swbobcat
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 18 |   |
Karma: 0
|
ratings for new players - 2010/01/08 04:37
First I want to thank you for your post. From my own perspective I think your proposed idea of basing it on a rating of 1500 is an excellent idea. I think in order to be of real value it needs to be standards based. Right now in the USCF there is a huge problem with ratings DEFLATION because the vast majority of scholastic players are highly UNDER RATED -- indeed many "scholastic" ratings are based upon such intangibles as AGE and GRADE of the child. Add to this mix that many scholastic chess programs employ rated experts and above to coach said children and you have a kid who in reality has a real rating strength of 1100 but is rated at 800.
Just out of shear curiosity -- I know what they say about CATS and Curiosity -- what is the exact purpose of your rating system?!? Is the purpose for intraschool competition (within the school proper and to have FUN) or is it to prepare them for eventual USCF Scholastic competition?!? Big difference. Me?!? While I STRONGLY support the idea of using chess as TOOL to teach things such as analysis, concentration, etc. which will help boost things such as Science and Math scores -- and doing it in a FUN and creative way, I think there is way too much effort being spent on making scholastic chess a competitive "sport". I know of no other "sport" where children play adults, nor do I know of any other "sport" where children get professional coaching, and adults do not. There are many OLDER ADULTS who resent the intrusion of 8-12 olds into what should be an ADULT competition. Given that many of these "scholastic" players are UNDER RATED, and the subsequent Ratings Deflation that goes with it makes for a potent brew of resentment towards Scholastic players.
I had an experience where I by default had to play an 8 year old girl -- no one else wanted to play her -- in a "friendly" skittles game, but who was receiving Chess Lessons. The club uses standard sized Card Tables and Chairs. The girl had to STAND UP for the entire game because when she sat down in a chair she could barely see over the edge of the table to say nothing of the board. You could tell that the child was receiving lessons, even had her mother not told me. I took the kid out of book from move 1 and stomped her flat. Many ADULTS simply do not want to play against some child who they know is now being coached by some professional. Bringing an 8 y.o. into a club intended for ADULTS bewilders me.
The problem with facing a scholastic player is that no one knows what their true playing strength is; is it the 800 listed, or is it much higher?!? I lost a skittles game to a kid with a USCF rating of 600. With that type of rating I should be able to be stoned, half asleep, and just pushing wood and still beat the person without a sweat. I learned my lesson, and since that time I've adopted a cold hearted approach of stomping them flat as fast as I can, or I'll end up being the stompee. Maybe if Scholastic Players were forced to use a more realist rating system like the one you are proposing at least the child's true playing strength would be known, rather than a game of Russian Roulette.
Popular posts by swbobcat
Plastic Sets: HOS or Drueke?
Have You DESIGNED a Chess Set?!?
House of Staunton plastic chess ...
|
post new topic