I can understand how it might not be possible at a national scholastic to find the coach of every kid who erroneously agrees that he has been checkmated. At our Atlanta area tournaments I know most of the coaches and can easily find out who is coaching a particular school if I don’t know that beforehand. I cannot conceive of a " very good practical reason" for not looking at the board, though.
I actually wrote “reasons”. Here’s an incomplete list.
- At national scholastics, Rule 11H1 is generally in effect.
- It’s much easier to avoid being accused of partiality if you only accept the result the players give.
- It’s not so easy to catch even all the elementary mistakes you see when you take a few hundred or so results per round.
- It’s hard enough making sure that you have a completely filled out, correctly signed, properly reported result slip from two kids of varying ages and maturities. (Result slips must not have any cross-outs or other unusual markings, so it is often necessary to have the players fill out an entirely new result slip.)
- When you have a dozen or more hands waving in the air to get you to take their results at the same time, it becomes much more important to simply get each result and move on to the next.
I never said that I would correct any mistakes that I see. Rule 11H1 is in effect at our tournaments, too.
I also only accept the result that the players give me. Notice that although I said that there were three instances where the two players agreed that there was a checkmate on the board when in fact there was not, I did not say that I corrected their reported result. If they agreed it was a checkmate that’s the result that got reported.
Your last two points have merit, and I understand the situations of needing to have pristine results slips, and of many hands in the air at once. If you’re not going to talk to the child’s coach later, and I would certainly not expect you to at a national scholastic, then there is no need to make a note of who agreed to a spurious checkmate. Since I am going to do so, I’m willing to take the couple of seconds it takes to write down “305 black”, or whatever, before moving on the next outstretched hand.
The list I wrote comprised, IMO, “very good practical reasons” for not looking at the board when collecting results at a national scholastic. That was its only purpose. I don’t think I claimed or implied anything about what rules were/are in effect in Georgia events. If I did, I now unequivocally retract any such statements, as I know nothing about that subject.
I do mention to a coach if one of his or her players agrees that he or she was checkmated when in fact they were not, but that is not the reason why I look at the board when I come to ascertain the result. I find some of the most interesting checkmate patterns in scholastic games, positions that you will never see in any Grandmaster encounter. They can have a real sense of beauty and can be a good exercise in retrograde analysis.
I have never worked at a national scholastic tournament. Quite possibly the TD’s there have no time for anything except collecting results, and cannot linger over any particularly interesting position. If so, then I can only say that I am not sorry never to have been a TD at one.
IMO, the most demanding job at any national scholastic involves being a floor TD. Floor TDs help reset the playing hall between rounds, verify result slips, resolve/document player disputes and warnings, and help with crowd control.* Many floor TDs walk between 15,000 and 20,000 steps a day when working the main event. Unfortunately, that doesn’t leave a lot of time or energy for looking at interesting positions. Conserving energy and resting/eating between rounds becomes paramount.
-
- Parents and coaches are generally permitted on the floor, usually in restricted areas some distances from the boards. This is a policy set by the Scholastic Council.
If you want to be helpful to a coach or a child after the fact, by pointing out that a position reported as checkmate wasn’t actually checkmate, the very least you ought to do is to wait a lo-o-o-ong time after the game is over before you point it out. Wait at least one full round, or better yet, wait until the tournament is over. Maybe even wait until the next day or two.
That way, you avoid all kinds of accusations about favoritism, etc.
Bill Smythe
Not to mention clamors to have the result changed.
After my last post on this thread I thought I would not post on it again. I now see three subsequent posts that I am going to answer. This does seem to be degenerating into argument, though, and since I’ve made the point I wanted to make I’m going to bow out after these three…
I believe what you say about the onerous requirements for Floor TD’s at the national scholastics. This sounds like an understaffing issue, and reinforces my opinion that I’m not sorry never to have worked one. I also think it’s a bad policy to let parents on the playing floor during a round. We don’t allow that in our state level tournaments.
This seems like really stretching to try to think of some potential problem. In my experience every coach that I talk to about this has been happy to be so informed, and no accusation of favoritism has ever been communicated to me.
There have been no clamors to have the result changed. Anyway, absent verified player cheating or TD error I’m not going to change any result that’s been posted. Once the players have agreed to a result and signed the result slip that result is going to stand.
I could understand few clamors. No clamors would be unusual in some other areas of the country. I’ve had parents and coaches try to change results during tournaments in which the players go to the scorer’s table together with one result and only after the coach goes over the notation in the team room is it discovered that the checkmate or stalemate that the players thought occurred didn’t actually occur. In over thirty years of directing I don’t remember ever changing a result based on that.
Don’t read too much into that statement. Parents/coaches aren’t allowed “on the floor” at the National Scholastics. They can view from a distance. For example, at the last K-6 Nationals, at the entrance/exit of the rather large playing hall, there was a roped off area with chairs. Parents were allowed in this section only. Past the ropes were the playing tables. Unless your child was at one of the first few tables, it was pretty much impossible to watch the game. The only benefit is that it was a closer place to wait for your child to come back rather than the large skittles room a whole floor below.
At events like these I completely understand the restrictions. At smaller events, it often doesn’t matter. It just depends on the type of event, the size of the playing area, etc. I often direct/help out at some large free non-rated scholastic tournaments in Chicago. These are often with over 300 players. Strangely enough, we allow parents to watch games as long as they stay to the side and don’t get in the way. There are very few problems. I suspect it’s the casual low-key atmosphere that helps with that. The stakes are much higher at the Nationals.
I’m struggling to understand this. A “floor” at a tournament is comprised of the entire playing hall. An open floor is one that allows spectators other than players and tournament officials. A closed floor is one that only allows players and tournament officials. A floor is either open or closed, period.
Most sections of national events are in playing halls large enough that the spectator area on the floor is a good distance away from the boards. Of course, this is not always true, especially if the national scholastic is smaller in nature (not every event is the National Elementary). Even when the room is large enough to permit this, however, spectators can - and have - caused issues.
I see three options.
I’d consider a floor either Open (such as at the US Open or Chicago Open where spectators can walk next to the boards), Closed (no spectators, such as some of the All Girls Nationals and National Youth Action events held in halls that did not support having a viewing area) or Semi-Closed (limited viewing area in the playing hall or in the open balcony above the playing hall, such as the National Elementary or National HS).
I must confess, this is the first I’ve ever heard of a “semi-closed” (or “semi-open”) floor. I understand the distinction, but I seriously question how much of a difference there is.
At the national scholastics (or most local scholastics for that matter) the player to TD ratio is such that TDs do not call touch move or illegal moves. Also non-existent checkmates are generally allowed to end the game if both players think it is a checkmate. If the floor is open (such as at the Chicago Open or US Open) you can just imagine how many parents or coaches would yield to temptation and say something in such situations (I’ve ejected an occasional coach in local HS tournaments that have open floors and if parents accompanied the HS kids there would be a lot more such ejections).
The semi-(open/closed) floor avoids a lot of such interference in games (at national scholastics I’ve still had the occasional parent complain about an illegal move that occured six rows of tables away). A closed floor avoids all of such interference.
Unless it’s a FIDE event, or someone above me on the food chain for that tournament specifies otherwise, I always employ Rule 11H1, regardless of the event.
Again, I readily get the distinction. But I do not believe there is much of a functional difference, because interference and crowd control issues still require the time and attention of the floor TDs. I have a number of stories with direct personal experience, including on what you define as semi-closed floors. (I imagine you have those as well.)
Yep, I do have those stories for scholastics. I also had a significantly higher percentage of stories to games in an open floor versus a semi-closed floor. It is a difference in degree rather than pure function. The stories from events open to adults are quite a bit fewer as far as game intervention goes (or perception of same). With a semi-closed floor a coach that is a master that obviously cannot see the board in a game is not automatically suspected of cheating by giving signals. With an open floor (such as at the Chicago Open) I have heard a number of such complaints (none anywhere close to substantiated yet - you were involved in the one where a player who did okay in the D section was accused of signaling moves to his relative in the A section because the opponent’s relatives thought he was a master).
I’m really glad to hear that has been your experience. For the most part it has been mine as well, but not universally, and the exceptions are not as rare as I wish they were. For my part, I’ve decided not to open that door. I make an exception once in awhile if I happen know the coach well, have the time, and remember about the situation when I happen to run into him/her. That perfect trifecta doesn’t happen very often.