Experience requirements for the local TD test.

Running Chess Tournaments
1

The Local Director Test

26. Experience Requirements.

a. Satisfactory performance as chief TD of one Category D tournament and chief TD or assistant TD of two additional Category D tournaments of at least three rounds which total 50 or more entrants, or

b. Satisfactory performance as the chief TD at either a Category D1 or D2 tournament can be used as a replacement for one of the two additional Category D tournament in section (a), or

c. Satisfactory performance as the Chief TD at two Quick Chess Category D, D1, or D2 tournaments can be used as a replacement for one of the two additional Category D tournaments in section (a), or

d. Attendance at a problem-solving and discussion workshop (not a business meeting workshop) offered by the TDCC at a U.S. Open Championship can be used as a replacement for one of the two additional Category D tournaments in section (a), or

e. Satisfactory performance for three years as a club TD, but …

Category D tournament.

  1. Category D. Any USCF-rated Swiss system tournament or section of a tournament, except Category I or N, drawing fewer then 50 entrants. Club TD’s may direct such tournaments or sections of tournaments.

Subcategory D1: One section of a Category D tournament where the TD is limited to solving problems and making rulings on the floor only (floor TD).

Subcategory D2: One section of a Category D tournament where the TD is limited to the duties of parings in a backroom capacity (backroom TD).

Talking to the membership that are club tournament directors, that are thinking of being a local tournament director. As most local tournament directors have gained this title, after meeting all the norms before taking the test – even having more events before taking their test – some club tournament directors could make plans too get at this level. Even that a person could get the norms early with the limited amount of time and energy: does not mean that the format is at error.

If a director has a tournament that is a swiss event, with 3 rounds, could be like some scholastic event, and the parents play in the event in a different section; as having scholastic and parents play in the same event: could match up father/mother vs son/daughter parings. The director finding it hard to place the name of the event as a scholastic (like August G/30 Scholastic) event for a person that is a adult – could break up the event into two tournaments (like August G/30 and August G/30 Scholastic). Could in theory have 20 scholastic players making 10 boards, parents with 20 players making 10 boards, with a total of 40 players at a one day event. Most directors could have two sections with one name of a event, or just break the event into two tournaments, one for the scholastic players, and one for the parents.

If you do send it in as one event, then you will have one event with 40 entrants, if it is with a time control of G/30 or G/60, then you would also get half the credit as a quick (look under section c) event, making the norm credits become 1.5 events and if correct make it 60 entrants [40 + (2/40) = 60] making this one event given all the norms for the entrants. This could be true if the director informs the federation that the tournament is duel rated with information of being G/30. The director does not have to inform the federation or if the director does not want to send on paper, the rating fee for the quick event – if not only be 1 event with 40 entrants.

If the director sends in the event as one tournament for the scholastic players and one tournament for the adult players: would make the event be 2 events with 40 entrants, if it is a G/30 event and sent in as a duel rating (look under section c), if sent in as 2 events make the quick section being half of one section, as there are 2 events would make 1 full (Satisfactory performance as the Chief TD at two Quick Chess Category D, D1, or D2 tournaments can be used as a replacement for one of the two additional Category D tournaments in section) section. If under section c, if the tournament is duel rated for classical and quick rating would make each person become equal to 1.5 entrants [ 40 + (2/40) = 60]. In theory, making a scholastic with a adult, then being duel rated in one day become 3 events with 60 entrants, in pure theory this would be correct, the MSA would show 4 events with 80 entrants; as a quick is given half credit and only two quick events can be used only one time to equal 1 event at classical time controls.

Some players would look at this theory if put into practice as cheating, did not write or even had any right to vote on the rule book. If you do not like the theory, then start a grass roots campaign to change the rules. Myself just format the data, myself would send in the data as duel rated, have two sections not two tournaments; as it is duel rated then have it show up on the MSA as two tournaments, one rated for classical, one rated for quick. In theory can do it both ways sending in the data, have taken care of having 4 events during my 4 year term – do not need to collect events, or think of needing to take the local tournament directors test. Is the theory in error, would say not, does it break the spirit of the rules, that is up to the membership.

Even if you say it breaks the spirit of the rules to use the data in this matter, a club tournament director only has to have their membership be current for 3 years, then just let their term come to the end before needing to take the local tournament directors test – is it fair that a club tournament director has zero events and zero entrants – does being a certified club tournament director without any events the best reason to let the director take the local tournament directors test for the reason their club tournament directors term is at the end. If the majority of the players do not like the rules, then the rules should be changed.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

2

I may be wrong, but I think I can already hear the USCF Technical Director (the Td’s TD) laughing himself silly when he finds that someone claims they are meeting the requirements by having a g/45 tournament that nets him 1.5 credits sufficient enough to make up whatever requirements were previously lacking. For all I know, he may be so busy he just kind of “rubber-stamps” the necessary qualification papers, but if he does indeed notice it, I think a lot of people on the lunch break may hear about it. [Incidentally, application denied.]

I don’t ever remember reading in the rulebook where a tournament that gets rated as two separate events actually counts as such towards certification requirements. Anyways, don’t hold your breath on the issue.

Ben Bentrup

3

It might be strange, when sending in a G/30 event do get credit as a quick event and a classical event – for some reason on the MSA it shows it as two events. If under this theory, if a club director sends in a event with being duel rated would show one of the events as being quick, the other event as classical rating. As one classical rated event can have two quick chess events as a replacement. As the federation in the use of the MSA will show a time control between G/30 and G/60 will be rated as two events not one; with the quick you get half of experience – as it takes two quick events to equal one classical event to make one replacement of the three classical time controls.

If we take this theory, a club tournament director is the chief tournament director without any assistants. If he has two classical events rated at G/90, a swiss system with 3 rounds, then have two quick rated events at G/10, a swiss system with 3 rounds – the 26c: Satisfactory performance as the Chief TD at two Quick Chess Category D, D1, or D2 tournaments can be used as a replacementfor one of the two additional Category D tournament in section (a)… If the director does have a event that is sent in duel rated between G/30 and G/60, just this one tournament would take care of one of three performance as chief TD of one Category D tournament when it is rated as a classical rating; as it is duel rated between G/30 and G/60, then it will take care of 1/2 of one classical rated event as it is rated as quick. As the event is sent in duel rating would take care of one full norm as it is rated as classical rating and also take care of 1/2 of one norm as it is rated as quick.

If the director has two duel rated events, the events are rated at G/30 with being a swiss system event with three rounds. The director will get two full norms for having two rated at classical time controls, the director also has two quick events, can use them as a replacement under 26c making one full norm. The MSA will show the director having 4 events, two classical rated events and two quick rated events on two different days. If a club director is looking for the norms, will find having a duel rated event will make each any every person at the event become 1.5 norms per person for entrants and 1.5 norms for the event.

Very sure that Time Just and Daniel Burg did not come or thought of this theory, the theory is sound the question will the federation change the rule.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

4

Ok, you’re not getting it. The rulebook says for each TD experience requirement you have to direct X number of events. It does not say you have to direct X events where X is equal to the number that show up in the USCF computer for rating purposes. If you direct two tournaments, you have directed two tournaments. Two is not three. If the USCF has deeemed it necessary for everyone’s quick rating to solidify by rating G/30-G/59 as a dual event, then great for them. But they are rating it as two - it still only was one event, and for experience requirement only counts as one. I defy any USCF policy maker to say that this is not so; if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly eat my humble pie. But until then, with respect to TD certification standards, please do not try to say that 1 = 2 just because the USCF rating report says it’s so.

Furthermore, it’s getting very hard for me to read your writing, Mr. Forsythe. For starters, complete sentences are very useful. For example, the first four sentences from your most recent post read:

None of those sentences have the basic sentence structure of a complete subject with complete predicate. This causes me to have to read your post like three times in order for me to take an educated guess on what you are attempting to communicate. This may, of course, sound rude, but to tell the truth it has really bothered me since my first day on here a couple of weeks ago.

Ben Bentrup

5

Dear bbentrup:

The theory, if we take the full debate that a person that plays in a G/30 or up to G/60 event, as only being one and only one event, if the director informs or even pay for two rating fees; if duel rated, a player in the event will see under the MSA one event rated for quick and one event rated as classical. Would not a player say onto themselves, that it is two events, the crosstables are equal, the difference only the rating change, one event as quick, one event as classical – each crosstables are equal only difference being two different ratings making two different events. The player would look at their tournament history in their MSA, this one day event became under the MSA as two events; each event has some importance to the player, as it could give a established rating for one or both ratings, it could push one or both ratings into a higher rating class, or lower one or both ratings into a lower rating class.

If the director sends in a duel rated event, it would be rated for the classical rating, and rated for quick rating. If the director is a club tournament director, why then the classical rating event has meaning when the quick rating has nothing; if the director is a local tournament director, as the local tournament director needing four events during their term, only can use the classical event, or the quick event as only one can be used; if the director does not have four events in the four years, then the local tournament director must take the local tournament director test, as it is wavered if the local tournament director has four events in their term.

If this duel rating theory is true, a player can use a tournament for two events, to change not one but both ratings; if the director only get credit for one, the rating changed for classical ratings, then get zero credit for the quick rating change. If this is the case, why inform the federation that the time controls are between G/30 and G/60, if the federation will not give any credit to the director for regular and quick, only credit for the classical ratings. Some club tournament directors, they do not have the computer programs, they send in the report in by hand; as it is sent in by hand, it is 80 cents to have a duel classical and quick. If the director does send their rating report by hand, why send in 80 cents per game: rating for classical and quick, when only the classical rating will be the only credit the director will get. If the federation is only going to give credit for one rating, and one rating only, the director should only send in 40 cents only too have the classical rating rated for credit.

If the federation will not give credit for a duel rated event, why should a director inform the federation on computer disk, or pay 80 cents a game then the 40 cents a game if sent in on paper. If the director knows they will not get any credit for having duel ratings, why should a director even take the time on a duel rated event. If the director spends 80 cents for duel ratings, or 40 cents for one rating and get the same equal credit, if directors do not get credit for a duel rated event why would directors double the rating fees or spend time on computer disks or rating report forms to inform the federation that the event is duel rated.

If my theory does not work because the federation only will give a director one credit for a duel rated event, then why should a director inform the federation on the computer disk or pay the 80 cents for the rating fee, if the director still gets the same credit for not informing the federation on computer disk, or pay only 40 cents for a paper report. If there is no duel credit for the director then the federation will find smaller and smaller tournaments with time controls of G/30 and G/60, only finding more G/90 tournaments when the director never needing to explain duel ratings.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

6

If a player can’t figure out that a tournament is dual rated, then something’s wrong.

You play in one tournament, you get credited for one tournament, Not two.

These are two different ratings, not rated twice, and from sending in my G/60 tourneys, these didn’t cost more to be dual rated.

If I started my own state rating system, that doesn’t mean they’re two different tournaments.

USCF is doing players a favor by allowing faster time controls to be considered both, and this decision should be applauded, by both TD’s and players.

USCF’s computers are out dated and this process is the best they can come up with in this goal of dual rated tournaments. If it works, good. It can be improved, but allowing credit for two tournament is just obsurd.

7

P.S. Dual = in two ways; duel = a fight of two combatants

Can someone else please disillusion him?

Let’s turn to my friends, John and Jane, and watch their conversation.

Well, as some would have us believe, it looks like Jane is on the right track. I like nothing better than a determined, energetic director to fill our ranks once we can’t carry on anymore. What a bright future for the USCF!

8

Damn

If you guys have Banana nut bread at your state tournaments, I’m heading down!

:laughing:

9

I must admit, Mr. Forsythe, I share Ben Bentrup’s exasperation at your run-on, indecipherable sentences. Please, get some help from someone who can write good English before you post any more replies.

And please forget about getting double credit for an event rated as both regular and quick. As soon as anybody from USCF actually reads this conversation, they’ll be all over you, and they SHOULD be all over you.

Bill Smythe

10

If you are a chess player, if you do go to a event with a time control of G/30 with four rounds, this is the first time you ever went to a event. If the director does send in for the rating of quick and classical ratings, as a player would get credit for classical rating and quick rating, making both ratings being closer to making both ratings established. With the one event get credit for having a established rating for a classical rating, then get credit for having a established rating for a quick rating. If the players can get credit for a classical rating and quick rating in a category D event with three rounds or more in a swiss system, did not this player get credit twice not once. Established or not established players would get credit for their two different ratings, if the director informs the federation of the time control, or inform the time control and pay double the rating fees. The director can have the quick event rated, if and only if they want to have the federation rate the quick event. It is up to the director to have the quick event rated, even after the federation did let directors have quick and classical ratings rated for tournaments between G/30 and G/60, did have some events only rated for the classical ratings without having the quick rating changed.

If needing to become a established player, having my rating changed for both ratings at a G/30 event with four rounds would give me 4 games to get my classical rating established and 4 games to get my quick rating established. Needing 25 games to become a established player, even at 25 games it could show my rating as being 1450/25, needing to take care of the slash needing 26 games. If as a player can go only to tournaments with a time control of G/30 that the director sends in the report for classical ratings and quick ratings, then after the last tournament get all the games needing to be a established player for classical and quick, if as a player is this cheating to get both ratings established. As a player, this player now has 27 rated games and have both ratings established, if it takes 25 games to have a established classical rating and 25 games to have a established quick ratings – how can as a player have both ratings established with 27 games. With one set of events were rated as classical, the other set of events were rated as quick, as a player going to a G/30 with both ratings informed and sent into the federation did give the player credit, as each and every game you got credit for classical and got credit for quick even that you only play one game. As a player going to a G/30 with the director taking the time or the cost of reporting two different ratings will with each game get credit for a rating change for classical and quick ratings.

As the director, some people would say you can not get any credit and others you should get credit. If we take the idea that the director can only get credit for only one of the ratings, that rating be more for the classical rating not the quick rating. As we are talking about club tournament directors that can only go up to 50 players for a category D event and only needing 3 rounds, we make this director send in their report by hand so the rating fee per board is 40 cents. The cost of 50 players with 3 rounds sending the report in by hand would cost [( 40 cents per board/game = 2 players per board/game) = (2/40 = 20 cents per player)] and as each player with three rounds be the cost of (3 rounds x 20 per player per game = 60 cents) with 50 players become (50 x $0.60 = $30). If as a director sending the report in as a paper report, would get credit for the classical rating when give $30 to the federation, if like some would say, if give $30 to the federation for the quick rating would not get any credit. The question becomes for most new club directors, as some do not have the money or the time to have all the equipment like a rating software. As most club tournament directors only be on their first or second event, would send in their reports more or less in a hand writen report. If you say this director does not get any credit for sending $30 for having the quick section rated, why would a rational person give the federation $30 if there is zero credit.

Do we ask a player that goes to a G/30 events that change their classical and quick ratings, do we tell the players they have to spend more time to get their established rating. We would not tell the player that their quick rating does not count to their established quick rating because they had their classical rating also changed. If we can say to the director they do not get credit for having a event rated for classical and quick, should we as a society of members of the federation also expect the same equal justice. If done this way would be a nightmare for the federation rating department and confusion for the membership. Are we not in a country that feels that each and everyone has the same equal rights as other people, then how can we be equal if a player gets credit for a classical rating and a quick rating when they only play one game, then on the other hand the director can only get credit for the classical rating and nothing for the quick rating.

If the director and the player have always been to the same tournament, the entry fee for this event has always been $15, and all the same players come back to always have 50 players with a 3 round event. So this player that now has 27 games with 9 G/30 that is rated classical and quick, costing the player $135 for the entry fees, then costing the director $270 ( 9 x 30 = $270) in rating fees that if true would have zero credit. As the event is $15 for 3 rounds would make the cost be $5 per game. The player got credit for both ratings, if not would cost the player with the norm of $5 a game with needing 25 games to get a established rating would be a cost of ( 25 games x $5 = $125) $125, that as a player saved $125 for going to a tournament that is rated for classical and quick to save $125 to have both become established when the director spend $270 and got zero credit, or to be equal with the player (9 x 15 entry fees = $135). Now can see that the federation does have equal justice for all members, as a director is out $270 to get only credit for one, and the player saves $135 for the credits for having two ratings for only having one board. Or knowing this theory, have a G/30 and only spend the rating fee to have the classical rating and not the quick; after that have a G/10 quick event so then can get credit for the quick rating – then this player looking to get a established classical and quick rating would need to spend $125 more.

If the theory is true that the director can not get credit for a quick event and only for the classical rating and the director sends in their report in by hand would only pit director against players. If this is the case, a player wanting to get a established classical and quick ratings would find going to a event that is classical and quick rated be the logical answer to get both ratings, if the director that sends their report on paper would have to spend more money to get zero credit on the quick rating: then why does the federation want conflict with directors and players just on the issue of credit were credit should be give equal to both parties.

If the player gets credits for a G/30 with classical and quick ratings, and the director only gets credit for the classical rating and not the quick rating that does not look to be equal. Even if the director does send in the report on computer disk, the player gets two credits and the director get only one, even this way it does not sound equal to myself. The reason that the club tournament directors do not have category R tournaments or a round robin tournament they do not get any credit for such events, true their are view round robin events with eight or more players with a mean rating of 1800 or higher, or in that matter having a round robin event performed from a club tournament director. If the federation is bent on never given credits to a director for having a G/30 or up to G/60 rated for the classical and quick ratings; then in time the federation will have less and less events that is between G/30 and G/60 rated for the classical and quick ratings.

If it is the case that a G/30 and G/60 event are not given equal credit for the classical and quick events, then as a director would have to make plans to have only G/90 events. If a director can not get credit for a classical and quick event between G/30 and G/90 then what reason to have it as the time controls. Would then have G/10 and G/90 events, give up on any ideas of having events between G/30 and G/60; if there is zero credit for the quick rating for myself or a director and only credits for the players – then the system is unequal and like most directors that do not have round robins as there is zero credits we could find the federation back to the same problem when the quick rating was between G/10 and G/29. If it is unequal for both parties then it is unequal, if a quick event is G/29 or lower then it is equal for both parties, if it is G/61 or slower then it is equal for both parties; if there is two different standards for the players and the directors with a g/30 up to G/60 event that is rated for classical and quick ratings, then the system is unethical, as it rewards the players with two different ratings and only one credit for the director. Could as the director could only send in the report for the time controls between G/30 and G/60, with only rating it as a classical rating or have it quick rated or both; as a director would have a ethical problem only sending the report in as a classical rating and not both, for making sure the ethical issue is not a issue would never have a event with a time control be between G/30 and G/60.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

11

I think as long as Localtdforsythe makes a set of Classical pairings and a set of Quick pairings, that should be OK.

Of course, in order for there to be a need for two sets of pairings, the results would have to have the possibility of being different. Therefore, I suggest the following:

Two players should be able to have different results in the game depending on whether it was Classical or Quick.

Obviously, in the case of mate or flag falls, there would be no impact, but this would have some advantages, as now a person could accept a Classical draw but play on in quick, or vice versa. Of course, the default position of “I offer you a draw” is to accept both, but you could now say something like, “I offer you a Classical draw”, to which a player could say something like:

  • I accept your offer of a Classical draw.
  • I accept your offer of a Classical draw, and offer you a Quick draw as well.
  • I decline your offer of a Classical draw, but offer you a Quick draw.
  • I decline your offer of a draw.

Interestingly enough, this could create far more exciting situations, because now players could have two separate results! This gives players the opportunity to play a G/30 Classical with one opponent while playing G/30 Quick with another! Of course, in this situation, in the G/30 Classical, the G/30 Quick draw offer would be meaningless.

I think that this improvement to our current dual-rated status would very much improve the game that we play, and clear up any confusion that we have…

:unamused:

12

If two players come to a board and set up the board to play a game of chess, they set up the board with the with the correct equipment. They play the game of chess with natural conduct, after both side use up on both clocks twenty minutes they agree to a draw – it was one game out of many games during the tournament. If the time control was set at G/90 only the classical rating of this game would be changed; if the time control was set at G/60 the game up to the director could be rated for a classical time rating, or the classical rating with the quick time rating, or just the quick rating – as it is up to the director to demand one of the three ratings that can be changed; if the time control was set at G/25 then only the quick rating can be changed. For this game the only two time controls used for this debate will be G/60 and G/75. During this game or this board, had the right equipment, they used scoresheets without any errors, both players used the same conduct as all the other players during their game. After they both used for the total time on the clocks 20 minutes, they accepted a draw.

If the tournament is set at G/60, and the director will give notice to the federation that the time control was set at G/60; as in a notice on the computer disk as the director could have a computer program only needing to spend twenty cents per game; then as a notice on a hand writen paper report – the director needing to spend 40 cents to have only the classical rating changed for this game – or the director needing to spend 80 cents to have the classical and quick rating changed. If the tournament is set at G/75, then this game can only be rated for the classical rating: the notice on the computer disk will be 20 cents to have this one game rated, or if hand writen the cost of this game will be 40 cents to have this one game rated. For this one game does it matter that the time control was set at G/60 or G/75, as the game became a draw after both clocks used a total time of 20 minutes – the ending of this one game was still going to be a draw. For the other boards, or other games of this round, and the next rounds, could make a limited difference on the final standing after the game with the outcomes of draws, wins and loses.

If this one game that will be rated was at the time control of G/60, then the director could inform the federation to give two credits for this one game. The director is not forced, or even if it is a paper report is not forced to send in double the rating fees to have this one game rated for the classical rating and the quick rating. As the federation wanting to make more players have a quick rating, and make more players be closer with their classical and quick ratings as some players have large shifts in rating difference between the two – the federation changed the upper limit of a quick rating from G/29 to G/60. The federation did need to find a cut off with the top level of a quick rating, they just changed it from G/29 to G/60 in the hope that more players will get both ratings. Can recall during the 1980’s the federation started to lower the time control from G/60 to G/30, for having the now classical rating be rated. Even today most new chess players will first get their classical over-the-board rating be established before having their quick over-the-board rating changed; as it is a common rule that weaker chess players like faster time controls, as stronger chess players like slower time controls.

As the federation makes it clear that the chess player can have both ratings changed with a time control between G/30 and G/60. During a G/60 event they did play one and only one game that they wished to have end in a draw, with it being a G/60 event and the director taking care of this tournament to inform and even if having to pay double the rating fee – this one and only one game will be rated twice. If it is the goal of the federation, if it is the goal of the executive board to have more players have both ratings, if it is the goal of the everyone that works in what role they play in the federation to get more of the membership to get both ratings be established – then it must be the equal goal to give credit were credit is equal. If it is the goal of the federation to be equal and just for all then the federation must be equal to all. If it is the goal of the federation to have equal civil rights for all the members of the federation then it must give equal rights to all the membership. There are a few members of the federation that will say that a person that plays one and only one game of chess with a time control of G/60 given credits for both the classical and quick rating change, the director that sends in this report only then get one credit for this tournament but the players will get two credits for this tournament. Then will ask my federation how can the federation use the same tournament to give give credit twice for the players then only give credit only once to the director.

If my fellow friend from the south claims that one set of people have more civil rights then one person; have we as a society give everyone one man one vote, we as a society do not make only people that are white able to vote for all the canadates, then have people of a different race only able to vote for the canadates that have have no other person challenging then in the election. If the federation will say that any director that has a tournament that will give quick and classical ratings for the players, then go along and say that only the director can get only one credit for the tournament – then my federation is telling everyone that some of the membership have more rights then the few. My southern friend will say that some of the membership do have more rights then the few, we know that this is his right to make a claim to
turn back the hands of civil rights; if this is the view of the federation body, it does not matter how you package equal rights, in this case the players that play in a tournament with time controls of G/30 and G/60 get credit for both ratings, is is not as equal that the director get the same rights of having a rated classical and a rated quick rating.

This is a case study for the ethical view of the federation, if the federation can turn its’ back on the civil rights movement on this one issue what else can the policy board, the executive bord, the tournament director certification committee will turn their backs on. Will say my southern friend have little problems turning back the calender, do not care when he walks down the streets of the south that when he sees a black person walk the other way that he is thinking in the back of his mind – he can think that if it was not for the victory of the north, then that black man walking could have been my slave. My question is for the federation, are you going to let this one issue of civil rights be the starting point of turning back any civil and equal rights that many people that have shed their blood.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

13

It looks like a chess lawyer has given the TDCC and the Rules committees something to discuss at their workshops next week at the U.S. Open.

Someone will need to check with the USCF Office about their proceedure for keeping track of TD credits. Given the software, I suspect that the TD gets only 1 credit per event, even if it is duel rated.

The discussion about using a large event with many sections as springboard for reporting each section as a seperate event is interesting; however, the event must be reported as it was advertised in the TLA. That means if the event is advertised as one large event with many sections that is how it needs to be reported to USCF for rating purposes. The chief TD gets credit for the large event. For a section of the event to count as a TD credit a different TD has to be in charge of that section only.

Again another interesting topic for discussion at the U.S. Open workshops.

Tim Just
Chair TDCC
Editor 5th edition Rules of Chess

14

Tim,
The above idea came about as a way to skirt the rules and procedures regarding TD certification. Specifically, it was suggested that a Club TD could report separate sections as individual tournaments only to get around the rules regarding TD Limitations.

I don’t like this idea because it doesn’t serve the purpose of gaining experience as a TD through multiple events. It only serves the TD to gain experience in submitting rating reports! The idea is for TDs to gain experience by experiencing different situations over a peiod of time in many events, is it not? If we could do this, we could potentially have Club TDs upgrading to Local after one (1) event, if it was a 5 or 6 section Class tournament. This would not, in my opinion, be enough experience.

Regards

15

Dear Bill Smythe:

If you are right that the rating department will not take the time to write a club tournament director, when a director sends in a tournament report with more players then their limitations. If you can say that a club tournament director can send in a tournament report over the limitations of players, are you telling everyone that any club tournament director can be a director of any tournament? If the club tournament director can only have fifty players for paper and sixty players with computer software with one assistant tournament director, are you telling everyone the federation rating department will not mind if the club tournament director could be a director of a category C tournament? What is the upper limit: if the federation rating department will not ask questions: then what is the meaning of having player limitations.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

16

Having read you replies to the posts regaring TD certification I have a suggestion; i.e., Write the rule(s) the way it should be written and submit it to you state delegate or the to the TDCC directly in order to get your point of view considered .

17

Doug,

Read the rules. If the tournament can be REASONABLY EXPECTED to have fewer than 51 players, it can be directed by a club TD. If it ends up with 60 or 70, the office will certainly accept it for rating. They MIGHT ask the TD some uncomfortable questions, but they would do so AFTER rating the event. That is, the rating process would not be delayed just because the office wants answers.

Bill Smythe

18

Not so sure if the USCF rating depatment would rate a event with 70 or 80 players, if and only if this tournament had a certified club tournament director. If was in the rating department would look at 80 players and see the chief tournament director was a certified club tournament director: the first idea that this club tournament director was the assistant tournament director. If the tournament was rated how could the federation go back and change the records around and change chief tournament director. As seeing 80 players,would have the faith that the club tournament director did send in the report, that the true chief tournament director failed to send the report into the federation. Looking at the report and find 80 players,
the chief was a club tournament director: would start to question the tournament report before having the event rated.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD

19

So, you would punish the players by not raing the tournament?

20

You apparently don’t want the obvious answer: They don’t currently have the resources to check every tournament to see if the TD is sufficiently qualified.

You also don’t want the logical answer: The experience requirements exist for both the organizer’s and the players’ protection, so failing to follow them is poor planning on the part of the organizer.

You don’t want the warning answer: You may get away with it but if you screw up that’ll increase any sanctions.

What answer do you want?