Rules for FIDE Rapidplay Rating

[Ian Thompson]

Can anyone explain the following.

The results of the Leamington Spa Rapidplay are here. Leo Tsoi has had 5 games rated, but the games have not been rated for any of his opponents. He had a FIDE standard rating, but no rapidplay rating, prior to the event, so I expected the games to be rated using his standard rating. Why hasn't that been done for him when it has been done for other players in the tournament who had a standard rating but no rapidplay rating?

[Sean Hewitt]

The results of the Leamington Spa Rapidplay are here. Leo Tsoi has had 5 games rated, but the games have not been rated for any of his opponents. He had a FIDE standard rating, but no rapidplay rating, prior to the event, so I expected the games to be rated using his standard rating. Why hasn't that been done for him when it has been done for other players in the tournament who had a standard rating but no rapidplay rating?

In a word, no.

He has clearly been treated as an unrated player. I wonder if has something to do with him scoring less than 1 point in total? Could be a bug in what would, of course, be new rating software.

We'll look into it for you and let you know.

[Alan Burke]

I have noticed another seemingly unfairness in the FIDE rating system and have been in correspondence about the matter with some notable chess authoritarians, who, although maybe agreeing with my point of view, have pointed out the law which governs this particular occurance.

The fact of the matter is as follows ...

A recent FIDE-rated event took place towards the end of a monthly rating period and, because the organisers would not have had time to submit all the details in time for that month's ratings, the tournament was shown on the FIDE website to be included in the following month's calculations.
(eg ... An event takes place on 29/30/31 Janaury and therefore the ratings from that tournament are not included until the published list on 1st March).

In that competition, one particular player (unrated at the time of the event) played 6 rated opponents. However, on the FIDE rating list issued just one day after the tournament (1st February), the player was shown to have a FIDE rating based on his results of previous events.

However, when the next FIDE list was issued (1st March), although the event on 29-31 January was then included and the player in question received rating points for his performance in that event, his opponents did not have their matches included and were classed as having played an unrated player.

The particular FIDE rule covering this situation is as follows ...

-------------------------------------------
02. FIDE Rating Regulations (Qualification Commission):

8.4 If an unrated player receives a published rating before a particular tournament in which he has played is rated, then he is rated as a rated player with his current rating, but in the rating of his opponents he is counted as an unrated player.
-------------------------------------------

However, that ruling does seem a bit unfair on the opponents, who don't receive any rating for the matches just because the event was not rated quickly enough. If the competition is to be rated in the following month, then why can't EVERY player's calculations be based on the FIDE ratings published at the start of that month instead of just some ?

Due to the recent increase of published FIDE-rating lists (ie once a month), it would appear that the above scenario will become ever more frequent for any competitions which take place towards the end of that particular period.

[Sean Hewitt]

However, that ruling does seem a bit unfair on the opponents, who don't receive any rating for the matches just because the event was not rated quickly enough. If the competition is to be rated in the following month, then why can't EVERY player's calculations be based on the FIDE ratings published at the start of that month instead of just some ?

If the rule were to be changed to allow such a game to be rated, the opponents would not know what rating the unrated player would count as for their game. In a system where each game is rated individually, that would seem unreasonable to me,

[Roger de Coverly]

Due to the recent increase of published FIDE-rating lists (ie once a month), it would appear that the above scenario will become ever more frequent for any competitions which take place towards the end of that particular period.

The cut off rules are well defined though, so even if an event submits results late, it doesn't change the calculations. It seems a reasonable design for a world system that the rating for every player is established and known at the start of the tournament. The solution to this particular problem is the shorten the reporting deadlines. The current structure where every result goes through a national IRO probably creates bottlenecks, but whether FIDE would want to risk allowing organisers to report directly would be something they might be reluctant to implement.

[Alan Burke]

I understand the comments above and was just pointing out an anomaly to the rules which will now become more frequent due to the new monthly rating system. I agree with Roger that, now that FIDE have shortened the rating period, they could perhaps also reduce the time for submitting events. The current situation means that the opponent not only misses out on his game being rated at the end of the month in which the match is played but also in the following month.

I also understand some players wishing to know their opponent's rating before a match, yet a comment is often heard of "play the player, not the grade." Further to that, if the unrated player's provisional rating was used for the event, the draw for the competition would still be the same irrespective of what occurred to the ratings afterwards.

[Alex McFarlane]

This anomoly has always existed but I'm not sure the monthly ratings have made it worse. For example, when the list appeared every two months someone who got their first 'rating' at Hastings remained unrated until March. Now that player is on the list in February. I think the number of rated v 'unofficially rated' games should now be less.

Events taking place just before the cut-off will always be a problem. One recent change made is that leagues will no longer have the option of submitting at the end of the season but must submit in the same timescale as a congress. This might also reduce the time that some players remain unrated. I think this will apply from next season rather than the current.

[Roger de Coverly]

One recent change made is that leagues will no longer have the option of submitting at the end of the season but must submit in the same timescale as a congress.

That's one not generally known. Did they also change the rules about the minimum score and minimum number of games for a part rating? If not, that would seem to blow away the use of the 4NCL or any similar league as a means of gaining a rating.

[LawrenceCooper]

However, that ruling does seem a bit unfair on the opponents, who don't receive any rating for the matches just because the event was not rated quickly enough. If the competition is to be rated in the following month, then why can't EVERY player's calculations be based on the FIDE ratings published at the start of that month instead of just some ?

If the rule were to be changed to allow such a game to be rated, the opponents would not know what rating the unrated player would count as for their game. In a system where each game is rated individually, that would seem unreasonable to me,

It would also be impractical if the opponent was playing for a norm and wouldn't know what result was needed because the currently unrated player's new rating wouldn't be known until after the tournament had finished. Rating list are generally published on the last day of the previous month so realistically events have to be submitted a week before the end of the month even if FIDE will sometimes rate events submitted a couple of days before.

[Sean Hewitt]

I understand the comments above and was just pointing out an anomaly to the rules which will now become more frequent due to the new monthly rating system. I agree with Roger that, now that FIDE have shortened the rating period, they could perhaps also reduce the time for submitting events.

They have. The deadline for submitting prior to the end of the rating period was one month. It was the redcuced to one week and now appears to be a few (4 or 5) days.

[Alex McFarlane]

Alex McFarlane wrote:
One recent change made is that leagues will no longer have the option of submitting at the end of the season but must submit in the same timescale as a congress.

That's one not generally known. Did they also change the rules about the minimum score and minimum number of games for a part rating? If not, that would seem to blow away the use of the 4NCL or any similar league as a means of gaining a rating.

I've checked the QC minutes. Leagues must report results monthly from 1/7/13. This unifies the system. As it was previously allowed to do it in either way I don't think this should affect norm chances other than the opponents' ratings at the time of a game will be used, so the order of meeting opponents might be more significant.

[David Sedgwick]

That's one not generally known.

Lots of the detailed decisions of the recent FIDE Congress are not yet generally known, as the new Regulations are only slowly appearing. That's not a significant problem, as most changes don't come into effect until 1st July 2013.

[Roger de Coverly]

I've checked the QC minutes. Leagues must report results monthly from 1/7/13. This unifies the system. As it was previously allowed to do it in either way I don't think this should affect norm chances other than the opponents' ratings at the time of a game will be used, so the order of meeting opponents might be more significant.

The concern for potential un-rated players in the 4NCL is whether the 4NCL can still be used to gain partial or full ratings. Unlike some European leagues, reporting of results was deferred until the end of the season, presumably for this reason. One of the contributors to this forum was put out when he discovered that he had failed to gain at least one point against rated opposition and so had not got a part rating .....