This is in red in every cross table on MSA for the results, as it should be. I had
an organizer who called me with his interpretation of this clause was that somehow that tiebreaks were not used in the event I just ran. (Of course,
actually, they were.) Not sure how he could have come to that conclusion reading
the clause.
But, in nearly every scholastic I run, or have been a part of, a very few parents call stating
that “there is a disparity…” between the trophy order and the reporting order on
MSA. Further, there is this assumption coming from somewhere (I do not know
where), that whoever had the highest pre-tournament rating always finishes ahead
in the tiebreak pecking order (perhaps to a degree, as a component, usually at most).
And, really I am at a loss as to how to make it clearer on the website. I am not
sure stating anything differently or in other colors would make a huge difference.
People sometimes read with an understanding to believe that which they choose to. What they could read could be the exact opposite of their believes yet somehow, what they read is construed to be a reinforcement thereof.
I’ve had the same thing happen, and when I have pointed out that the MSA is not in tiebreak order, and that it says it is not in tiebreak order, the response is usually either : “I didn’t see that”, or “Oh”
I’m not sure why we should try. It is impossible to idiot-proof everything. I’d much rather address things that prevent issues before an event than worry about reducing questions after the event is over and rated.
I agree with Seki- some parents are bananas. Honestly, I’ve seen so much non-sense over trophies that I think it might be better to simply not give them out.
I’ve quit trying. Once I explain it the storm blows over - and frankly the “storm” is usually pretty mild. More often than not it is simply an inquiry and the parents appreciate me taking the time to explain it.
Be prepared for revolution among the masses with the last thought!!!
There is a local Thanksgiving K-12, very well attended, that annually awards
a trophy for 1st-3rd, and a very large frozen turkey for fourth place. I have had
parents complain that the MSA tables state their kid came in 4th, and at the
awards ceremony, their darling was cheated when they received the 3rd place
trophy instead. An interesting conversation to overhear is parents and kids
discussing what they need to do to come in 4th rather than 3rd.
as a side note-which is better, a nice third place trophy or a large frozen turkey??
New primary tiebreak for a national title event: cage match. Last player standing wins the biggest prize. (USCF could make money from the PPV and Franklin Mint commemorative items.)
One problem is that you won’t know the MSA listing order until after the event is rated. That delays the awarding of trophies.
A second problem is that the MSA order can change with the weekly re-rate. People can look at different times to see the varying order.
The solution is, obviously , take snapshots after the initial rating, the first re-rate window and the second re-rate window. Look at the various trophy distribution from each of those snapshots, and then award the lowest trophy a person qualified for in the various lists.
P.S. Award them at the start of the next monthly event to keep people coming back.
I Knew of a scholastic group that forgot to order the trophies. They
did, and had a special ceremony a month later to do so. Not many
of the award winners made the trip. I know you are in jest about using such ideas to keep folks coming back. Now if you gave away
IPADS, or even pokeman cards that would be different.
I view this as another one of the situations where we insist that people who join USCF must learn the secret handshake.
For a moment, forget everything you know about chess organization. Forget the history - pairing cards, working with cards in shutters, handwritten wallcharts full of white-out, etc.
Think of it - we have tournament results online - produced electronically by computers - and it is impossible to force them to be displayed in the actual order of finish. What sense does that make?
If you were looking for information on any other sport - who would do that? Why would you show the results in rating order rather than order of finish? Do you look to see the standings of your sports teams - or are you fine with the wins and losses and having them listed in alphabetical order?
Then, when the average person is confused by the way we do things - we try to get them to see that the secret handshake is the right way to do it, rather than improving things.
Frankly - its not the right way. We should be working on a system that provides results in order of finish/prize order and that reports that information to the members viewing the information. We shouldn’t be making fun of the members - or their parents - for questioning why it wouldn’t appear in that natural order.
On occasion, I have looked at tiebreak numbers to see differences and anomalies. The vagaries of pairings, byes, and the quest for proper color allocation affects the final numbers. Players always complain that they had to play tougher opponents or they complain they had to play lower rated people and that it was not fair because it affected their tiebreaks. If one player finishes with a clean score of 5-0 and 6 players have 4-1, I tell any of my players in the 4-1 group that they tied for 2nd place, but that the tiebreaks are messy and might put them in second or drop them to seventh place. But they should still think of themselves as tying for second. After a while they start caring less about the trophies and ribbons and more about improving their game. They leave the wailing and gnashing of teeth to the helicopter and tiger moms who like to harass TDs on behalf of their little darlings. The kids have pizza to eat and bughouse to play. Tiebreaks are the least interesting things to them.
As far as posting the standings online, the kids want to see how many rating points they gained. They look at the final number which is in order from top to bottom in each score group. That is easier to find and of greater interest as they chart their progress. If we decided to put things in tiebreak order, which I don’t doubt that we can, the TD is going to have to provide even more information, it will take longer to process the rating report, and will be cared about by only a very few. Don’t forget that which tiebreaks are used can vary. We could also publish the final standings in order of the initial rating as produced on the first set of wall charts, though that would be messier to read even if interesting to a small number of readers. If we are going to have a general standard, at least be consistent with it. Note that in tournaments with cash prizes, we don’t bother with tiebreaks but split the money up giving the tied players equal amounts. Scholastic organizers don’t have that luxury and can’t print six new plates that say “Tied for Second Place.”
MSA could display the results using the standard tiebreak order. Unless it’s a cash prize where they don’t care, the vast majority of tournaments use this order. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever personally been to a tournament that didn’t.
This way 99% of the tournaments that use tiebreaks will have the correct results displayed. For the cash prize tournaments that don’t, it won’t matter either way if the display is in tiebreak order instead of the way it is now. For the remaining 1%, well… we can’t solve everything.
Almost everyone is happy now. Just saying “we don’t know what (or if) tiebreaks were used” is a cop out. Using the default tiebreak order will cover most tournaments and we’ll all be better off than before.
I thought it was not unusual for standings of sports team to show ties in either alphabetic order, or with the home team listed first amongst the ties and the rest in alphabetic order.
The remaining 1% would be round robins that are listed as Swisses, tournaments using accelerated pairings with Sonnenborn-Berger replacing Cumulative (the scholastic nationals are one example of this), and some others.
Because during a season tie breaks are difficult - some sports do that. But they’ll also list them in winning percentage order. Once real tie-breaks are known, they’ll generally be in playoff order.
I just think its a typical sign of our organization that when people ask a very reasonable question, we explain to them that the secret handshake doesn’t work that way - instead of prioritizing a very reasonable change.
You know there is actually a good reason for having them listed in the MSA as they currently are.
The tiebreaks are used only to handout the trophies at the tournament where the person might get the third or fourth place trophy etc. But in reality they tied for second. Which is what the MSA would show. The fact that the 3 second place ties are listed out of tiebreak order is actually a good thing. The results show that they all tied for Second place. (in this example)
, take snapshots after the initial rating, the first re-rate window and the second re-rate window. Look at the various trophy distribution from each of those snapshots, and then award the lowest 
trophy a person qualified for in the various lists.