Established over-the-board rating for directors needed!

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Three-years nonrenewable terms. After three years, the club TD must apply for local TD status. The Tournament Director Certification Committee (TDCC) may, at its discreation, reinstate club TD certification for a TD who fails all of the local TD tests after three full years of experience (page 247).

Except at the club level, all certified TDs must have an established USCF rating as an over-the-board player. TDs are encouraged to remain active as players to maintain proper perpective when directing (page 240).

My southern friend did not read the whole sentence. The question becomes for both sentence with the word must, after three-years the club director must take the local TD test and all local tournament directors must have a established rating. If the club tournament director must take the local tournament directors test, the ‘Tournament Directors Certification Committee (TDCC)’ at its discreation can reinstate a club tournament director after the club tournament director fails all the local tournament directors tests. If the club tournament director must fail a local tournament directors test, before asking to have the club tournament directors certification re-newed.

This is my problem, if a club tournament director is not a established player, then this director must after three-years take the local tournament directors test and fail, before this director can ask to have their club tournament directors certification re-newed. If looking at the sentence, the director must apply and fail a test to be reinstated. The only way anyone can fail or fails is do something that they could not do, and the sentence does say the word test and tests – so the director must take a test and fail a test to ask to be reinstated. If a club tournament director never had any rating, never even been a player at a tournament, never even been a director, then been a club tournament director for three-years: must apply for local TD status and fail a test to be reinstated as a club tournament director.

As the director must take a local tournament directors test, what would happen if this director pass the local tournament directors test. If the director pass the test would not the director not have to ask to have their club tournament directors certification reinstated as the director passed the test. Think that most people read the sentence for the club tournament director needing after three years for local tournament directors standing with the words ‘must and fails’; must is a command word and the club tournament director ‘must apply for local tournament director test’, and can be reinstated if the director fails the test.
If looking at the word fail or fails and test and tests, fail or fails can only happen if the director fails the test; the director can pass the test, as after three years the director after three-years as a club tournament director only has to pass the test to gain standing as a local tournament director.

If the club tournament director must be a established over-the-board player before being a local tournament director. If the director ‘must’ after three years, ‘must’ apply for local tournament directors standing, and ‘must’ take the local tournament directors test; if the director ‘must’ fail the test before the Tournament Directors Certification Committee could reinstate the club tournament directors certification. If this club tournament director after three-years without having a established rating ‘must’ take the local tournament directors test. If this director pass the local tournament directors test would not this director become a local tournament director: would say because the rule says the director ‘must’ take the local tournament directors test and if the director does pass should become a local tournament director.

Then the federation does say the local tournament director ‘must’ be a established over-the-board player. Well the rules do have some what of a conflict, as they do use that command word. Then what is a established over-the-board player; as myself do have two established over-the-board ratings – one for classical and one for quick. Would a person that has a established classical rating be a established over-the-board player, or would a person need to have a established classical and quick rating before they are a established over-the-board player. Will look at two schools of thought, some would say you need a classical rating to be a established over-the-board player; my school of thought would say you need to have a established classical and established quick to become a established over-the-board player. This can be stange to ask a club tournament director to become a established over-the-board player when some local tournament directors and ones with higher certifications that still have provisional quick ratings or un-knowed quick ratings.

My school of thought would say all certificated tournament directors with a certification level higher then club tournament director must become a established over-the-board player with both classical and quick ratings. As we do not know what established rating the federation is talking about, is it the classical rating or the quick rating or both the classical and quick ratings.

Would ask the federation too order all certificated tournament directors above the certification of club tournament director to have both the classical and quick ratings be established so they can be in line with the offical rules of chess as a established over-the-board player. Would give the directors a time dead line of 6 months or be certificated as a club tournament director.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

2

When a chess player makes the claim they are a established over-the-board player, with the problem to established this claim for a club tournament director before needing to take their test: will effect all the membership of the federation. This problem, that only happens for the very small section of the membership, has made this issue needing to be cleared up for the total membership of the federation. For the club tournament director needing to have a established rating, as the federation accepted two over-the-board ratings. The demand of having a established rating, the term established over-the-board rating is now mixed with two schools of thought. Is a established over-the-board player a person with only a established classical rating, or is a established over-the-board player a person, having a established classical rating and a established quick rating.

My school is with having both established ratings, too become a established over-the-board player. Since having both ratings established, and having my quick rating established when only needing ten quick games to have a established quick rating, then the norm of today of needing twenty-five. The faith of having one rating (classical rating) established and the other not, then calling yourself a established over-the-board player only makes having a quick rating a novility. If a player can go to a tournament with time controls between G/30 and G/60: the players face each other, set up a board and set, start the clock, and play till the game in done. If one game can be rated twice (classical rating and quick rating between G/30 and G/60), how could one be a over-the-board game and the other not; nobody is going to change my classical rating and my correspondence rating – only can change my classical rating and quick rating.

If the rules demand that certificated tournament directors need a established rating, the federation needs to change the sentence. As the question becomes what rating is the federation is demanding. My faith, is the faith that both over-the-board ratings need to be established. If this is the case, then all certified tournament directors above the certification of club tournament director must have a established quick rating. How can we as a society of the total membership, that has the faith that all the ratings have rank, that all the ratings have value, that everyone needing to perform the same uniform code of conduct to gain a established ratings. If the school of one rating, only the classical established rating is needed for certified tournament directors higher then a club tournament director – then the quick rating or rapid rating is only a second class rating. The best way to make quick ratings be equal to a classical rating, is demanding from all tournament directors to have a established quick rating in a give time frame.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe

3

When the rule was written Quick Chess ratings were far and few between.

It looks like the TDCC and Rules committees will have to discuss this topic. (Perhaps at the U.S. Open workshops.)

It has been my observation over the years that a good “chess lawyer” seems to be able to find some “i” not dotted or some “t” not crossed, despite the best and honest efforts of the rule givers.

By the way, what is the benefit of using “chess lawyer” tactics to get certified as a TD anyhow?

Tim Just

Chair, TDCC
Editor 5th edition Rules of Chess

4

The idea for sending in two tournaments when the club tournament director has more then 51 players, if the club tournament director wanting to make sure that all the players at the tournament have this tournament rated as fast and as soon as can be done. True, on its own the federation will have the tournament rated even if there was more then 51 players for this club tournament director. What the federation would do when they see 51 player or a little over just go on and have the tournament processed; if the federation does send a letter to the director for the reason for having more then 51 players – then the director would need to write a report, or give the reason why the tournament did have more then 51 players. The longer it takes the rating department and the director too get the answers for this problem, would have all the players needing to take the extra weeks to have this one tournament rated.

Even if it take one extra week to have this tournament rated, could have been rated at the cut off time for the rating to be official on 8/1/2004. Needing a extra week it would be un-official and not be official till 10/1/2004, then some not all could have been in a higher or lower rating class. If someone could have had a official rating of 1605, with that extra week would be a official rating of 1595 till the first day of the next even month. This player having this rating: can change the out-come of a prize fund as the player would be in the under 1600 section; true the player would not mind being in the under 1600 section as he also has the right to make a claim on the under 1800 section if the final points meets the demands. Having a player that should have been over 1600 because the federation needing extra time to check the tournament report, could change the out-come of the under 1600 section of a different tournament directors and different players that had nothing do with the director that was over.

The reason to state to have the tournament broken up into two tournaments, then one if the club tournament director is over their limit. It was not to be done so the director would have two tournaments, it was done so the players can have the tournament rated in a normal time frame then having the federation sending a letter asking for the reasons why this one tournament was over the limit. With the federation sending a email or a letter to the director, then the director sending a email or letter back to the federation – it just takes more time away from the tournament being rated. The players understand that the tournament would be rated around 4 or 6 weeks, the players would start to question if the tournament takes 6 or 10 weeks to be rated. Most players would in my mind like the tournament rated in 4 weeks even that they can see that it was broken into two tournaments then having the one tournament rated that needed 12 weeks to have rated.

True, would have a little bias to have the tournament rated faster then gaining any norms. As the question would be as being a local tournament director only need to think of my max of 100 players with paper and 120 players with a computer program. In my case having 121 players at my tournament would not be first thinking of how to have this tournament rated: my first and only problem would be looking for tables and chairs, then finding room for all the players. Not going to have a Michigan Chess Association tournament, only recall some tournaments in the state of Michigan that had more then 100 players for a non - Michigan Chess Association event. Was the bottom half tournament and the Motor City Opens’ back in the 1980’s. Having a tournament with a total prize fund of $200 would be shocked to have more then my certification, with that level of prize funding would even be shocked to have the tournament become even a class C event. Having a tournament, that has never had any pre-tournaments with the same format, with a low prize funding, with a one day event should not even be close to draw more then 50 players. In theory this could happen and in all theories a director must make all plans be ethical and rational.

If the director only has twenty players, with a four round swiss – breaking the tournament up into two sections and rate each section as one tournament would not be ethical and rational for the players. As the parings would be harder on the director and the players with two section with ten players then one section with twenty players. If this is the first tournament for the club tournament director, sure the director would have two tournaments with twenty players, or one tournament with twenty players – the director still needs to have fifty players. In the case for breaking the one tournament is to make sure the event is rated faster for the players, in this case it will not speed up or slow down the tournament too be rated for the players. Breaking the tournament up just to have two tournaments then one – is not moral, ethical, or rational for the players. As it does not help the players to have the tournament rated faster, it is not rational for the players as the parings were not as paired as well with 4 rounds with ten players as could have been with 4 rounds with twenty players.
Will say if the director that runs a tournament with time controls that the classical and quick ratings can be changed for the players – as it is still one game for the player and get credit for the classical and credit for the quick. Then even that it is still one tournament for the director the director should be treated equal with the tournament being rated for the clasical rating and quick rating. Untill the federation makes it clear that the director only gets credit for only the classical rating, then it would only be far for both parties to get equal credit.

Talking with other tournament directors at any certification, do not recall any that are in demand to have their certification changed to a higher level. With the word demand, that they would do anything just to have that level of certification: that the higher certification is their center of the universe and they must have that prize. When talking to other local tournament directors, most of them would not mind being a club tournament director: they just taken the test because they had to take the test. With myself back in 1997 when gotten back into the federation after being gone for 10 years, asked to become a club tournament director: they said they would let me take the local tournament directors test – at the time just asked to be re-instated as a club tournament director. Then thought that not taking the test would never know if for some reason could pass the test or fail the test; my idea, if you have the right to take a test then you should take the test. At this time Larry Pond is sending me the Senior Tournament Directors test, if having the right to the test then should take the test – if passing the test become a Senior Tournament Director would be nice, if not passing the test then ask for the test again. Each and every person has limits, does not matter what your rating or what you do with chess or other subjects in the trial of life: just test the limits and know what the limits are.

Can see that some people did thought for bring the idea on how fast a person can become certified to a higher level. If a director just takes the players and use them for personal gain, just to change the data around then that director was not ethical to the players. If a director just change the data around to become something they are not, then that director has forgotten the spirit of being a director.

My judgement, the federation should not force club tournament directors to take the local tournament directors test. If the club tournament director is forced to take the test, even if they pass the local tournament directors test – did they want the title, did they take the test because they were forced to. How
many directors the federation have lost because the director was unwilling to take the test. When the federation forced club tournament directors to become local tournament directors did make a larger pool of local tournament directors: just makes the claim how many did take the test on a voluntary or drafted claim. The goal of all directors should make the players as happy as can be done, not the director making the players as data to become something that the director has little spirit of the reason for the certification.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

5

is there any way possible we can keep the thread subjects together? For instance, LTDForsythe’s last post concerned Club TDs Limitations on # of players in an event, and the idea of submitting two or more sections of one tournament as multiple tournaments. The Title of this thread deals with TDs needing established ratings?!

How 'bout posting everything dealing with Local TD upgrading in the thread entitled Local TD Upgrading? Then, we can use the subject line each time we go off the main topic.

6

Wow, these posts are getting way out of line!

I still don’t understand why we need to change subjects within a thread, BTW. If your post does not pertain to the current thread, its time to start a new one!

Best Regards,
AJG

7

The issue is not a simple problem with a simple answer, emperical evidence needed to be address. Tim Just and other members will be dealing with these questions during the US Open workshop. Most of the rules of chess are complexed questions, that only happen for few or never with most directors: if it happens for one game out of so few a theory must be explained to answer the question: if it does happen at some other directors tournament. Each and every edition of the official rules of chess was published, became more complexed: the first edition of the official rules of chess was so simple – the rules only explained questions that would happen at any tournament.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

8

The whole question of established vs quick is interesting. If we take the position that you must have an established classical rating to be certified, this implies that you need classical experience to properly direct classical tournamants. Why, then, shouldn’t you need an established quick rating to direct quick tournaments?

The answer, of course, is simple. The rules for the two forms of chess are virtually identical. There are a few nuances, and some rules (like no-losing chances) come into play more often in quick, but they are still fundamentally the same. Based upon that, the position that only an established classical rating will do is totally illogical to me.

9

Question: How many quick-rated-only events are held?

Answer: Not many

In 2003 the USCF rated 12,371 sections under the regular ratings system and 3744 under the quick ratings system.

Of those 3744 sections, only 1668 of them were rated just as quick events. Over half of the quick sections were dual-rated.

Also, there are over 21,000 individuals who played in tournaments in 2003 or 2004 and who have an established regular rating but only a provisional quick rating, while there are only 686 who have an established quick rating but only a provisional regular rating. 11,800 have both an established regular rating and an established quick rating.

I think it is important that TD’s have an ESTABLISHED rating so that they have some idea of what players go through. The simple fact is that far more will have an established regular rating than will have an established quick rating.

Mike Nolan

10

But Mike, which are are you endorsing for TDs? According to the above quote, you seem to say that an ESTABLISHED rating under either system is okay. Did I conclude that correctly?

I am in step with with what Mulfish wrote in his post above, and I would think that an established rating under either system should suffice. I go the step further in saying that I believe that this is what is currently sufficient under the current language of the rules, and I don’t see any reason for change.

11

After some reflection, I think that an established REGULAR rating should be required to advance beyond the club level.

Why a regular rating and not any rating?

Because there are situations that can happen in regular rated tournaments, such as time control scoresheet claims and adjournments, that cannot happen in quick events, since the latter are by definition sudden death events.

I also think there’s a strong likelyhood that the USCF will establish a separate blitz rating in the next year once our computer systems are capable of it, and I definitely don’t think that should qualify someone for being a local TD.

In the unlikely event that someone with an established quick rating but not an established regular rating wants to take the local test, I would empower TDCC to grant a waiver upon request and with a reasonable explanation as to why the regular rating requirement cannot be readily met.

12

This is exactly my situation and what prompted all these threads! The reason I don’t have an Established USCF Classical Rating is that the rule book didn’t define what that meant. The rule book refers to having an “estblished rating” in order to take the Local TD Exam. I thought that meant any USCF rating whatever. Established vs. Provisional was never explained. Not only is “Established” is never defined, but “Provisional” is never mentioned in the rule book. I do have an Established USCF Quick Rating, however.

Also, I did not invest the time necessary in getting an Established USCF Classical Rating. I only get to go to a 4SS G/60 event once or twice a year. As a result, I only have 12 such games recorded on msa.

Regards,
AJG

13

Our Chess Club is a college one where rated Quick happens at least once a month (usually playing a 6 round event) and the entry fee is a low $2;few nearby clubs offer more than 1 or 2 Regular rated events a year and entry fees,time away and travel expense all have reduced attendance as well as discouraged TD/Organizers from hosting these longer Regular rated events. I agree that experience at Regular rated events is very important, but believe that the move from Club to Local Director should not be impeded by this requirement.

14

One of the ways that we have taken care of the issue of having a quick rating at the Jackson Chess Club – as myself and my assistant do have a established quick rating. As someone at any age that does not even have a quick rating would play a 3 person round robin with 14 sections. This gave a person 14 games with one person and 14 games with the other person, then the two people both play 14 games. Even at a club night having 42 games of G/10 would not be rational [G/10 x 42 games = 42(10 x 2) = 840 minutes / 14 hours], the standard now would be a tournament with 6 sections [G/10 x 18 = 18(10 x 2) = 360 minutes /6 hours. As it would still take two or three club night to get this many games: if all or most of the twenty minutes are used, send in one tournament with a number of sections. Or hold up all the past sections to make one large tournament, if this is going to take weeks to have everyone play so many games at a chess club: then why hold up sections if you have them done and ready to be rated.

Making sure the unknowed quick player does get experience, have 3 tournaments with 6 sections – would mean 18 games with each other; and if someone does send the tournament report on paper or computer disk would need 20 games to meet the demand of having the tournament rated. As one tournament with 3 players and 6 section would be 18 total games – still will cost $8 on paper or $5 on computer disk or even cut down on the sections from six the rating cost is the same – only sections past 6 would change the cost of the rating fee up or down not making the sections smaller.

With this kind of tournament(s) would give someone without a quick rating a established rating as fast as one day or around 3 or 4 weeks. For a established over-the-board rating, it does not matter what kind of tournament only what the time controls are, and does not say how many times you play the same person. For my quick round robin tournaments only use the time control of G/10, 3 people could go down to a G/5 and cut the total time down to 7 hours but in my personal judgement G/5 is blitz not quick.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD

15

Certainly empowering the TDCC to make a waiver is a step in the right direction. And I agree that a separate blitz rating doesn’t qualify you to direct classical chess. That’s because blitz is a vastly different game. Quick Chess (which after all can include classical ratable time controls as well - I’m not sure it’s automatically dual rated) is much more similar to classical. In blitz local TD’s may announce variations from the rules (touch move vs clock move, no time delay) that would never be done at G/10 and above.

Mr. Nolan asserted his opinion that a quick rating is insufficient, but I’m not sure I picked up the reasoning behind that position. The fact that there are a few rules unique to classical chess hardly refutes my contention that the games have only a few differences. If the TD has studied the rulebook well enough and has directed at the club level for a couple of years, most of those situations have probably already surfaced in their tournaments. If the TD didn’t get it right, you can bet the players pointed it out. Heck, they probably pointed it out even when the TD was right - and the TD surely went right to the rulebook to prove otherwise.

16

If a tournament director that is certified at or above the level of local tournament director, then has a tournament that is going to be a quick tournament – then how could this person with time controls between G/5 and G/60 could have experence as a player. If this tournament director has a provisional quick rating or un-knowed quick rating: then how could this director have this experence as a player to understand the tournament. If we can say this director needs to have a established over-the-board classical rating to run a tournament at their certification, at the same time be a director of a quick tournament when the director has a provisional quick rating or unknowed quick rating.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

17

I think you COMPLETELY misunderstand the purpose for having any tournament playing experience.

It’s to make sure you know what players do and what they expect from TD’s.

Depending upon the players to correct errors arising from your lack of knowledge and inexperience is EXACTLY the sort of thing that the experience requirements, including having a published rating, are designed to prevent!

The requirements for an ‘established’ rating are not part of the TDCC’s rules and they have changed somewhat over the years at the behest of the Ratings Committee. These days it can take up to 25 games to get an established regular rating. Because of a quirk in the way the current programming handles quick ratings, it is possible for a player to have an established quick rating before having an established regular rating, despite having played in only dual-rated events.

Personally, I don’t care what rules are set, though I am likely the one who will be writing the programming to ENFORCE those rules, since I’m working on rewriting the ratings software, so I do care that they are precise and unambiguous.

18

I understand the point. I just believe that any gaps in the TD’s knowledge base have probably been worked out in their 3 year Club TD period - the players simply wouldn’t have tolerated it otherwise. I’m certainly not saying the TD should rely on the players to straighten them out! That completely misrepresents my position.

I also think the reasoning saying that an established quick rating doesn’t qualify you to direct classical events applies just as well in the reverse, but no one argues that TD’s need established quick ratings to direct them well. Of course, there aren’t as many quick rated events anyway, and rarely for big bucks.

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

19

Can you come up with ANY situation that can arise in a quick rated event that cannot also arise in a regular rated event?

20

FYI, here’s the threads I remember related to getting the Local TD:

TD Certification
uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1023
started 8/6/2004 by Tim Just

Established over-the-board rating for directors needed! (this thread)
uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=130
started 8/2/2004 by Localtdforsythe

Club TD maximum players
uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=121
started 7/21/2004 by ChessMama

Promotion to Local Director
uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=34
started 3/2/2004 by A. Jorge Garcia (me)

HTH,
AJG