Why do we have NWRS rating system

Curious why do we have a separate rating system than USCF for tournaments in pacific northwest? I think most of scholastic tournaments have only that rating and adults are dual rated

Few troubles I see with a separate rating system

1. USCF rating for the scholastic kids is lower because they compete in local tournaments and not the USCF rated ones
2. NWRS ratings have a haphazard update schedule and seemed to be maintained by volunteers. 
3. Its hard to explain to kids why there is a different rating in NWRS, USCF, chess.com, lichess etc

Does USCF charge a significant fees for making these events USCF rated? 

I completely agree. The presence of the NWRS rating system has been hazardous for local children in terms of increasing their national ranking. 

fyi, USCF does indeed charge.  There's a fee for each rated game, it's not much, I don't know exactly, but it does cost something.  Plus, to have USCF rated events everyone MUST have USCF membership; that's an annual fee too.  The Northwest Scholastic System does not have fees, thus the kids can play for free in that system; that's attractive to parents.   The best young players then continue to play scholastic and move to uscf events and are seriously underrated.  they move up in ratings eventually; what is means in the northwest is, and especially in Seattle area where at least 2 GM's (Serper, Anka) plus a host of masters all teaching in schools and with hundreds of students, and they're very good.  Until uscf and the northwest scholastic folks come to some agreement, this will continue as far as we can see; and I see no agreement forthcoming.   As an interested observer.  

There are certain gates to running and playing in USCF tournaments that are avoided with the use of the NWSRS system. There are also certain restrictions that making games USCF rated puts on the tournaments and individual games, including the requirement of clock use and notation. The NWSRS rating system provides an easy entrance, particularly for younger kids, into the world of chess.

I also personally do not find it to be a negative thing that Washington folks are underrated. This means that when we venture out to national tournaments we find ourselves open to more prizes!

Sure, kids and parents don't always understand why there are so many different ratings, but is it not just an opportunity to teach kids basic concepts about policy? These concepts exist elsewhere in our lives (federal, state, local governments, for example) so it should be a valuable thing to learn. And in our case it's as simple as letting them know that each body (chess.com, Chesskid, NWSRS, USCF, FIDE etc) has different rules and priorities to make sure that their communities have access to the game in a fair and productive way.

There are things we can do to improve the opportunities for our more experienced youth, but I don't think removing the NWSRS rating system is the right approach.

Eventually, once a scholastic player advances in "adult tournaments", the value of their NWSRS rating is discarded and their USCF and FIDE rating are considered their "real" rating. Personally, I don't even know what my NWSRS rating is at the moment. What's the point of creating a rating system that will have no meaning later in a players' chess career? 

For any interested, I (Jacob Mayer) am happy to further discuss offline. While the NWSRS does have some drawbacks, it is 100% free to operate and handled by volunteers. I fully believe that the free NWSRS system has been influential in growing WA's flourishing scholastic community (which is one of the largest and most active in the country!). 

US Chess charges annual memberships for each player, and charges a small amount to rate each individual game. WCF (along with many other individual efforts) have attempted (on multiple occasions) to collaborate with US Chess to find some conversion method, and US Chess has blatantly ignored every attempt towards this end. And WCF has taken steps to offset the discrepancies (for example, we dual rate "Open" sections in our scholastic tournaments, to get scholastic players more US Chess experience), but at this point, I find it highly unlikely for the NWSRS to be done away with.  The NWSRS system exists because local players and organizers can access the governing bodies and work together to make changes to better our wonderful chess community. 

(Opinions stated are personal opinions of Jacob Mayer and not reflective of official WCF stances)

Well WCF has no ability to take it away. But I don't think the NWSRS is going away, and I would not worry about the possibility at all.

There are hundreds and hundreds of good Washington State scholastic players who never join uscf and don't play uscf tournaments; the NWSRS is not going away because the schools, parents and students love it and want it to continue.  And a main reason is it provides access to chess to larger numbers of players by not pricing them out, and that's nothing but goodness for chess as a whole.  

One other key point that wasn't mentioned regarding the benefits of a local rating system, separate from USCF, is that it's an independent rating system.  If USCF decides to charge more, or deny rating online games, or choose to enforce any other national policy that may not be in our community's interest, our local NW system can act more flexibly and still allow players to participate outside of the national system.  If and when a player chooses to "graduate" into playing mostly in USCF-rated tournaments, that's their choice regarding opportunities, costs, policies to observe, etc.  But until that moment there's a friendly local system in place.  (And that moment doesn't need to come for many young kids and parents who choose to dip their feet but don't need to go much further until they're sure they want it.)

Thanks Jacob/Valentin and others that responded. I now have more context. The easy barrier to entry for players is a big reason. 

I think that USCF is better because NWRS will anyways get discarded and USCF only is more simple. However, it is true that NWRS can be used as a back up

The Pacific Northwest had ratings for a long time. It had ratings done by computer before USChess had computized ratings. Believe Robert Karch started Northwest Ratings and they were done for years by several different people. They were stopped when the rating director died and no one wanted to pick up the work. Ollie started the scholastic rating system (NWRS) that is now the free one mostly for kids. Believe the NWRS ratings for people with both NWRS and USChess ratings are adjusted to the USChess rating once a year. Now crosstables for both current systems are online. Crosstables used to have to be typed and then printed in NORTHWEST CHESS. Then software was credited to pair chess tournaments and output from the software was used to print crosstables. Suppose that maybe an article about ratings in the PNW could be written for a future issue of NORTHWEST CHESS. Would be nice to honor the many people who did the rating work over the years. 

The NWSRS has a long history and reasons for creating and offering it were good in getting young scholastic players involved at low cost to their families.   However, I believe there have been unintended results in creating an unreliable measure of skill that does ot translate to USChess ratings, creating a situation where strong young players are inaccurately paired in tournaments, and opponents simply don't know the true strength of these players.   This has created an environment of mistrust.    I can say as a parent that chess, especially online chess, is one of the most beneficial and BY FAR least expensive os scholastic extracurricular activities (v.s other sports for example).    Certainly, any cost can be difficult for many families an no child should be unable to play organized chess.   I'd like to see USCHess offer very low cost memberships to ensure this (and perhaps they already do), which would allow us to re-standardize on the USCHess rating system for ALL players.   There are far too many rating pools in my humble opinion....Kent McNall

I think the thing to remember about the NWSRS is that many involved in the NWSRS have attempted to work with USCF, on many occasions, to find a more adequate solution to converting ratings. But I know other regions have their own scholastic rating systems and they aren't converted either. Until a time comes when there is a solid conversion, I know many organizers (WCF included) are USCF-rating events for younger and newer players. The current situation has made this more difficult by creating yet another pool with "USCF Online" ratings. Hopefully when we are back to playing in-person we can continue to narrow the gap between NWSRS and USCF. As for USCF memberships, they are slightly cheaper for juniors, but still $17 annually is the cheapest option for the youngest players. In my opinion (I speak as Jacob Mayer, not on behalf of the WCF), the cost is still too high to impose on every player.

Hi Jocab, compared with the $45-$50 imposed entry fee for each scholarstic event for every player in the Seattle area, I wouldn't consider the $17 USCF annual membership fee to be high at all.