Yes, that is yet another reason why, if tiebreaks are to be added to MSA, they must be the tiebreaks furnished by the organizer, which were used to decide trophy winners.
Bill Smythe
And even then, the only trophy winners that can be definitively tied to the tie-breaks are the overall winners. To get ratings based trophy winners you would also need to list the rating used during the tournament (for just one example the National Elementary in May uses the April supplement, not the May supplement).
Grade based trophies would require listing the grades used during the tournament. Gender based trophies would require listing the gender (not always determinable from the name). Board based trophies would require listing the board. Etc.
I am curious about the term “secret handshake.” When did this start? Who coined the term? Is this an inference that the USCF has a conspiracy of secret practices known only to a few “insiders”? If so, who are these individuals? Are there levels one has to go through to acquire knowledge of the “secret handshake”? Nearly all of the people I know have always thought that all you needed to live and work in the US chess world was the knowledge gained from reading the Rulebook. I don’t see anything in the Rulebook about “secret handshakes.” Please explain.
I am satisfied with the way MSA looks and works. If it gets any busier or more complicated, then it will not serve its purposes. Also probably make it easier to break down or hack.
I agree. However, that means implementing this proposal will have the security issue I mentioned earlier.
Such a screen does not exist in TD/A as it currently sits. Proposed corrections are sent in, reviewed and implemented manually. I see this as a good thing.
As previously mentioned, this requires a significant overhaul to TD/A - for a benefit that, to this Bear of Very Little Brain, anyhow, doesn’t seem anywhere near worth the effort.
Here’s something else to consider. With almost all of the more extensive proposals, the developer class has to agree to adopt this new standard - USCF can’t force them to.
So then, if the TD is using a version of a TMS that does not support color reporting, there is no way for the TD to manually add colors to the report produced by the TMS, before submitting the report?
Indeed, if tiebreak or sort-order reporting is ever implemented, some kind of policy would be necessary so that the office would never be forced, after a correction is implemented manually, to also make corrections to the tiebreaks. I see two possibilities: (a) After a correction, simply remove the tiebreaks for that event from MSA, converting it back to a “standard” report, or (b) After the proposed correction is reviewed and approved, request the organizer to run his correction through the TMS that he used originally, and ask him to re-submit the report (directly to the authorized office personnel, not via MSA).
This should take care of the security problem.
Bill Smythe
Pretending that those who are not informed are informed is not the solution. I do hope the new much larger red type styles grab the attention but I kind of doubt it will for some. For the problem is not in what is written, or how it is written. The problem is some simply make the deliberate decision to be blind. And for those who make such decisions, there really is not much we can do except ask them to reread, but this time to pay attention to what is written.
Rob Jones
That is not true. There is an option when submitting a tournament to not show colors, to show colors without editing capability, and to show colors with editing capability.
Alex Relyea
While that is an important ancillary benefit, it wasn’t the reason. The reason was for comprehensive tournament reporting -
I agree with several your points here, and that’s why in some posts I have noted the difference between TB order and prize order.
See the threads following these posts about how we (experienced players/TDs/coaches, etc.) make it too difficult on NEW players/TDs/coaches, etc.
viewtopic.php?p=226095#p226095
viewtopic.php?p=226257#p226257 - coined the term with respect to this issue, was based on the prior thread
viewtopic.php?p=270689#p270689 followed up on the 2nd thread above.
What’s interesting is that many people agreed with the concept in those threads - but when given a real life application (like - “MSA should be an actual tournament reporting site” because it would simplify things for TDs, organizers, spectators, players) - we can’t collectively shake off the thinking that we are so used to to see that we can better use this tool to support our members.
Reason I asked is, then it should be possible to do something similar with tiebreaks. If the TD can add the tiebreaks after the rest of the report is prepared, then some TDs may wish to begin doing so, even before WinTD or SwisSys supports this feature directly.
Development Phase 1 would already be useful.
Bill Smythe
My initial suggestion requires no changes to reporting or TMS software. Simply allow a second viewable sort order that lists the results in the USCF standard tie break order. This will match the majority of tournaments. Then the disclaimer can say something to the effect of “Results may or may not match the organizers standings depending on which tie-breaks were actually used.”
The next best thing that can be done only requires one additional field - sort position. Organizers do not need to specify what tie breaks were used. They simply rank the players in their own final standings in whatever order they choose. Software can be modified to include this. The results page can then be shown in either sort order (default as it is now or with the organizer’s supplied order.) If the organizer doesn’t supply the order, then only the default is available.
Having more information like what actual prizes were distributed (and even what tiebreaks were actually used) is probably overkill for MSA. I am all for including a link to the organizer’s own results page, if they have one. Sadly most don’t, which is part of the reason it would be very nice to have this available in MSA.
Regardless, even as it is currently, the MSA reports are light-years ahead of the FIDE tournament results. Those are a mess. Three cheers to who developed the current system.
This isn’t THAT simple. It does require a rather significant change to MSA.
This is unhelpful, for two reasons.
- It will not match all events.
- In any event that awards “under” prizes, MSA’s results quite possibly will differ from the on-site results. This is because MSA uses the current ratings held in the ratings server - which may or may not match the wallchart ratings used on-site.
MSA should never purport to give complete prize/tiebreak information for an event, unless such is directly provided by the organizer or chief TD. MSA does not, should not and hopefully never will calculate anything.
People do not, in the main, read disclaimers. Exhibit A: the current MSA disclaimer.
This proposal creates the most work for both pairing program developers and the USCF IT department - not to mention directors. This proposal also creates the greatest chances for user error. And again, for anything but overall prizes, there’s a good chance that the final display order will create more confusion than it solves (for reasons discussed earlier in this post).
Again, if MSA is ever going to provide any such information, it should be completely accurate (otherwise, MSA would create additional confusion that doesn’t currently exist, and create more work for organizers).
Of course, MSA is not currently set up to archive prize/tiebreak information. Given that USCF rates roughly 7,000 events per year, many of which do not use the suggested tiebreak order in the USCF rule book, the increase in data storage and support USCF would require to hold all that information indefinitely is most assuredly non-trivial.
Is that increased expense, not to mention the man-hours of effort by the USCF IT staff and pairing program developers to put out a new standard, worth it? My own position is that the answer is an obvious “no”. YMMV.
After viewing (and participating in) all these posts, I think my own position is beginning to gel a little more solidly:
- Any change to MSA might not have the highest priority in the world. There are probably a hundred other tasks that should remain ahead of it on the priority list.
- HOWEVER, moving in the direction of increased organizer input into the appearance of the MSA crosstables IS a desirable (eventual) goal, PROVIDED that it is done intelligently, with lots of thought given to detail, AND that it does not go too far.
- Data processing people (those who would be involved in making any changes) often suffer from a Goldilocks mentality: “Somebody’s been eating MY program, and THEY’VE EATEN IT ALL UP!!”. They just don’t want to make changes in their “perfect” product. I’ve been a data processing person too, so I know how it feels. Sometimes I sympathize, sometimes I don’t.
- It would be a serious error for the MSA program to compute anything it doesn’t already compute (tiebreaks, sort order, prizes, etc). All such information should be organizer-supplied, to whatever extent the organizer wishes to supply it. I’ve been around the block a few times, I’m older than most of you whippersnappers, I’ve developed a healthy respect for Murphy’s law, and I am good at anticipating problems that half-baked ideas can cause. (Yes, this also makes me an old fogey – I still prefer pairing cards over pairing software for tournaments of 30 players or fewer.)
- Let’s all (including me) get the word “tiebreaks” OUT of these conversations, OUT of disclaimers, and OUT of our thinking. The point is sort order, not tiebreaks. Tiebreaks are simply a way of determining sort order.
- Sort order can be determined by the organizer, via a single new field called “sort order”. This new field could be either increasing (in order by rank) or decreasing (in order by whatever the organizer supplies, e.g. tiebreaks), but in no case should sort order be allowed to override score. The crosstable would still be in order by score, and within equal score groups by the organizer-supplied sort order (increasing or decreasing).
- Each person viewing a crosstable should have the option of “standard” order (score, then post-event rating, as is presently done) or organizer-supplied order. The latter version would be created on the fly when the viewer chooses it.
- Any other fields supplied by the organizer (prizes, age, grade, gender, etc) would also be displayed when the viewer clicks the “organizer-supplied sort order” button.
A project like this should be manageable, though certainly not trivial. Initially, no changes would be needed in WinTD or SwisSys. The organizer could simply add the sort order (and any other new fields) manually to the report generated by the pairing software, before submitting the report. At some future date, the pairing software could be enhanced to provide (some of) this information in a more automated fashion.
It’s do-able, and desirable. Put it somewhere on the to-do list!
Bill Smythe
Part of the problem is that the rated games don’t always correspond to the results in the standings. So there will be cases where the sort order should override the score (which is based only upon what was rated).
(Also posted as a new topic under “USCF Issues” → “A Future USCF” Please respond there: viewtopic.php?p=288412#p288412
Thinking in a new way – a new way that relate to USCF’s 501(c)3 status and USCF going forward
I think a primary strength of USCF is that it is in the unique position of offering comprehensive end-to-end tournament management of USCF “sanctioned” events. What this would mean is information integration: integrated Event Announcements, integrated entry processing, integrated pairings, integrated prize processing including prize distribution and integrated tax reporting capability, and integrated tournament reporting capability including rating processing - all USCF “verified”
Doing this would mean that organizers, TDs, members and fans would have a fundamental reason to use and support USCF - it would mean that USCF would always have a primary role with these groups.
Note that “being integrated” DOES NOT mean that USCF must develop and provide all of the software for those tasks. All USCF needs to do is to provide the specifications to provide integration for these task – much as it does today for Tournament Management Software. There are ASPECTS of this that USCF will always want to house. For example - USCF would need to have a means to link to Event Announcements, or Tournament Reporting, or linking to Rating Calculation. USCF would need to be the front end/portal to these databases - its not clear to me that USCF would have to provide the databases themselves.
In this way, USCF becomes a virtual organization, linking interested parties to information. USCF would oversee the appropriateness of information, but would not have to be the developer or organizer of the information per se.
It also means that USCF would look at chess in a more generalized way. We think of EVENTS rather than Tournaments. This could mean Rated Tournaments, Unrated Tournaments, Classes, Lectures, Simuls, leagues (and league reporting) etc.
It would also mean that in terms of information distribution, we could think of virtual magazines, ebooks, or DB-Books (Database Books). This might also mean, for example, that USCF might acquire rights to OLD books and enter their information into modern databases for electronic distribution. And note - this is a task that could be accomplished by volunteers.
It would also mean member connectivity. It means a membership database that allows members to provide connectivity to coaches, for example, or relationship to to specific schools or clubs. One might think of it as relationships to “chess parishes”.
We have an opportunity NOW to become the leader in this - and to provide a tool to organizers, TDs, members, and fans that no one else can reasonably provide.
But do we have the vision and willpower to do this? That remains to be seen.
Forfeit wins and byes are not rated, but do show up in the score in MSA.
Note the forfeit win in section two showing up in the 4.5 score.
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 2-12429016
Note the multiple forfeit wins in this one (which was submitted for the final unplayed game of the first section in the tournament above - delayed due to three of my opponents being unavailable on the weeks that I was supposed to play them in the round robin and those games being played later).
uschess.org/assets/msa_jooml … 2-10336015
This is one case where tie-break order calculated from the partial submission may not have matched the final tie-breaks. I actually submitted a full 28 games cross-table with 27 of the games having non-rated results matching the results already rated in the above tournament report, but the MSA software eliminated the six players that had no rated games and the last three rounds after the sole rated game in this submission. I didn’t want to delay rating the rest of the event for what may have been an extra month and that is why I did the split (easier would have been to simply have a forfeit loss in that last game since that would have given me first on tie-breaks while a played loss would have left me in a three-way tie, but I didn’t want to win the tournament that way).
Another case where I could see the results of non-rated games not showing up in the MSA score would be if the TD violated the rule about rating every game played in the section and removed some results from the tournament report while retaining them for prize purposes. I don’t think we should have MSA programs written to compensate for rules violations.
While it is an unlikely scenario, it is possible that an incorrectly recorded result was not reported and corrected promptly (before the start of the next round). The director may have decided that the originally reported result would stand for prize purposes (rule 15I) but reported the correct result in the rating report.
Of course, there are a couple of ways the result could be correctly reported. The director may have changed the game in question to an unplayed win/loss/draw and added an “extra games section” with the correct result for rating. Or, the director might simply have corrected the result in the actual section before submitting the rating report.
Oops. Overlooked that one. Particularly embarrassing because I once let one player (and coach) know that exactly that would be done for a round four correction reported after the player had finished playing the final round (seven).
We could become more golf-like and either all results stand as reported for all purposes, and/or incorrectly reported results are treated as forfeits, or some other standard.
I don’t think it needs to display the actual prizes awarded. So, there’s no need to calculate the “Under” prizes, etc.
Exactly. Even though I did use the word “tiebreaks”, this is what I meant.
This is the same as my second suggestion. It creates the most work, but gives the availability for the standings to be in the finished organizer order. “Sort Position” or “Rank” may be a better term to use then “sort order” as it implies a standings position as opposed to a sort type. But, it’s just a name.
Exactly. The page initially comes up as it is now. The user clicks on “Sort by Organizer supplied standings” or whatever and the page is redisplayed sorted by the organizer sort position field. Yes, this would override “score”. It would display it exactly however the organizer chose to rank the players. That way USCF does not need or even care what tie breaks were or were not used. Normally one would expect the organizer to rank it based on score first and then by any relevant tie breaks, but if the organizer chose to do it alphabetically, then so be it. This way requires the least amount of work from everyone. The additional “sort position” field can even be optional. If not supplied, then it’s simply not available on the page or just displays it the same way as it is currently - whatever is easier to do.