Kevin, I have no interest in arguing semantics with you. Although the rulebook describes several tiebreak systems, there is no rule requiring organizers to use those systems, and I’d like to keep it that way. Organizers are free to modify existing systems or invent their own as long as the tiebreaks that will be used for a tournament are properly posted and/or announced.
I agree.
That defines:
l. Standard systems
2.A method for using non-standard systems.
That IS standardization- it ISN’T anarchy.
There would be nothing wrong with requiring that a non-standard system receive some type of approval prior to being used in a rated event. this type of helpful review might help to ensure that organizers use a sensible approach when a non-standard method is needed. What’s wrong with that?
It would make it harder, possibly much harder, to run tournaments with non-standard tiebreak systems and take away the right of organizers to run their tournaments the way they think is best.
If your goal is to make it easier for MSA to calculate tiebreaks I think that effort is misguided for the reasons stated by others. Some tournaments, such as fixed roster team tournaments which don’t have individual prizes and tournaments which only have cash prizes, don’t use tiebreaks at all for individual standings. In some tournaments tiebreaks are used in some sections and not others, or different tiebreak systems are used in different sections, e.g. S-B might be used instead of Cumulative for a section which used accelerated pairings. Some tiebreaks, such as Average Rating of Opposition, Coin Toss, or Blitz Playoff, would be very difficult or impossible for MSA to calculate. It would be confusing for MSA to display the standings in “tiebreak order” for a section which didn’t use tiebreaks, or, even worse, show the players in a “tiebreak order” which didn’t match the tiebreaks which were actually used at the tournament.
I don’t see a major problem with the way things are done now: MSA makes no attempt to show players in tiebreak order, and organizers are free to show the standings in tiebreak order on their own websites. If MSA etc. are changed to show player in tiebreak order I much prefer a solution based on MSA using optional tiebreak information which may or may not be provided by the tournament director as part of the rating report.
Bob Messenger seems to hit the nail squarely on the head in his above response.
also it doesn’t seem to me at least that the current method of using the MSA is "secret handshake’ info.
automating the uploading of colors played to the MSA seems to be a better use of resources then turning the MSA into Standings vs Crosstables.
Doesn’t this feature already exist? But it requires that the TMS be upgraded to enable it. As I understand it, WinTD enables it, but for some reason SwisSys has not chosen to do so. Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong.
Bill Smythe
There is a limit of 12 games for the upload with colors as attempting to upload a 7 double-round (14 game) blitz event resulted in breaking the entries into a line of 12 games and a line of 2 games. The the US Open has color information and the US Open blitz side event does not.
That said, once it became available I’ve been uploading the color information in every tournament for which I’ve headed the back room since I haven’t exceeded the 12-game limit.
Actually, Bill’s first option did assert that.
“If there are good additional systems, there isn’t a reason NOT to standardize those.”
Standardization can either be done in the rulebook or outside of the rulebook. If it is done in the rulebook then I would not be surprised to learn that listing all of the various decent tie-breaks would require an additional 50 pages in an already bloated rulebook. If they are not in the rulebook then they aren’t readily findable and are thus not fully standardized.
I use the IHSA tie-break system multiple times per year. I used an earlier version of it even back when I did USCF-rated IHSA tournaments. It takes more than a page to describe and works well for what it is designed for.
I do NOT see a need to include the IHSA tie-breaks in the USCF rulebook, or in a USCF web page of other tie-breaks (a page that many TDs would never look for anyway, let alone find).
When thare are a small number of variations then people in general can readily relate to the idea of standardization. When you have a lot of variations then people get confused about using standardization to describe it. In my day job I deal with EDI standards that are so flexible that non-techies are often shocked by how many variations can be fit into the standards
(Most) TDs and (some) experienced tournament players are used to the current complexities of the standard tie-breaks. Fewer of each would be used to the greater complexities of a larger number of standard tie-breaks. If it requires five pages of reading for people to understand what is going on with MSA then a large portion of the people using it would be served poorly.
That said, what I’d like to see is a way for a TD to simply upload the prize list to MSA and allow it to be linked to. It could be in the order of the actual tie-breaks without having to explain any details behind those tie-breaks. It could include team, board and grade information on the prize list without having to shove that information into MSA. It could be on the USCF website so that it isn’t lost if an organizer’s web site is no longer linked to (the Illinois Chess Association has had multiple occasions where its url was grabbed by somebody else when it wasn’t renewed in a timely manner, and had it offered back only if a profitable payment was made to the entity that grabbed it - if that url had links on many USCF MSA pages then such a payment may have had to have been actually made instead of what actually happened with the ICA simply moving to a different url).
A free format USCF website link would be a way to provide a standard location for a report that didn’t need to be otherwise standardized. I could bring up the prize lists in WinTD, copy and paste them to Word, delete the duplicate entries numbered under the overall standings and asterisked under the group standings, add any additional comments, and then upload the Word document in TD/A. The only modification needed in MSA would be that the tournament crosstable page would need a navigational link or tab to the uploaded prize report. No specific tie-break methodology would be imposed on anybody. Random tie-breaks (coin flip, non-rated blitz play-off) could be taken into account without having to be explicitly listed. Team, board and grade results could be shown without having to add such fields to the cross-table.
I do agree with Tom that a link to a non-USCF website would be a viable interim solution over my preference for a link to a USCF web page. I also agree with Tom that there is no compelling reason for doing anything else about standardizing tie-breaks. There are many reasons that can be given, and given with logic, but I do not find them compelling.
One of the tiebreaks that can be used, strength of opposition, may be affected by floating decimals. Which the TD is not going to know for sure about until all of the tournament is rated and long after all of the trophies are passed out. The final published rating and tiebreak order will be different than what the pairing program does. Rerates would likely also change the published tiebreak order. Why mix up a system dedicated to determining ratings with tiebreak and prize variables?
Yes sometimes you do appear to be posting just to argue Kevin. 
You are not correct here. We don’t have standard tie break orders. Even if the calculation of some of the tie breaks is standard - the order of application varies more widely. There is a suggested order in the rule book, and absent an announcement that the tie breaks are different one would expect them to flow in that order. But major USCF events use a different tie break order (like the national scholastics) and so do many organizers. Ky Chess Association scholastics for example follow the rule book order but only for the first 2-3 and then we go to a coin flip.
WinTD has “Player–Change Standing” which can be used to manually adjust the placement of a player, in case an organizer blitzes off first place, or flips a coin, or uses head-to-head for first place and not others, etc, all of which are permitted, and should continue to be permitted.
Standardization of methods does not imply nor disallow changes that are applied by methodology, and it was never argued that it should be so.
What WAS argued is that IF things follow a methodology the whether that methodology is applied by TMS or MSA is relatively irrelevant.
My argument is nothing of the sort and never has been. I simply argued to Bill Smythe that if methods are already standardized, then whether that standardization is applied by TMS or MSA is largely irrelevant.
In addition, I would say that there are preferences to tie-break standardization, which is why we state such preferences in the rulebook.
USCF has a product and to an extent has a right and a duty to ensure that that product meets standards of reasonability. To that extent, it is also perfectly reasonable if USCF wishes to have preapproval of any non-standard TB used in a rated event.
If MSA is a tournament reporting tool, and not only a rating reporting tool, then I have no problem requiring and organizer to report tie-break or prize information.
The problem is that MSA offers organizers and players unique advantages as a tournament reporting tool, not just as a rating reporting tool. USCF can strengthen the value it offers players, fans, TDs and organizers by strengthening and more fully utilizing the advantages offered by MSA than it does today.
USCF has a history of offering “OK” solutions until forced to do better. Instead, let’s plan for and strive for excellence in the future.
When its not what the average person would expect, and when we act like they are crazy for expecting it then its secret handshake info.
Standardization of USCF rules occurs in the rulebook. I would be surprised if it took 50 additional pages because I don’t believe there are that many justifiable additional tie-break systems for USCF events.
The IHSA tournament is not USCF rated and does not therefore need to be in the USCF rulebook. The description of the tie-break system takes about 4 column inches in a 3 column page in the IHSA handbook, so you would seem to be exaggeratig as to the description.
I agree that there may be a place for weighted average tie-break systems for team events. If there are good and add quality to USCF events, then other TDs and players and organizers should know of these systems - and there is no reason not to have USCF standardize and approve them.
With well-written tie-breaks, we don’t need a lot of variation.
Not a fault of MSA, nor relevant. If we USE the system then a tournament reporting system should be able to report what is used.
Such a reporting system is a good and reasonable interim step, but should not be the final goal.
But Kevin are we to assume on your word that the current view of the MSA with its’ current disclaimer etc is not what the average person would expect?
Nope, Like me, you can talk to fans and newbies and players who all seem confused by it.
You can also just answer a simple question: Explain the logic behind a tournament reporting system that is incapable of reporting frequently used, standard tournament results.
Let’s return to the original reason tie-break order in MSA was proposed: to show who won which prizes. But tie-break order is not prize list order. For that matter, tie-break order for the U1600s in MSA does not necessarily show who won the U1600 trophy because somebody with a pre-tournament rating over 1600 may have had a supplement rating under 1600 and thus won it (or the organizer may have opted to use the absolute latest ratings and that supplement rating under 1600 did not qualify the player for the under 1600 trophy.
An actual prize list would seem to be much more capable of allowing people to see who won the various trophies.
Yes, I just had to laugh at that one too.
Bill Smythe