PDA

View Full Version : Glicko Protection Unrated Events.



PHAT
18-06-2006, 03:16 PM
Idea:

Each state to have an event or two, that was not rated.

Advertise it as:

*An event for rusty returning players who fear a Glicko rating dive.
*An event where you can play wild speculative chess and not destroy your rating.
*An event with 10% increase in prize money.

Question:
Who would/wouldn't play because it was unrated?

bergil
18-06-2006, 03:19 PM
Idea:

Each state to have an event or two, that was not rated.

Advertise it as:

*An event for rusty returning players who fear a Glicko rating dive.
*An event where you can play wild speculative chess and not destroy your rating.
*An event with 10% increase in prize money.

Question:
Who would/wouldn't play because it was unrated?
You should trial this idea at the common man and see what happens. :hmm:

PHAT
18-06-2006, 03:40 PM
You should trial this idea at the common man and see what happens. :hmm:

Perhaps next year.

But before that, I would like to get a feel for how promotable it might be.

The egalitarian "no big open prize" seems to be a dud. That is why this year the Commonman has a $500 for 1st Open prize.

Rincewind
18-06-2006, 05:47 PM
The egalitarian "no big open prize" seems to be a dud. That is why this year the Commonman has a $500 for 1st Open prize.

Where are the details?

Carl Gorka
18-06-2006, 06:03 PM
Idea:

Each state to have an event or two, that was not rated.

Advertise it as:

*An event for rusty returning players who fear a Glicko rating dive.
*An event where you can play wild speculative chess and not destroy your rating.
*An event with 10% increase in prize money.

Question:
Who would/wouldn't play because it was unrated?

I would happily play unrated events. The ratings have little interest for me at the moment, but I haven't been in oz long;)

PHAT
18-06-2006, 06:26 PM
Where are the details?
You should get the email tomorrow. But until then ...

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=107373#post107373

Desmond
18-06-2006, 06:55 PM
Question:
Who would/wouldn't play because it was unrated?
I'm playing in a 1 day event in 2 weeks time with 20 min guilloutine (or however you spell it) time controls. I think it will be a blast. I don't think it is rated (no mention on the form) which will be a nice change.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2006, 07:49 PM
Are there really events that spend 10% of their prizepool in ratings fees?

I'd be reluctant to pay to play in an unrated event that wasn't blitz.

There are plenty of other ways for rusty players to work themselves back into form before playing if they are scared of dropping ratings points.

Garvinator
18-06-2006, 08:30 PM
I'm playing in a 1 day event in 2 weeks time with 20 min guilloutine (or however you spell it) time controls. I think it will be a blast. I don't think it is rated (no mention on the form) which will be a nice change.
doesnt mention that it wont be rated either ;). I am going to try and find out if it will be rated or not. It should be rated in my opinion. It is completely free to rapid rate tournaments. Leaving tournaments out from rating only increasing the rating problems, in my opinion.

But it is up to the organisers.

ElevatorEscapee
18-06-2006, 09:22 PM
Are there really events that spend 10% of their prizepool in ratings fees?....

Chess Victoria rating fees for a rated tournament are a flat rate of $5 per player per tournament.

Consider a $50 adult entry fee to a tournament and there's your 10% of prize fund. :(

PHAT
18-06-2006, 10:07 PM
Chess Victoria rating fees for a rated tournament are a flat rate of $5 per player per tournament.

Consider a $50 adult entry fee to a tournament and there's your 10% of prize fund. :(
And in NSW it is a similar story. 7 rounds at 50c each is $3.50. A small club tournament with a $15 entry will pay a quarter of the entry in rating fees.

Desmond
18-06-2006, 10:12 PM
Chess Victoria rating fees for a rated tournament are a flat rate of $5 per player per tournament.

And in NSW it is a similar story. 7 rounds at 50c each is $3.50.

That seems a lot to me. Call me naive (or anything as long as it's not Shirley), but that seems a lot.

Kevin Bonham
18-06-2006, 10:13 PM
And in NSW it is a similar story. 7 rounds at 50c each is $3.50. A small club tournament with a $15 entry will pay a quarter of the entry in rating fees.

I thought that NSWCA did not take any rating fee beyond the ACF's and as such 7 rounds at 50c per game (not per player per game) is $1.75 per player?

For weekenders in Tas ratings fees are about 3-4% of prize pool.

Club events typically have no entry fees (or prize pool, just trophies) and ratings fees + trophy costs are paid out of a player's club membership.

I forgot that CV charges a rating fee in excess of the ACF's. Does any other state do so?

Basil
19-06-2006, 02:58 AM
Sharing the Queensland experience...

- We have difficulty getting interclub running up here.
- CAQ is constantly balancing the need between bigger prizes and affordability.
- Ratings seem to be the be all and end all of everything.

An exception: Qld Teams Championships
- A creation of mine, now in its 5th year [yes Barry, 1st p.s.]
- No Ratings
- 1 day event
- Built on team hype - play for club, do it for your mates stuff
- Clubs chased up actively by me
- Social atmosphere
- Trophy and board prizes
- Marketed as a special event, not just another event
- Venue rotated between clubs in SE Qld [100klm radius of Brisbane]
- Entry Fee $10 per player senior, $5 per player junior [often club picks up tab]
- Arbiter/ organiser donates time [from our Council]
- Last event of the year
- Teams play in team colours/ shirts
- Senior Teams 18+ [Team of 8]
- Junior Teams 17- [Team of 4]
- Last year 100 players

State association makes a small dollar. A fun, successful and memorable day always had by all.

Ian Rout
19-06-2006, 09:54 AM
I don't really see the point. If you want to play "fun" chess that's fine and there's plenty of that goes on - it just isn't generally done in an organised way.

If you want to "protect" your rating, though, the best way to do that is to play a lot of rated chess so that any unevenness in results will cancel out, and the reliability factor in your rating, and hence its volatility, is minimised.

The only real "protection" playing unrated events will give you is if you are over-rated, but it will catch up with you at the next event instead, with the added drawback of ruling you out of rating prizes in the interim.

The exception is where you are rated much higher than most of the field, so you are more at risk of losing points simply because you have much more room to move in that direction whereas gaining significant points is mathematically difficult or impossible. I think this is a more general issue than just ratings though.

PHAT
19-06-2006, 12:19 PM
If you want to "protect" your rating, though, the best way to do that is to play a lot of rated chess so that any unevenness in results will cancel out, and the reliability factor in your rating, and hence its volatility, is minimised.

Ah yes, I agree, this is the BEST way. However, if a player can only compete OTB infequently (because there ARE other things in life,) the BEST way then, is to play in unrated events.


The only real "protection" playing unrated events will give you is if you are over-rated,

Not quite. The whole story is that many players want "protection" from volitility for this or that reason. Therefore, if a person plays ONLY unrated events then they are protecting the stability of their rating, not its level.

BTW, I am not one of these people, but I do understand that their wants are different to mine and yours. Should they not be catered for?

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2006, 12:36 PM
Ah yes, I agree, this is the BEST way. However, if a player can only compete OTB infequently (because there ARE other things in life,) the BEST way then, is to play in unrated events.

In that case if the player is only ever going to play infrequently but is permanently worried about losing ratings points because they are never going to be confident of playing to their rating, then what they want is to have their rating held permanently at an artificially high level.

Furthermore if a player is playing infrequently but only in unrated events as per your suggestion then their rating becomes permanently inactive at an outdated level and hence meaningless.

PHAT
19-06-2006, 01:16 PM
In that case if the player is only ever going to play infrequently but is permanently worried about losing ratings points because they are never going to be confident of playing to their rating, then what they want is to have their rating held permanently at an artificially high level.

This is logically incomplete - therefore flawed.

At no time did I suggest that these players are fearful of loses. They can be equally afraid of rising into the next rating division. Volitility is what they wish to avoid.

You, Kevin, are unfairly painting these players as pretenders.


Furthermore if a player is playing infrequently but only in unrated events as per your suggestion then their rating becomes permanently inactive at an outdated level and hence meaningless.

1. Not at all "meaningless." It is a figure that has meaning in a historical sence.

2. Players who avoid (Glicko) rating are likely to be lost to chess sooner than later. Some in frequent players want less volitility, and the rating system could/should give it to them.

3. Volitility maybe driving some players away. My orginal question was, is there a place for unrated tournaments that play better prize money.

4. Please do not assail these players with rightous criticism of there motives. Chess administrators should be attempting to retain these players, not dismiss their needs as being not deliverable.

Ian Rout
19-06-2006, 01:39 PM
BTW, I am not one of these people, but I do understand that their wants are different to mine and yours. Should they not be catered for?
If there are enough of them to make tournaments viable, certainly. I have my doubts, except as a novelty, but we won't know until somebody tries it.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2006, 02:43 PM
At no time did I suggest that these players are fearful of loses. They can be equally afraid of rising into the next rating division. Volitility is what they wish to avoid.

You suggested the returning players are fearful of losses in your very first post: "*An event for rusty returning players who fear a Glicko rating dive." As such my comments on motive were entirely proper (given your further comments) and your reinventions of your position in order to troll mine were completely out of order.

Since you have now for the first time introduced the issue of players becoming overrated I'll address that too: basically we don't have a sandbagging issue in this country and very few players, especially those playing rarely, would be bothered if their rating went up. Most players are flattered by a rating boost even when it is not merited.


1. Not at all "meaningless." It is a figure that has meaning in a historical sence.

But the same meaning can be conveyed by "15 years ago my rating was 1700".


2. Players who avoid (Glicko) rating are likely to be lost to chess sooner than later. Some in frequent players want less volitility, and the rating system could/should give it to them.

3. Volitility maybe driving some players away. My orginal question was, is there a place for unrated tournaments that play better prize money.

Concerning both 2 and 3 the question is what evidence exists that these things are happening. Concerning 3, for weekend events in any state other than Victoria, ratings fees should not be a large percentage of the prize pool. Also your prizemoney increase only applies for a field of the same size, which I suspect is unlikely.


4. Please do not assail these players with rightous criticism of there motives. Chess administrators should be attempting to retain these players, not dismiss their needs as being not deliverable.

Their needs are deliverable - if they are so keen to see such kinds of tournaments they can deliver them themselves!

Desmond
19-06-2006, 03:16 PM
I find when I play unrated games on the net, players will be a lot quicker to resign if they make a mistake or get a position they do not like. If the game is rated, they are much more likely to fight on.

I do not think the problem will be as prevalent OTB, but it may still be present.

PHAT
19-06-2006, 03:29 PM
You suggested the returning players are fearful of losses in your very first post: "*An event for rusty returning players who fear a Glicko rating dive."

No I suggestted that as a likely marketing device. Most people do not want a drop for what ever reason - especially when the reason is an abitarily high volitility.


... basically we don't have a sandbagging issue in this country and very few players, especially those playing rarely, would be bothered if their rating went up.

You have a lack of evidence for sandbagging, but that is not evidence of it not existing.


Most players are flattered by a rating boost even when it is not merited.

:eek: For you to say such a thing, you must have seen it happen. Unmerrited UPs means that there must be unmerrited DOWNs. Surely not :doh: All Glicko rating adjustments are merrited, are they not?



Concerning both 2 and 3 the question is what evidence exists that these things are happening.

Only anachdotal. That is why I am asking for opinions.


Their needs are deliverable - if they are so keen to see such kinds of tournaments they can deliver them themselves!

That is a wholey unhelpful attitude - unacceptable from an ACF official. :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2006, 07:13 PM
No I suggestted that as a likely marketing device. Most people do not want a drop for what ever reason - especially when the reason is an abitarily high volitility.

And you didn't suggest rating rise as a marketing device because you know that virtually nobody, especially not an inactive player, would avoid playing a tournament for fear of their rating going up.


You have a lack of evidence for sandbagging, but that is not evidence of it not existing.

It is evidence of it not being a widespread and serious issue since if it was there would be sufficient evidence to detect it (as there is in the USA). There isn't.


:eek: For you to say such a thing, you must have seen it happen. Unmerrited UPs means that there must be unmerrited DOWNs. Surely not :doh: All Glicko rating adjustments are merrited, are they not?

As an example of an unmerited UP I have in mind cases where a weak player gets given ratings points as a result of a pitying or chivalrous opponent giving them an unmerited draw. In this case the unmerited DOWN is absorbed by a player who willingly concedes it.


Only anachdotal. That is why I am asking for opinions.

I notice Howard is also doing that, but not getting any evidence. The danger with anecdotal evidence is that it often concerns what people say, when both their actions and their true reasons may be otherwise.


That is a wholey unhelpful attitude - unacceptable from an ACF official. :hmm:

I am not posting as an ACF official.

The purposes of the ACF however include:

i. to foster and control the game of chess throughout Australia;

and

vii. to maintain a national rating system to enable comparison of the chess
playing abilities of Australian chess players;

Your proposal makes a contribution of dubious value to (i) since effort that could be used running probably more successful events would be expended, and is contrary to (vii) since effort that could be used running rated events would be expended on an unrated one.

As such running unrated events, except for national blitz championships, appropriate online events and the like, is not in the ACF's interests and there is no reason why the ACF or the state associations should organise them. Private organisers are welcome to.

PHAT
19-06-2006, 10:33 PM
As an example of an unmerited UP I have in mind cases where a weak player gets given ratings points as a result of a pitying or chivalrous opponent giving them an unmerited draw. In this case the unmerited DOWN is absorbed by a player who willingly concedes it.

That is not the only type unmerrited DOWN that regulary occurs. The rating adjustment for any result when one player is under/over rated will by definition be unmerritted. Since the majority of juniors are improving and the rating algorithm generates a lagged number (asymototic convergence) matches against them generate an adjustment that is skewed DOWN. (Barry Cox will confirm this)


The purposes of the ACF however include:
... vii. to maintain a national rating system to enable comparison of the chess playing abilities of Australian chess players;

... As such running unrated events, except for national blitz championships, appropriate online events and the like, is not in the ACF's interests and there is no reason why the ACF or the state associations should organise them.

True, when viewed so narrowly.

Kevin Bonham
19-06-2006, 10:49 PM
That is not the only type unmerrited DOWN that regulary occurs. The rating adjustment for any result when one player is under/over rated will by definition be unmerritted. Since the majority of juniors are improving and the rating algorithm generates a lagged number (asymototic convergence) matches against them generate an adjustment that is skewed DOWN.

This does not necessarily hold because Glicko has numerous compensatory mechanisms - reliability, volatility and use of interim PR, that mean that a player beaten by an underrated player is treated as if they have lost to a significantly higher-rated opponent than they actually have.

Even if it did hold a player should meet both underrated and overrated players in roughly equal proportions and the effects should cancel out, unless the area is experiencing a major junior boom.

PHAT
20-06-2006, 12:12 AM
... compensatory mechanisms - reliability, volatility and use of interim PR, that mean that a player beaten by an underrated player is treated as if they have lost to a significantly higher-rated opponent than they actually have.

Not true for the vast majority of matches because the vast majority are a !! vs !!


Even if it did hold a player should meet both underrated and overrated players in roughly equal proportions and the effects should cancel out, unless the area is experiencing a major junior boom.

No there are not roughly equil proportions of under and over rated. The proportion is (must be) the same as the proportion of steady improvers to statics/decliners. Only if that ratio is 1:1 will the under:over ratio be 1:1

[Look, I know you want to defend Glicko, but you are struggling to to so. Elo is a 3/10, Glicko was 4/10 and Glicko 2 is 5/10. All this should be in another thread.]

Bill Gletsos
20-06-2006, 12:35 AM
Not true for the vast majority of matches because the vast majority are a !! vs !!Immaterial as shown back in http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=18967&postcount=1 when I explained the process for Ronald Yu. Yu was a !! at the time and had been for a number of periods as were most of his opponents.

For example back in 2002 and up to the March 2003 rating period Ronald Yu's rating had been between 1691 in April 2002 and 1776 in March 2003. Now for the June 2003 ratings Ronalds opponents had their results calculated based on his March 2003 rating of 1776 yet he was clearly playing at a much higher level. It therefore seems reasonable for Ronalds opponents to treat him not as 1776 but as a player rated more like 2050. BTW Ronalds performance rating during this period was 2225. Testing shows that it is indeed better to do this as it leads to better predictive accuracy.
As usual you are making dogmatic statements whilst being clueless.


[Look, I know you want to defend Glicko, but you are struggling to to so. Elo is a 3/10, Glicko was 4/10 and Glicko 2 is 5/10. All this should be in another thread.]And no doubt yiur mighty Tri-rank is a 9/10. :whistle:
You are as big a waste of time as usual.

Basil
20-06-2006, 12:55 AM
You are as big a waste of time as usual.

Yellow Card: Bill. Not necessary.

Matt, at some point, you're going to have to stop knocking the ACF, NSWCA, the entire system and its officers.

It is very clear that excellent work is being done for all of our benefit. If as Bill suggests, he is right, your position is even more tenuous.

Bill Gletsos
20-06-2006, 01:06 AM
Yellow Card: Bill. Not necessary.Incorrect because we have been through all his rubbish previously, in which case if you had been here to see and read it you would have red carded him ages ago. :owned:

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2006, 01:45 AM
Not true for the vast majority of matches because the vast majority are a !! vs !!

Even if that's true:

(i) it is irrelevant to this thread given the target audience specified in the opening post - inactive rusties concerned about rating point loss are not !!s.
(ii) there are !!s and !!s as a !! who is rapidly improving will have higher volatility.


No there are not roughly equil proportions of under and over rated. The proportion is (must be) the same as the proportion of steady improvers to statics/decliners. Only if that ratio is 1:1 will the under:over ratio be 1:1

Even if there are not roughly equal proportions, the under-rateds as a group will typically be as under-rated in total as the over-rateds as a group. In some areas a player might play a few marginally over-rated players and one or two significantly under-rated juniors.

Of course we shouldn't fall into your stereotype that juniors are by definition underrated or that it is all that common for players to be inaccurately rated for any reason other than lack of evidence. At any time there may be some juniors who are improving so fast that no system could keep up with them but I question any claim that most juniors are underrated.


[Look, I know you want to defend Glicko, but you are struggling to to so.

My biggest challenge given the weakness of your attacks thus far is staying awake.


Elo is a 3/10, Glicko was 4/10 and Glicko 2 is 5/10. All this should be in another thread.]

I think it would be better to just move this whole thing to the Ratings Arena and will do so. It's your thread and you keep going off on "tangents" so don't expect us to do extra work.

My assessment:

ELO 5/10
Glicko 7/10
Glicko2 7.5/10
Anything devised by Sweeney thus far -2/10
Anything he is likely to devise in future -2/10

PHAT
20-06-2006, 12:40 PM
And no doubt yiur mighty Tri-rank is a 9/10. :whistle:
You are as big a waste of time as usual.
I would give that long ago failure 3/10. I have since then, designed and tested another system which 6/10. The ACF will not benefit from my work, but Australian chess will.

Bill Gletsos
20-06-2006, 12:43 PM
I would give that long ago failure 3/10. I have since then, designed and tested another system which 6/10.If you are referring to your theory on trending that was another dismal failure.

Brian_Jones
20-06-2006, 12:53 PM
Matt, at some point, you're going to have to stop knocking the ACF, NSWCA, the entire system and its officers..

No Howard, he does not have to stop knocking the system. Stakeholders should be encouraged to have their say. There is always room for improvement.

I for one will not shut up until we get Direct ACF membership, Directly elected officers and a full-time CEO and support office.

Why are you so happy Howard? Or have you no vision for the future?

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2006, 12:55 PM
I would give that long ago failure 3/10. I have since then, designed and tested another system which 6/10. The ACF will not benefit from my work, but Australian chess will.

In other news of the world, I've just discovered a way to square the circle and a magic spell that transmutes base metal into gold. However since I have been told by demons that I will be stomped by invisible rhinoceri if I make either of them public, I refuse to reveal the details. You will have to just all take it on faith. :P

Seriously Matt, what makes you think anyone is going to take any notice of this unsubstantiated bragging? If you want us to believe you have a superior system then produce a list of predictions using it.

Basil
20-06-2006, 01:21 PM
No Howard, he does not have to stop knocking the system.
Matt's knockings are one sided. I have said earlier how he can lobby and have his say. You are suggesting I ask Matt to shut up and that's an inaccurate assessment of my position.


Stakeholders should be encouraged to have their say. There is always room for improvement.
Agreed. I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.


I for one will not shut up until we get Direct ACF membership, Directly elected officers and a full-time CEO and support office.
I share your vision.

So, can we go back to my point? My point is that Matt needs tostop knocking the system and be part of it in order to achieve the things we apparently all want.

PHAT
20-06-2006, 01:35 PM
(ii) there are !!s and !!s as a !! who is rapidly improving will have higher volatility.
and this

Even if there are not roughly equal proportions, the under-rateds as a group will typically be as under-rated in total as the over-rateds as a group.

These two positions are not in accord. On one hand you point to the volatility factor as (as a factor that protects truely stable !! players.) On the other hand you claim that the under:over raio is ~ 1:1 (which can only occur in a zero sum gain process.)


At any time there may be some juniors who are improving so fast that no system could keep up with them ...

This shows a remarkably defeatest attitude, and you are wrong.


... but I question any claim that most juniors are underrated.

Question it as much as you like.
Since
* the average junior rises more than they fall.
* the Glicko algorithm is convergent (lagging)
* thus most juniors are underated
QED

How underated is a moot point. However, for you to NOT agree that juniors are underated, is untenable.


This is the last time I will reply to you not this topic in this thread. If you want me to reply to you, post in a relevent thread.

You are obviously a smart boy. I know you can find errors in logic. However, noone is good at everything. There is no shame in having gaps in our ability profile. You, Kevin, have an excelent knowledge about how the "parts" of the Glicko machine work in in isolation. Unfortunately you have a gap when it comes to understanding how parts behave when they opperate together. That is not your fault, it is just how you are. I do not have the willingness to walk you through it, but I have faith that your natural abilities will see you nut it out for your self one day. Good luck.


ELO 5/10
Glicko 7/10
Glicko2 7.5/10
Easy marker!

Anything devised by Sweeney thus far -2/10
Anything he is likely to devise in future -2/10
If you are angling at an A for a lay, forget it.;)

PHAT
20-06-2006, 01:41 PM
Seriously Matt, what makes you think anyone is going to take any notice of this unsubstantiated bragging?
Sometimes I get something wrong. But I am not in the habit of making stuff up.

If you want us to believe you have a superior system then produce a list of predictions using it.

How about ...................... no.




You can wait.






.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2006, 03:19 PM
These two positions are not in accord. On one hand you point to the volatility factor as (as a factor that protects truely stable !! players.) On the other hand you claim that the under:over raio is ~ 1:1 (which can only occur in a zero sum gain process.)

Claim in second brackets is pulled out of thin air - prove it mathematically.

It's true that in some areas a stably rated player could meet players with a greater sum of underrating than overrating but be protected by the higher RDs and volatilities of the former so that there was no net effect on their rating.


This shows a remarkably defeatest attitude, and you are wrong.

Been discussed to death before. The cost of a system that tries to keep pace with rapidly improving juniors fully is overshoots in the ratings of some stable-strength players who have had good results. If you can find a way around it I'm interested but I'm betting that you won't.


Question it as much as you like.
Since
* the average junior rises more than they fall.
* the Glicko algorithm is convergent (lagging)
* thus most juniors are underated
QED

Does not hold since the "average" may be an arithmetic mean of a large number of players making no progress and a smaller number making some or rapid progress.


How underated is a moot point. However, for you to NOT agree that juniors are underated, is untenable.

I am questioning the claim that most juniors are underrated, not the claim that some are.


This is the last time I will reply to you not this topic in this thread. If you want me to reply to you, post in a relevent thread.

I note this time your resolve lasted only six minutes.


You are obviously a smart boy.

And you are obviously at least 82 years old.

*various bluster, dribble and rubbish ignored*


You can wait.

Even as an atheist I'd be less surprised to see the second coming of Jesus than to see a workable rating system from you. :hand:

Rincewind
20-06-2006, 03:58 PM
Just a couple of points.

Ratings are a measure of relative strength and only have a genuine meaning when you are using them to measure the distance between two players. As such to say all players are underrated or all players are overrated is nonsensical. It makes sense to me that you might as well say that the ratio is approximately 1:1. Furthermore, the system makes the assumption that players do not have one playing strength which they display all the time but rather they have a distribution of playing strengths which they display and it is the mean of those strengths which is estimated by the published rating.

Regarding the issue of convergence induced lagging. This is only a real issue if players always play at exactly the same strength. As players will usually either overperform or underperform their mean rating strength the issue of convergence induced lag in any rating system is not nearly as problematic as PHAT suggests.

Desmond
27-06-2006, 12:06 AM
doesnt mention that it wont be rated either ;). I am going to try and find out if it will be rated or not. It should be rated in my opinion. It is completely free to rapid rate tournaments. Leaving tournaments out from rating only increasing the rating problems, in my opinion.

But it is up to the organisers.
Did you have any luck Garvin?