The revised experience requirements for Local TD certification are:
Suppose TD Ted is a certified Club TD, the only one in his small club. He has directed four four-round Swiss tournaments, each of which drew exactly 16 players. Thus, while he has directed at least three events, and the total number of participants in the events he has directed exceeds 50, no three of the events he has directed, summed together, add up to 50 or more players.
Suppose the exact same thing happens in the next 30 tournaments TD Ted directs.
Taking the rule verbatim, it seems that TD Ted, despite having successfully directed 34 Category D tournaments, still does not qualify for Local TD certification – because no three of his tournaments add up to more than 48 players. Moreover, it doesn’t matter how many times he takes the Club TD exam or how well he does on it, because he just doesn’t meet the Local TD experience requirement.
Is this how the rule is in fact interpreted? Is it how the rule was intended, since Local TDs qualify to direct tournaments with up to 99 players? Is this why Club TD certification can now be renewed indefinitely?
It must be mis-transcribed. It is a total of three or more tournaments with the grand total of players being at least 50. Note that if a D1 or D2 tournament is being used as a substitution then the number of players from that tournament to be used is the D1 or D2 section, not the overall number in the tournament. Also, only one section is used when using a D1 or D2 substitution, so being the section chief of, say, three sections in a single event (with another TD as the overall chief of all, say, 10 sections) would mean that you could only add the number of players in the largest of the three sections, not all three of them.
I transcribed it verbatim from the “Rulebook Changes (2003–2010)” PDF. So if what you say is true, either the PDF is wrong, or the rule was passed with incorrect wording with respect to its intent.
You might contact Tim Just, it isn’t clear if this is a typo, an oversight or an intentional requirement that the TD direct some events that draw more than 16 players.
Contacting Tim is a good idea. TD Ted might also email Phil Smith to find out? (At least, I know he was a big help for my recent question which was similar-but-different.)
Jeff has explained how the rule is used in practice very well (3 or more), despite the wording.
FYI, the delegates passed new regulations for Club TDs at their annual meeting in Irvine this year; i.e., once a Club TD passes the Club exam then they can renew their Club TD certificate by having directed 3 tournaments in 3 years in order to renew at the Club level (Club TD certificates expire every 3 years). The old wording could have been interpreted as the Club TD having to take an exam to renew every three years.
The USCF/TDCC does not want to make it harder to upgrade TD certificates or to to renew them. We just want to insure some universal standards for each level.
What’s the real incentive for someone to go up to the the Local Level unless they are looking to go beyond that level? Club directors (and local directors for that matter) often direct tournaments that they should not.
I suspect even some senior TDs have directed events beyond their certification level.
I don’t know that we want to start rigorously enforcing the certification level maximums, but it might not be a bad idea to at least point them out and encourage those TDs to consider moving to a higher level of certification.
Club directors can be chief TD of tournaments expected to have up to 50 players, Local directors have that limit raised to 100 players and Senior directors have it raised to 300. Assisted by a computer and an assistant TD those limits are increased by 20%.
The only limits ANTDs have are that there are some national events they cannot be the chief of. NTDs have no limits (at least for USCF events, for all TDs there are other requirements for FIDE tournaments, especially those awarding norms).
A Senior TD or higher can be the chief of a FIDE-rated tournament (this is not a step to be taken lightly as mistakes at such events are unlikely to be unreported).
One benefit of moving up the certification ladder may be a reduction in players (or parents) questioning your rulings. In scholastics there is a constant turnover of kids and parents as the kids progress through the grades, so I end up seeing many parents who are at their first event. As TDs gain experience their error rate goes down (in general), but there are some rulings that are absolutely correct and yet are often questioned by newer parents (pairings, touch move, time forfeiture and scorekeeping are common areas). I’ve found that, as an NTD, a parent will more quickly accept my explanation than when I gave that same explanation as a Senior TD.
As a side note, I’ve found it is more effective to treat parent questions simply as questions looking for answers than when I’ve seen other TDs treat them as questions trying to undermine the TDs’ authority. In most cases they are only questions by parents that are trying to understand how things are run in this new activity of their kids’. If you can, it helps to have a quick meeting with the parents to let the new ones know what to expect (if you have somebody else to watch the room then mid-way through round one is a good time, that is after any re-pairings for no-shows, after a lot of the extremely one-sided games are over, and before having to start pairing round two).
There are (over-generalizing) four types of parents.
the parents that know what is going on and don’t have any questions - these are easy for a TD to deal with.
the parents that don’t know what is going on and are determined to find out - dealing with these parents can be time-consuming.
the parents that don’t know what is going on, get frustrated, and pull their kids out of chess so they don’t feel lost - these parents are easy to deal with because they are essentially invisible to a TD.
the parents that know what is going on and want to argue to stretch every possible edge in favor of their kids (either within or outside the rules) - these are difficult, but fortunately they are also fairly rare.
Some TDs find dealing with the second group to be a pain. I’ve found that dealing with the second group calmly is a way of transforming some of those parents to the first group, and then the first group will often answer the second group’s questions before they ever come to the TD. Also, discussions among the first group can also answer some of the questions the third group feels uncomfortable asking and thus reduce the disappearances among that group.
Tim can correct me if I’m wrong, but “harder” means the pre-reqs just to take the test, not a progressively harder testing schedule that ensures you know your stuff. Harder testing is essential. That’s why the ANTD and NTD tests are essay questions.
Club is possess the book, promise to read it, and sign a waiver…Local is take an open book test…Senior is take an open book test that is over 5x harder than the Local. As a player and local director, I don’t want to ever encounter a Senior TD who says, “Because the computer says so,” when I ask why pairings were done a particular way. I want a Senior TD who can hand pair the tournament (including the hard stuff) if the computer battery runs out.
I think it was Ken Sloan who said something on the order of:
To be a club TD you have to promise to read the rulebook. (sign the form)
To pass the local TD test you have to prove that you can read the rulebook. (every question on the LTD test has an answer in the rulebook)
To pass the senior TD test you have to prove that you understand the rulebook. (every question has an answer in the rulebook, but you have to figure out which rules best apply)
To pass the ANTD test you have to prove that you can extrapolate the rules to handle situations not covered in the rulebook.
To pass the NTD test you have to prove that you know when to make your own rules.
I suspect that certification level will not be an issue until something happens that shows that the under certified TD is in over their head.
jwiewel wrote:
Not that I’ve noticed. Among the parental complaints I’ve received are:
Pairing a 6th grader against their 1st grader in a K-6 section because “any fool knows you” don’t do this.
Ruling that the player who recorded moves is correct about the position even though the non-recording player “doesn’t remember” how the disputed piece got there.
Requiring that a player get out of check is cheating because the TD is helping.
Not coming to the assistance of their child even though none was requested by the player.
My son’s opponent just made two moves in a row (he castled).
In all of the above cases, my certification level meant nothing to the parents as they seem to be clueless that there are certification levels. I’m also not inclined to tell the parent that I’m an NTD because I fear that this will only exacerbate the situation. In many cases I’ve offered to let the parent read in my rule book to show that I was following the rules and they both decline and still insist I was wrong.
jwiewel wrote:
#5 the parent whose child can do no wrong so it must be the TD’s fault.
There is a reason I used the word “may”. It might have regional applications. Some of the more difficult events I’ve done have been non-rated events for mostly first-timers (as high as 100% first-timers for some events), and that is for the reasons you’ve given.
The first-timers in other scholastic events are more likely to listen. Thinking about it later, most organizers in this area will handle the housekeeping announcements and then introduce me as an NTD with a LOT of experience in local scholastics, and it may be that the experience citation is being given more weight than the NTD citation.
As far as #5 goes, I can think of one NTD who was able to prove that the child actually did do wrong. A parent of that child then spent the rest of the tournament trying to get advice from the NTD on how to handle the situation with the kid. How you react to requests like that can determine whether or not you really want to prove to the parent the validity of the ruling you made against the kid (and in either case you will not change the ruling since it is correct).
Fortunately I rarely see the #5 type of parent in this area (I can’t remember a case off-hand). Part of that may be due to the prevalence of closed floors here.
There is also a #6 - the parent who is certain that some other kid is cheating. That I have seen here. One case was where a parent in the '80s (pre-laptop days) said that a father (roughly 1100-rated) was giving signals from a viewing balcony to his son on the floor 50 feet away (roughly 1600-rated). He made this claim in a following round, and when the TD pointed out that the player lost, the claimant said that “he was signaled to lose to throw off suspicion”.
In a National Elementary I had a parent claim that there was a hovering hand touch move violation on a board approximately 150 feet from where the parent was standing.
With the death of local legend John Hillery, I may be forced to reassess my vow never to become a TD. Should I wish to pursue that particular line of masochism, where are the latest guidelines and rules on how to become a TD? I can’t seem to find anything recent, but maybe I’m just looking in the wrong place. Several years ago, I did the “local TD” thing that didn’t require any actual directing, but my understanding is that once that has happened, I can’t do that again, and if I want to be a REAL TD, I have to do something different. It is that “something different” that I can’t find. Any info would be appreciated.
Was that “local TD” thing actually the club TD certificate? If so then you can reactivate your club level by taking (and passing) a club TD test. Once you are a club TD you can maintain that level by directing in at least 3 events per 3 years, maintaining your USCF membership, and requesting renewal.
If you were actually a certified Local TD (and can show it) then you can reactivate that by taking (and passing) the Local TD test. Once you are a Local TD you can maintain that level by directing in at least 4 events per 4 years, maintaining your USCF membership, and requesting renewal.
TDA shows that Bill’s cert level was Club, and expired a few years ago. Should be easy to get reinstated.
The current certification rules are here. They’re on the front page of uschess.org in the lower right hand corner.
The wording has become more precise over the last few years from interpretation questions on the forums. If anything is unclear, there are a number of experienced TDs around who are willing to help with interpretations and answers when resources can’t be found in a forum search.
