, this should take some
pressure off our overburdened ratings department and hopefully lead to greater
accuracy.

Bill Goichberg


Miriling wrote:
From the pages of Chess Life (example: Winter 2004 issue, page 60):

"You never lose your rating no matter how long it has been since you last
played. If you return to tournament play after a long absence, please tell

the
Director your approximate rating and year of play. If you rejoin USCF after
many years without being a member, please provide this information for the

USCF
office as well."

This policy, unfortunately, does not apply to all former USCF members who

have
had ratings. At my local club recently a player returned to play after an
absence of 21 years! He rejoined the USCF and I provided the office with
detailed information, including his ID number and his expiration date,
requesting that it retain this ID number when processing the membership
renewal. I specifically requested that the office not issue him a new

number.
Instead, the office issued him a new ID number! Also, the office ignored

the
fact that this player had an established rating from the past and chose to
process him as a brand new player with no rating! This also happened to one
other player at the club last year, whose established rating from the past

was
ignored and he had start all over as an unrated player. In that case,

however,
the USCF office retained his old ID number.
The bottom line is that "Once Rated, Always Rated" is a joke. I get the
impression that some USCF office workers - not all - could not be bothered
taking the detailed information they are given and are too lazy to look in

the
supplements they should have at the office to verify the information that

is
paintstakingly provided them by sellers of USCF memberships, especially

those
who have been selling USCF memberships for more than 30 years.
It is no wonder that the USCF membership database contains errors,

especially
in the way of erroneous information, misspellings of names, the same person
listed with more than one ID number, the same person listed with different
spellings of his/her name and consequently different IDs and in many cases
different ratings.
I wish the "Once Rated, Always Rated" policy could be adhered to 100

percent.
Unfortunately, it isn't.

George Mirijanian


--
--------------------------------------------------------
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn
the world, but to save the world through Him. John 3:17









  #8   Report Post  
Old February 28th 04, 09:14 PM
sandirhodes
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!


"Recmate" wrote
A lot of crosstable printout books, as well as rating cards from pre-computer
days, were foolishly thrown away. Precious collectors items were lost that
should be in the Hall of Fame, such as the rating cards (lifetime rating
histories) of players like Reshevsky and Fine (Fischer's had mysteriously
disappeared earlier). Also lost was a rating card for Humphrey Bogart in
Kenneth Harkness' handwriting; Bogart played in one tournament in the 1940s and
had a Class A rating, about 1939.


Do we know who these fools were?


  #9   Report Post  
Old February 28th 04, 10:50 PM
NoMoreChess
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

..
Do we know who these fools were?



Accountability? You want ACCOUNTABILITY??! Bwahahaha! This is the USCF,
you numskull, not some real organization! Sorry, but I couldn't resist.






  #10   Report Post  
Old March 7th 04, 05:16 AM
Brother Darryl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Once rated, always rated?! No siree!

George,

I recently returned in December after being absent from tournament play
since 1974. (yes, 29 years) The TD had a large box he started rummaging
through and came up to me about 30 minutes after I registered and said he
had found my rating in an old rating book he had brought with him. Go
figure.

Oh, and yes, I played like I had been gone 29 years I went out and promptly
got smacked by a 1900 rated player. (I finished the tourney 1.5-3.5). But I
had a GREAT time!

Darryl


"Miriling" wrote in message
...
From the pages of Chess Life (example: Winter 2004 issue, page 60):

"You never lose your rating no matter how long it has been since you last
played. If you return to tournament play after a long absence, please tell

the
Director your approximate rating and year of play. If you rejoin USCF

after
many years without being a member, please provide this information for the

USCF
office as well."

This policy, unfortunately, does not apply to all former USCF members who

have
had ratings. At my local club recently a player returned to play after an
absence of 21 years! He rejoined the USCF and I provided the office with
detailed information, including his ID number and his expiration date,
requesting that it retain this ID number when processing the membership
renewal. I specifically requested that the office not issue him a new

number.
Instead, the office issued him a new ID number! Also, the office ignored

the
fact that this player had an established rating from the past and chose to
process him as a brand new player with no rating! This also happened to

one
other player at the club last year, whose established rating from the past

was
ignored and he had start all over as an unrated player. In that case,

however,
the USCF office retained his old ID number.
The bottom line is that "Once Rated, Always Rated" is a joke. I get the
impression that some USCF office workers - not all - could not be bothered
taking the detailed information they are given and are too lazy to look in

the
supplements they should have at the office to verify the information that

is
paintstakingly provided them by sellers of USCF memberships, especially

those
who have been selling USCF memberships for more than 30 years.
It is no wonder that the USCF membership database contains errors,

especially
in the way of erroneous information, misspellings of names, the same

person
listed with more than one ID number, the same person listed with different
spellings of his/her name and consequently different IDs and in many cases
different ratings.
I wish the "Once Rated, Always Rated" policy could be adhered to 100

percent.
Unfortunately, it isn't.

George Mirijanian



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
Statistics on USCF rated tournaments in 2003 Mike Nolan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 20 February 28th 04 03:04 AM
Standard rated chess? Chris Merli rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 January 8th 04 03:58 PM
Any data on rated games played per year per state? GreenPencil rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 November 3rd 03 08:12 PM
Extra Rated Games? Matt Nemmers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 October 23rd 03 12:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 PM.

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