I understand that, according to the rules, a TD that is section chief for multiple sections of a single tournament may only get credit for ONE section’s worth of experience. For determining what TYPE of tournament is credited, would you add the numbers of players together? For example, if I directed two 40-player sections AT THE SAME EVENT (sections running at the same time with 80 total players), would I get credit for one TYPE D tournament (less than 50 players) or for one TYPE C tournament (50-99 players)?
It makes perfect sense, and has been adequately explained, that a TD couldn’t get credit for 2 (or more!) tournaments just by dividing his players into sections. But, while it makes sense to me, I never saw it explicitly stated that he would get credit for the TOTAL of the multiple sections. I thought it would be better to ask, than simply assuming I’m right.
Did you check out the new TD Certification rules? Only one section of an event can count, even under the circumstances you present here. The “one section” rule was put in place to prevent the exact kind of exploitation of the TD experience described here (using the same single experience multiple times for multiple sections as multiple, instead of a single, TD credit).
I realize you don’t get credit for multiple events if the sections are all really for one event. My question is whether you get credit for the total number of PLAYERS that you’re directing (the reasonable rule, IMO), or only for the players in ONE of your sections.
While a TD shouldn’t get additional credit simply because he splits his tournament into multiple sections, he also shouldn’t LOSE credit for the players he actually directs. In other words, if I were to direct two sections with 40 players each (total of 80 players) as part of a single event, I should get credit for a C tournament rather than a D tournament, IMO.
What I’d like to know is if this is correct.
chesschick,
What if somebody ELSE is the chief TD of the event (and is the section chief of SOME of the sections), but you are the section chief of two sections that total over 50 players? Do you still get credit for a C tournament (which is what you’d get if you were section chief of a single 50-player section).
What’s the rationale behind that? I understand not getting multiple event credits on the same day, but if you directed a certain number of players across multiple sections, it seems logical they should all be included for the head count.
I suppose I already made it clear that I didn’t think such a policy would make sense. Here’s why:
Consider a class tournament with a chief tournament director being helped by two other TDs, with each class having 30 players. Suppose the first helper completely runs Class A and Class B by himself and is listed as the section chief for both. He’ll only get credit for a D tournament. Say the chief TD decides to combine Class D and Class E and let the second helper handle that new section. That will bring a credit for a Class C tournament. I think any TD would say that it’s easier to run one 60 player section than two 30 player sections even with computers to handle the pairings, so why should there be this difference in the credit the two “helper” TDs would receive?
Certainly, I understand not giving the first helper TD credit for TWO tournaments, but why should he “lose” the credit for the size of the “event” he’s really handling?
As someone always seeking more credit for TD work, I agree more credit is better. But it occurs to me that a logical reason for the rule is that, all things being equal, a single larger section (say 60 players) is in theory more complicated than a single smaller section (say 30 players). Of course, with computer assistance, one hardly notices the difference. But–with a scholastic section of 60 players I would want to have more TDs assisting me as the section chief than in a 30 player section. Its simply a matter of greater (albeit sometimes theoretical) responsibility which USCF seeks to capture.
As for combining two sections–I would guess that would only happen if one section was not diverse or large enough to stand on its own. After all, if a section is too large in comparison to the others than an additional round of play should be required under the Swiss system in order to obtain a clear winner.
Of course, I am certainly no expert. More of a novice TD than anything. My theory is most likely wrong.
It’s not just ‘theory’, a 60 player section has the potential to create situations that two 30 player sections will not, even with computers doing most of the pairing.
Two 30-player sections are definately harder to pair than a single 60-player section, unless you’re using a computer (and then you’d hardly notice the difference).
Using a computer, there’s still more work directing two 30-player sections: you have two lists of pairings to post, two sets of standings, etc. You have the same amount of work as a floor TD (that where the interpretation looks REALLY strange – there’s NO DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF WORK OR TYPE OF WORK when doing ONE C1 tournament or two D1 tournaments with the same number of players!).
Tim’s interpretation also goes seems to go beyond the rules change that was proposed to the delegates. For example, in the rules for Senior TD experience, the TDCC suggested:
Nowhere did the change say you’d only get credit for PART of the players you’re directing. It seems implied that since you’re only getting ONE experience credit, that experience credit should include ALL the experience you’re getting on that day.
You wouldn’t even have to “combine” sections to make the other interpretation of the rule look strange. You could report the two sections as a different tournament than the other sections. Then the section chief for those two sections could be listed as the chief TD of that new two-section-tournament. By doing this, should somebody get credit for a bigger event? That wouldn’t make sense.
This seems completely counter-intuitive to me. In a larger section it’s easier to:
Find transpositions and interchanges within the 80 and 200 point limits,
Pair odd score groups (bigger score groups mean more players to choose from, right?)
Find pairings that avoid team-mates playing each other,
Avoid color allocation problems,
etc.
The only thing that’s tougher about a 60-player section is that there are MORE PAIRINGS than a 30-player section. But TWO 30-player sections seem tougher to pair.
Further, Mike, lets consider ALL of the similar cases:
Two 30-player sections in a larger tournament
One 60-player section in a larger tournament
One 60-player tournament with a single section
One 60-player tournament with two sections.
Now consider the TD’s that are section chiefs (#1 & #2) and tournament chiefs (#3 & #4):
for #1 - gets credit for one D tournament even if he’s TD for both sections, for #s 2, 3, & 4 each would get credit for a C tournament. I’m sorry, but I really don’t see that much difference. Tim’s rule interpretation just doesn’t make sense and this change exceeds what was presented to the delegates.
Yes, there are types of pairing problems more common with small turnouts, but there are others more common in larger events, and in some regards having more players to choose from for transpositions and interchanges makes the problem more complex, not simpler. (And, no, the computers don’t always get them right, though these days it takes a really EXPERIENCED TD to know when not to use the computer pairings. I’ve only overruled the computer a couple of times in the last decade, and one of those was a borderline call.)
There are other situations, such as prize fund allocation, that definitely get more complicated in larger events.
You’re also likely to have more clock situations or other things that can intefere with the process of getting the next round paired on time.
I doubt if most TDs even CONSIDER overruling the computer. I may be one of the few “new” TDs that has experience doing things the “old” way.
Prize fund allocation is an interesting claim, but there aren’t any requirements for even OFFERING prizes in “required” tournaments until you get to the ANTD and NTD levels. This is an area that could actually use some improvement in the certification requirement since there are big differences in scholastic tournaments (especially individual-team events), multi-sectioned class tournaments, and open tournaments. Since NONE of these are addressed at the lower TD levels, I don’t see this as a legitimate argument. (in fact, I had a tournament with NO prizes as part of my experience for Local TD).
I don’t see how you’d have more clock problems with a single larger section. In fact, I’d be more concerned with two sections:
If one section finishes earlier, do you go ahead and start it’s next round? Will it disrupt the other players?
Again, there are issues we don’t even have to consider under the current requirements (ASAP rounds, for example or non-sudden-death time controls with adjournments).
You still can combine players to get more credit, just not at the section level.
In your example with the 2 sections that have 30 players each, the TD’s that were section chiefs get the credit for the 30 player sections, and the Chief TD gets credit for 60 players.
True, if you had 5 sections with 30 players in each, then it might seem unfair that a TD looking over 2 of the sections didn’t get credit for a C1 event. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Ih this case, the rule was set up that the Chief TD gets a 150 player tournament, and UP TO 5 section chiefs can get credit for 30 players.
The system isn’t perfect, but I would think that 3 35 player sections would be more managable than a 105 player section, so I understand the basis for the rule.
You’re probably right, considering the number of new TDs who have NEVER paired by hand. I wonder how many new TDs really know the pairing rules well enough (or AT ALL) to override the computer? This, in my opinion, is a necessary knowledge to acquire. I’ve overridden WinTD at least three times. And PairPLUS had a thing about reversing colors. I never could figure out why it did that sometimes.
I wrote the rule. I might just understand what was in mind when I wrote the rule. Others here have done a good job of telling you why the rule exists as is. It appears you don’t agree.
The number of players dictates the category of a section (or tournament). So, numbers are important.
TDs that are not the Chief or Chief Assistant can get a category experience credit for only one section of a multi sectioned event, no matter how many sections they are in charge of.
So, getting credit for one section but counting players from other sections is out of place; i.e., being in charge of two category D sections and adding the numbers together does not equal credit for one category C section. That is the kind of manipulation the rule is suppose to stop. The instant that “counting bodies from other sections” is thrown into the equation the door is once again re-open for the manuipulation of TD credit.
The “getting credit for a section” rule only exists to help out section TDs that otherwise would not get any credit at all, unless they were the Chief or Assistant Chief. The “one section only” rule was to prevent manipulating credit (and numbers of players) at multi sectioned events into credit for multi tournament events or extra bodies towards TD credit. The current rule keeps the door closed on ALL types of manipulation.
Of course as a delegate from Ohio (or wherever you will be from this year) you can introduce new wording to the current rule to fit your vision. I will even be glad to review it for you to make sure it covers all the bases you intend it to cover (the rule will need to deal with each level of TD certification in each of their respective sections).
BTW: Those examples you have been giving are possible but not very likely. The rule is designed to cover likely situations, not rare ones. If a situation is rare then there are ways to ask for a waiver already in place.
Well of course I’d like to make things easier on myself, I don’t think that should be a SURPRISE to anybody. I thought there might be some disagreement over exactly how the rules were to be interpreted, that’s why I ASKED.
Honestly though, Tim, I find your statement incredible. Are the delegates supposed to read your mind? I don’t care what YOU intended, what did the delegates intend when the considered the rules you had WRITTEN? The other posters have made a good case and I’ll concede their points – at least THEY read my question.
It’s funny how these rules have changed over time – not just the actual written rule, but also the way the rules were enforced. At one time there was a real shortage of TDs at the higher levels and the rules were greatly relaxed. (for that matter, there was a shortage of TDs at the LOWER levels, so we introduced the club TD) People found it a little easier to move up in certification. Then scholastic chess started really taking off and local scholastic events (in metropolitan areas) could easily have 100+ player sections. That made it easier still for people to reach higher TD certifications and so now the rules are being tightened back up. That’s all natural, I suppose.
BTW Tim, the “wherever you will be from this year” crap is cheap shot. Have you decided to start supporting Sam Sloan’s crusade? I’m hardly the only person that’s been an “additional alternate delegate” from another state – there might be some again this year.
That’s OK, I suspect we will have room for you on our Illinois Delegate list this year.
In another thread you got into name calling (you said I was a “…parody of a TD”…) when I did not agree with you. I suppose it is OK for you take cheap shots, but not others? Can you say “double standard?” (By the way, in that other thread I asked for a caricture to go along with that paroday–I never got one, sigh?!)
As for SS–why is it if I don’t agree with you I am accused of taking sides with someone who has never posted a TD comment EVER on this forum?
The rule is simple. One section with only the players in that section counting for TD credit. If you choose to make it more complex, go right ahead. I happen to like the rule the way it is. It is simple and prevents manipulation. You don’t agree. Life goes on.
If I take a cheap shot at YOU, then you are entitled to call me on it. My “cheap shot” post was at least relevant to the subject being discussed and was aimed at your position ON THAT SUBJECT. As for ASKING if you’re taking sides with SS – if you make a comment on the same side and same subject that he was so stuck on, well then that’s a fair question – especially when you bring it in out of left field and it’s totally irrelevant to what we’re discussing.
I think most readers will understand the difference between criticism on a specific subject under discussion, and bringing in extraneous matters that are NOT relevant.
This has been a big point of contention for me for a while. I’ve seen many examples where the computer spits out strange pairings–strange does not automatically means incorrect. When I ask the TD to explain the pairings, I typically get a variant of the following reply:
This is pretty common these days, especially among club and some local TDs. Frightening.
I thought there might be some disagreement over exactly how the rules were to be interpreted, that’s why I ASKED.