How do you pay this prize fund?

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I am not writing this because I need to know the answer. I am writing this to share knowledge and perhaps start a discussion. I would not be posting this if was an easy question i.e. just look in the rulebook or it was easy to figure out. Different NTDs originally came up with different answers, though I think now they agree on what the answer is. Also, different NTDs came up with different algorithm to calculate their answer. I will share those details as this discussion develops.

Player A: prize limited to $100; 5-0
Player B: not limited; 4 1/2 - 1/2
Player C: not limited; 4 1/2 - 1/2

Guaranteed prizes: 1st $500. 2nd $250, 3rd $150

Have fun and good discussions.

Dave Hater
NTD, FA

2

$100 (duh), $375, $375 (can’t do better than splitting $500 and $250), the 4.0’s fight over the leftover $50.

3

$100 to the limited player.

I then take the $400 overage (which to me is not a separate prize) and add it to the $400 ($250 but $150) and then split that $800 among the two players. $400 each.

I’ll follow this discussion with interest.

4

The 2nd and 3rd players can’t do better than they would if the 1st player didn’t even exist.

5

I agree with Tom Doan.

I can see one good option (#1), one definitely flawed option (#2), two options that initially seem okay but have a significant flaw (#3 and #4), and an option that might initially seem okay to some but has significant flaws (#5).

Option 1 5-0=$100, 4.5-0.5s=$375 each, remaining $50
(both mathematical options result in the same values)
mathematical option a) Give the 5-0 $100 of first, move the $400 to second, change the resulting $650 in second to $500 (no more than the original first), move the $150 to third, change the resulting $300 to $250 (no more than the original second), create fourth for $50, award the 4.5s the top two remaining prizes ($750 to be split two ways)
mathematical option b) Find the lowest prize that still covers the cap (third’s $150 in this case), leave the other prizes alone (first and second), create fourth with the $50 balance from the $150, award the 4.5s the top two remaining prizes ($750 to be split two ways)

Option 2 5-0=$100, 4.5-0.5s=$400 each, remaining $0
Award $100 of first and push the remaining $400 to second, award the two 4.5s the $800 to be split two ways
This uses 32C6 #3 while ignoring that players cannot get more money than they would have gotten if some players didn’t play

Option 3 5-0=$100, 4.5-0.5s=$325 each, remaining $150
Award $100 of first, leaving the $400 balance for a prize coming ahead of second, award the two 4.5s the top two remaining prizes ($650 split two ways) while $150 remains for the next prize group
This uses 32C6 #3 and is somewhat defensible because $400+$250 is significantly higher than $250+$150 but it pays little attention to the primary reason for having prize limits (minimizing the impact such limited players have on other prize winners)

Option 4 5-0=$100, 4.5-0.5s=$340 each, remaining $120
$100 is 20% of first, so the two 4.5s bring in two prizes [80% of first + 20% of second] and [80% of second plus 20% of third] so that they split $680 and 80% of third remains
This uses 32C6 #3 and is somewhat defensible because $400+$250+$30 is significantly higher than $250+$150 but it pays only moderate attention to the primary reason for having prize limits

Option 5 5-0=$100, 4.5-0.5s=$200 each (2nd and 3rd), with the remaining $400 (from 1st) to be used to create various place prizes, each less than $150 (maybe $125, $100, $75, $50, $30, $20)
The 5-0 took first but is limited to $100. The 4.5-0.5s took second and third and receive that. 32C6 says to put the balance of the limited prize back into the section but 32C6 #4 is inapplicable because there are no other 5-0 players, so brand new prizes are created with the reallocated money (32C6 #3 requires it to be place prizes and not under or class prizes). This completely ignores the primary reason for having prize limits

6

Okay, I’m officially changing my answer. #1. Makes sense. :laughing:

7

There is $900 to distribute among the three players. If the player with 5-0 is limited to only $100, the $400 remaining drops down to the next available players. Since they tied with 4.5-.5, the tied 2nd and third prizes combined with the $400 of the limited prize will give each of them $400.

I would like to see how the CCA would distribute such a prize fund since they have prize limits for unrateds in their tournaments. The above appears to be their method. Money is funneled to the top places.

8

why would the 4-1s get anything if prizes guaranteed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd? i would vote to give that extra 50 split between second and third.

either that or throw it in for a door prize! :smiley:

…scot…

9

I do not have my rulebook in front of me, so I can’t easily refer to the rules Jeff Wiewel mentioned (at least at this moment). I am intentionally piecemealing this information. This situation did actually occur and I will share what happened and how it happened.

Let’s start with the obvious. Player A gets $100 and there is $400 left over. While you could as Jeff notes create new prizes, that was never even considered and I don’t think should be considered. I will note in passing that one TD did originally calculate the prizes as $100, $335, $325 and pass the money down. That really has the effect of paying the top three players only two prizes (1st and 2nd) and taking the $100 from the 2nd and 3rd place players. That option was never seriously considered.

So when $400 is added to $250 and $150, there is $800 for two players. Here is the real question: How much can player B and player C win? Can they win up to their theoretical prize $500 or can they only win $375 ($500 + $250 divided by 2)?

Here are two different algorithms that both arrived at the same answer.

a) There are three players: add $500, $250, $150 = $900. A gets $100 because he is limited. B and C split the rest.

b) A gets $100. $400 gets added to 2nd and 3rd. There is now $800 for B and C. b1) B and C are limited to $500 so they each get $400. b2) B and C are limited to $375 and the $50 goes to the 4-1 players.

FYI, I was sloppy in describing the question because it wasn’t relevant to the main point. There is a 4th place of $100. There are eight players at 4-1 (two of them are unrated and cannot win more than $100). Do the players at 4-1 win $12.50 ($100 divided by :sunglasses: or do they win $18.75 ($150 divided by :sunglasses:?

Note b1 above keeps 1st 2nd and 3rd place money among the top three finishers. The players who benefit from the unrated player being unable to take all the money are the second and 3rd place finisher. In b2, players B and C benefit somewhat (if player A had a rating B and C would only win $200), but the players at 4-1 also benefit as some of the 1st place money goes to 4th place even though second and third place got less than the $500 first prize.

I will post more (probably giving how this story ended) in the next day or so.

Dave Hater
NTD, FA

10

Players B and C cannot each receive more with the prize limited player in the field than they could receive if that player were not in the prize distribution. Since they tied the most that they could each receive is [(500 + 250) / 2], which is 375. There is $50 left over from the sum of the top three prizes that cannot be awarded to any of players A, B, or C, and must therefore be awarded to the next lower score group, the players scoring 4-1.

11

I have no idea how that smiley face got in my previous answer. I clearly typed divided by 8. I tried to correct it and could not.

Please don’t spinoff this discussion to smiley faces or how to edit a message.

Dave Hater

12

Query whether this exercise illustrates why it is poor practice to limit players to certain prize amounts in the first place. If one has to do this to protect the field from a player, perhaps the player ought not be in the field.

13

Certain sets of keystrokes turn into smilies and I don’t think you can change that other than to insert a space. (The admin configures those). 8 ) is the only one that I’ve found that might occur in natural text and looks like that’s the one that bit you.

14

It seems wrong to flat-out exclude the idea of creating new prizes (in this case 4th prize) within a category, whether overall, class, or Under.

Consider the following much simpler example:

Player A: prize limited to $100; 5-0
Player B: not limited; 4 1/2 - 1/2

Guaranteed prize: $500 (no 2nd or 3rd prize)

In this case, what else could you do besides give player A the $100 limit and give the rest to player B? This effectively adds a 2nd prize where there was none.

Sometimes, when you look at a simple example, or even an extreme or improbable example, the light dawns. Then you can rid yourself more easily of pre-conceived notions, such as the fixed idea that you should not “create new prizes”.

In fact, creating new prizes (within a prize category) is an idea that is inherently likely to come up whenever a player is prize-limited.

Bill Smythe

15

We’re missing this info: Why was Player A prize-limited?

16

He was prize limited as an unrated player. I am not convinced that the reason of the prize limit has any relevance to the discussion, though I am certainly willing to be proved wrong. It seems to me that any reason for the prize limit is going to have no effect on the prize distribution answer.

Dave Hater
NTD, FA

17

It is a very bad idea to create prizes after the fact when all scores are in, and you know who will win the prizes you create. This not only can lead to charges of favoritism, it is favoritism, whether you intend it to be or not.

In your simplified example you are not creating a new prize, you are dividing one prize between two players not in the same score group. There is a difference.

18

If there was a prize that matched the limit then I would have simply used that prize for the limited player and left the remainder for the rest:
Sole 5-0 gets the $100 4th place prize because that is the limit (some tournaments tie the limit to a place instead of a dollar amount and thus automatically do this);
Two 4.5-0.5 players split the $500 1st and $250 2nd prizes;
Eight 4-1 players split the $150 3rd prize.

32C6 says you keep the remaining prize money:
1st - in the point group (irrelevant here)
2nd - in the same class (overall prizes here)
3rd - in the same section
4th - in the tournament

PS - note that if one of the 4.5-0.5 players had also gone 5-0 then the top two prizes would not have been given as $100 and $650 because then a player would have done better in the tie than if the limited player had scored less. It would have been a $100 and $500 split with $400 remaining in the $1000 prize fund (leaving the remaining prizes at $250 and $150 would seem easiest and the most logical). I like a simple method that works in all cases.

19

Let’s say that the prizes were $1400 and $700. Player A at 5-0 is limited and gets only $100. If there was only one player at 4.5, he would get the rest of money and have a prize of $2000. That is what rule 32C6 indicates as a priority of giving the money to the next place. Now if Player A is an unrated and Player B is a GM, said GM would be hopping mad and willing to spend the $50 on an appeal if the TD/organizer distributed the cash to his buddies who are on 4-1 or created new prizes. Even if he was not a GM, the 2nd place player would be hopping mad, too. Now it might seem inequitable to give all of the rest of the money to Player B, but the rule does not appear to be about equity but priority of prize distribution.

In the example from the OP, the money left over from the limited prize is given to the next placed players who were tied for 2nd and 3rd, according to the rule. That is how I have seen such prizes distributed before. If that is not the way the rule is to be interpreted, then there needs to be better examples and more of them in the Rulebook to explain prize giving. Under the present guidelines, it appears that as much money as possible is funneled upward into the place prizes, with GMs sharing in class money when there are ties of place prize winners and a class prize winner. They all get a higher prize amount by bringing up the class prize into the tie. The priority then is to max out what the class prize winner earns, with the other prize winners in the tie getting collateral benefit in the prize distribution. Is this getting more than one prize? It appears so, but that is how prizes tend to be distributed.

Now if you are out in the hinterlands and are holding the Podunk Open, the Club or Local TD might be inclined to take the distribution in the OP example and distribute in a different way, ignoring rule 32C6. They players would be unlikely to challenge whatever the TD made up as a prize list as they are unfamiliar with the Rulebook. If the TD created new prizes out of the limited prize or put only a portion into the 2nd and 3rd prize, pocketing the rest or using it to have a pizza party after the tournament for the players, who would know or care? Most of the players would feel it would be equitable and think the TD is a great guy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the 2nd and 3rd prizes winners would be confused and wondering why they did not get more money. You can throw up a lot of hocus pocus math to justify a prize list and give the 2nd and 3rd prize winners less money.

20

Don’t you (in effect) “create” a prize with the extra $50 in

viewtopic.php?p=319211#p319211

I prefer to think of this as adding the undistributed $50 to the (in the original post) $0 4th prize.