The recently revived thread on the Senior TD test struck home for me as I waited to hear if I passed the Local TD test. Yesterday I found out that I did pass. I also found out which questions I got wrong—but was told that per TDCC policy, US Chess staffers are not allowed to reveal the correct answers.
In one case it’s obvious and I am kicking myself. In the other three it is much less clear. Is there a good reason not to reveal the correct answers to questions that successful test-takers miss? Anyone who plans to hoard all the TD test answers he can find and sell to hapless wannabe TDs is likely into things less masochistic than directing chess tournaments.
I don’t know the reasoning, but the TD testing process has never been treated as a ‘learning’ process. Any learning the candidate does is the result of his or her own efforts, like looking for the right answer in the rulebook.
Furthermore, just telling you the right answer without telling you why your answer was wrong doesn’t teach you anything, that’s something I learned in a teacher training class in grad school.
The late Ira Riddle once said this about the TD tests:
The Local exam (now also the Club exam) tests if you can find the right answer in the rulebook.
The Senior exam tests if you can select the best answer from among several possibilities, all at least partially right.
The ANTD exam tests whether you can extend the rulebook to situations it doesn’t cover.
The NTD exam tests whether you know when to ignore the rulebook and do the right thing.
I agree that this is a poor approach. We are a membership organization dedicated to promoting chess and educating about chess. So of course a learning experience should be possible - its good for the individual members and membership as a whole.
The concern is that giving our specific answers means that the test question is - theoretically - toast. Its used up. Of course, there are other legally required exams (FINRA exams, or other continuing education exams) that do such things and the test question isn’t considered toast - but that’s not the way we look at it.
Since the test question is toast, it means that the person taking the test cannot use that exam again - which creates the theoretical need for more test questions.
So, part of the reason is that giving out answers creates work for the committee - TDCC. But, the questions COULD be repeated, a few additional test questions could be created, and the ability to discuss specific questions could be narrowed to the test taker could discuss the question with an NTD (since they will never face the test question in the future.) The method chosen by the TDCC seems a bit extreme.
BTW, be careful because the test directions are poorly worded, as per this example:
I don’t know if this is still the most recent version of US Chess Correspondence chess rules, but they used to say “3. You may consult chess books and periodicals but not other players.” Of course, AFTER the game was done, you could discuss it with anyone.
The test directions state: “This is an “open book” test, but each applicant is bound by his honor not to discuss specific questions with other persons.”
As worded, this implies a situation analogous to the correspondence chess situation - while taking the exam, do not discuss specific questions with anyone; which leaves open what happens AFTER the test is done.
However, while this is what is written, it’s not what the TDCC intends. What they intend is that you will never, ever, ever, discuss any specific test question with anyone. In fact, when I asked a generic question about a rule that might have been related to a possible test question (even though the TDCC argued it was not relevant) in these forums, the TDCC asked the moderators to pull that generic question. In fact, they became quite irate about it, and one TD wrote me something akin to hate mail, indicating that I was only asking the GENERIC question in order to cheat.
Of course, much of this could be avoided, if the directions actually said what they meant. But then, the test directions also say to consult the 5th edition of the rulebook, so…
If someone is on the Tournament Directors Chess Committee [TDCC], then they can comment on the intent of the TDCC. If they are not on the TDCC, then how can they say what the intent is of the TDCC??
Most of the major testing bodies, like SAT and presumably FINRA, write and test new exam questions all year long, and vary the questions on each individual copy of the exam.
I think alternative answers to the senior test should be allowed by the tester if a reasonable attached explanation is attached
to the test sheet. Many of the questions on the senior exam can be answered with some degree of correctness with several
of the available answers. Working with many ANTDs, and NTDs, around Texas and the South, I know that their are several
rules interpreted and applied rather differently. And sometimes, just incorrectly. This has been disputed by current members of TDCC, BUT, the fact is that in MANY years past, USCF has had senior TD graders who did use the policy above. Afterwards,
certainly their have been very strict “hard-liners”. The senior td exam, is without question, difficult judging by the percentages that fail it the first time out. I have known of no one who failed the club exam, few who failed the local, and a BUNCH who
bombed the senior, (perhaps the majority of first time testers??). Part of the issue here, I think, is directly related to experience and so, so many, prospective senior tds come strictly from the scholastic ranks with almost zero cash prize experience. And, the cash prize portion of the test makes up I think 30%, with answers of one question quite often based
on the answers derived from a question previous. I wonder how much of an issue is this for some of the more remote
areas of the nation, and if it would make sense to initiate a Senior Scholastic TD certification ??
I took the Senior TD test in 2014. The test form I took said the applicant IS allowed to provide an alternative answer if the applicant feels none of the given answers are correct. If the applicant does so, s/he should explain the reasoning and quote the rules to support the alternative answer.
Or perhaps a “Senior TD (scholastic only)” designation?
This title could be given automatically to those who fail the Senior exam, but where all (or most) of the missed questions deal with adult-only considerations, such as cash prizes.
Presumably, somebody with this title could (perhaps after 6 months or so) try again for the full Senior title.
Also, presumably there would be no “ANTD (scholastic only)” or “NTD (scholastic only)” titles.
I’m not sure there’s a good way to enforce a ‘scholastic only’ TD designation. The first issue is, what is a scholastic event? Is an event with 31 kids under the age of 12 and one parent who’s playing to avoid having to issue byes still a ‘scholastic’ event? What about an event with 200 kids scattered across several sections and a small open section so the parents don’t have to sit around doing nothing?
What would a ‘scholastic senior TD’ be able to do that he can’t do today? Direct an event with 100 (young) players? I bet I could find 100 examples of a local or club TD doing that.
And I’ll go back to one of my constant points, if you can’t (or won’t) enforce a rule, why even have it?
Several very good points. Several years ago, I did a survey of tournaments run for a 2 year period looking at the numbers
attending and the level of TDs directing them. And yes, there are dozens (at least) of 100+ tournaments run each year by
local, or even club tds.
I take MANY such tests regularly for compliance reasons, and I routinely receive duplicate questions.
Generally, the tests are designed to be learning experiences. If one needs to re-take a section, one does, often with the very same questions, so that the point being made is re-affirmed.
If some other organization existed to train and certify TDs, the US Chess experience wouldn’t change.
Look at baseball, for example. If you want to become a baseball umpire, where do you go? To an umpiring school, possibly for a period of several months. (There are other training programs, such as ones at the community college level.)
We don’t even require any demonstration of competence or knowledge of the rules on the part of our club TDs until they’ve been doing it for 3 years.
Could that change, could we set up formal systems for training TDs? Yes. Should it change, well, that’s a political question, not a technical one.
And as I said upthread, right now I don’t see any interest in doing that. It would take a lot of work on someone’s part, probably the TD community (through TDCC) and most likely an investment in online testing software. (Even open source software costs money to set up and maintain.) I don’t see the organizational resolve for either of those to happen.
I disagree, Mike. The experience would change. Perhaps not for the average tournament player, but it would change for those who enjoy the organizing/TD’ing/running the club experience.
THAT experience is a big part of who we are. I don’t view education about chess as education about chess play only. History, rules, psychology, application of strategy to other fields, etc. is all part of the U.S. Chess experience.
