Depends on the type of event. I’ve done G/20 events with 14 rounds finished in 4.5 hours of play (less than half the time you might expect with that time control. I’ve done rated G/30 events with 5 rounds finished in 2.75 hours of play.
That said, the multiple time control events you cited would probably not run on an ASAP schedule and might be flaggable. Single time control events might still actually finish in one day when you would have expected the number of rounds to take two days.
The other side of the coin is faster time control events taking more days than you might expect. I can easily imagine a club event with 5 rounds of G/75 taking 5 days (one round per evening) even though it could finish in a single day. I don’t know if your suggested change means you’d have more false positive “errors” than you currently have errors.
And for every error or warning that is the result of an aggressive (ASAP) schedule or similar issues (do people still run insanities?), there will need to be some kind of override. Thus it can lead to more problems than it solves.
And if you make it an alert that can be ignored rather that make it an error or warning which requires the TD to DO SOMETHING before the event can be rated, then I pretty much guarantee you it will be ignored.
At some future date, perhaps WinTD and SwisSys will be able to export the time control information for each section, which would simplify lots of things.
I’m not talking about an ASAP schedule or how long the tournament lasted. I’m talking about the number of hours that can be played at the board with the time control. One of the I cited above was submitted as being on one day, 4 rounds, and a time control of 30/90, SD/60. That is possibly 20 hours of chess in one day for a player! The time control and/or date is probably wrong in situations like this as most tournament do not have players possibly playing 20 hours of chess in one day! My proposed new warnings and errors would catch mistakes like this.
These events wouldn’t be flagged based on my proposed warnings and errors.
I do think (as I’ve previously mentioned) that it would help USCF to define a future upload structure that has all the data required to have a more robust MSA.
It’s been tried, more than once, and each time it devolved into a meta-discussion. I have recommended that we release a new XML-based upload format in 2013, as well as as an XML-based rating supplement file download format.
We need SOMETHING to take care of issuing Blitz ratings supplement files in 2013. Initially, I suspect what we will do is issue a file using the current Gold Master format with the blitz rating in place of either the regular or quick rating in that format.
I believe it would be reasonable to set December 31, 2015 as a ‘sundown date’ on the current upload and download formats, but that may not fly, because it would require all TDs to upgrade their pairing programs by then.
When can the sponsoring affiliate submit corrections? I think it would be good to have the answer on the TD/Affiliate FAQ page. Also, on the TD/Affiliate FAQ page, one of the times “applicable” is written, it incorrectly has a space in it and written “applicab le”.
Filing a complaint with the USCF office is fine as it wouldn’t really call him out publicly. However, it’s gotten to the point where the TD deserves to be called out publicly. The TD is Fred Kleist (10312884).
But I know how submitting events online works, the ideas behind the alerts, warnings, and errors, and feel my proposed warnings and errors would help prevent mistakes in time controls and dates.
How would it lead to more problems than it solves? Some TD’s would just override the warning but others would correct the problem in the time control and/or date.
I never suggested making my additions to the validation program alerts.
I recently noticed another event that was submitted with the wrong time control (the tournament was submitted with a G/120 time control but was G/60. It has now been corrected) which would have been caught by my first proposed warning. A warning for tournaments that potentially have more than 12 hours of chess being played in a day that the time control and/or date is probably wrong. It’s sad my new warnings and errors haven’t been implemented to help prevent these errors from continuing to happen.
The problem with that is TD’s have entered the wrong time control or the same time control for all sections when some are different and the same mistakes would occur if TD’s do this for the time controls in WInTD or SwisSys. Even if this would prevent these errors, we need something in the meantime before this future date.
You just don’t understand that not every situation can be covered with a rule. That’s the sort of thing that experienced TDs learn, often the hard way.
There are probably two situations in which it may be appropriate for the affiliate to submit corrections, although these situations are not very common and the office has to use best judgement to decide when to accept corrections from the affiliate.
One is, of course, when the TD is no longer available. Sometimes the affiliate has enough records to verify reports of corrections. (This is more likely to be ID corrections than corrections of results.)
The other is when the data being corrected is the ID of the chief TD.
There have also been situations in which the chief TD and the affiliate have a falling out, or the affiliate changes officers to a group that it not on good terms with the old set of officers or the TDs for past (or even upcoming) events. These get messy.
I know of one case where we accepted an ID correction from a player, a well-known GM who (correctly) claimed not to have played in the event. Chess Life had run a story on the event, so there was pretty obvious documentation as to who had actually played in the event.
Actually I do understand this but this is not relevant to my proposed warnings and errors (as is the case with all of the warnings and alerts currently in the validation program). My proposed warnings and errors would cover all cases and even if they didn’t and not relevant to a specific case, the TD could simply override the warning.
But if the TD refuses to contact the office to correct the mistakes and you didn’t play in the event yourself, you can’t do anything about it as submitting a complaint won’t work as it has to affect you personally.
I think the procedure here needs to change and if a TD refuses to correct a mistake, then you can contact the office and say that you contacted the TD but they refused to correct the mistake and then the office will contact the TD.
[quote=“pminear”]
Who should a TD contact to request corrections to an event that has been already been submitted online & rated?
Thanks.[/quote
The office staff in Crossville, I am not sure if it would violate the Aug or their privacy to mention specific names,
but I do appreciate them mightily. If you email me, I would be delighted to send a few email links to the office.
They are good people who do a good job.
And if the USCF is notified that a TD refused to send in corrections to there event, USCF procedure is to just looks the other way, ignore the situation, and not respond, right?
And I think there is something you missed in one of Nolan’s posts earlier:
So I think the point is, even if you’re completely right about these events you’ve found, it still isn’t an actionable event - the TD is completely allowed to report this way even if it isn’t as accurate as it could (or should) be. Please correct me if I’m wrong - I don’t understand if this applies only on a section level or if it could be extended to a whole tournament.
Curious George asks, “How long have we had the ability to split the time control by section?”
I don’t remember when I couldn’t split the time control by section in TD/A. I started shortly after it began. Some of my 2009 events had the same time control listed for all sections (all were played at a dual control) and by March 2010 there were different controls in different sections.
This apples only on a section level. The time control given for each section determines which rating system it is rated in (regular, dual, quick, blitz). The sections (side events actually) with mistakes were submitted with the same long time control as the other sections (main tournament) and thus were only regular rated but they were G/45 and should have been dual rated. The TD acknowledged these mistakes but refused to email the office to correct them.
I would assume always since different sections can have different time controls that are rated under different rating systems.
Yes, except if you didn’t play in the event where you find a mistake, filing a complaint won’t work as it has to affect you personally. I think procedure should change here and if a TD refuses to correct a mistake, then you can contact the office and say that you contacted the TD but they refused to correct the mistake and then the office will contact the TD.