After round 2, each section’s start time are different.
No clear announcement as to when players can begin playing.
On round 5 of the K-5 section, the top player in our school start playing with his opponent thinking that the round had already begun since other kids are already playing. Obviously his opponent thought the same.
He won.
The opponent agreed.
They called the TD to certify the result.
The TD cleared the board and said. “We have not started yet. You need to star over.”
They played again, and this time he Lost.
The parents of the boy did not contest the result and told me what happened afterwards, when the tournament was over.
I told the parents that in this situation, their boy could have refuse to play again and the TD should have accepted the result of the first game.
Was my advice right? (The result was never called for reversal. I gave the Parents this advice just in case this situation happen again)
This has happened before in my events. I always make them restart. I would have upheld the TD’s decision to restart the game.
HOWEVER,
it seems as though the TD may have been guilty of inefficiency if he/she didn’t make announcements clear enough to where the players knew to start only when told to do so.
STILL,
I don’t see that the TD was in error, per the rules.
Yes and No: YES, the boy could have appealed to the TD to overturn his/her decision. NO, players have no right to simply disregard the TD’s ruling. Refusing to re-play the game, as directed by the TD, would be considered “Failure to abide by the Laws of Chess”
I guess you are right, the boy can not refuse to play again if the TD instruct them to start over. But I thought he can refuse to start to play again until all claim is settled, would it? Had he contested the TD’s ruling he would be considered to have appealed to the TD, was it?
And how was ruling 16N apply to this situation?
Consider also that BOTH players already agreed to a result.
I agree that the TD handled the situation poorly, but I cannot approve of your advice to the parents. You are arguing that, even though the players started before the round was scheduled to start or the TD told the players to start, the result has to stand because the two players agreed on it. Now, as a practical matter that’s probably the way the TD ought to have ruled, but accepting the argument would have absurd consequences. Suppose the pairings were changed between the time the players started and the time the round was supposed to start?
I don’t really see how 16N applies here, since the game seems to have started before the scheduled round time. (Now, if the players started on time but the TD subsequently stopped the game, that’s another story.)
You said that there was: “No clear announcement as to when players can begin playing”.
This is the area in which I would have questioned the TD’s efficiency. Rule 16N is applicable here. It seems that the TD did not give a schedule. Rather, it was an “ASAP basis”. In this case, the TD should (and normally does) announce that play is to begin. If, however, there had been a set schedule, and that schedule wasn’t compromised by late starting, the player might well have had a basis for appeal.
I did, in fact, consider the agreement of the players, and I found it irrelevant because apparently the TD had intended the players to wait for his prompt to play, as verified by the fact that he had them to restart…
I’m not saying the TD was errorless. I’m just saying that he violated no rules (as I can see) when he determined that the game was to be replayed.
And this happens alot where the pairings have to be changed, though in that case, the TD would probably not even be questioned about his decision.
Another problem could be that other player’s games could be affected by knowing the result of the prematurely started game. Maybe stretching a bit, but is still relevant, I think. Pre-arranged result agreements are not uncommon.
It can indeed be difficult starting rounds for other sections in the same room where a section is still playing. Announcements in the room and all of the noise of players arriving and waiting to begin can be a serious distraction for the players with games under way.
In order to provide a clear starting instruction and reduce distractions, here is what I’ve started doing in this situation, which seems unique to scholastic events:
All players in the section about to begin a round are instructed to gather quietly at a designated place a short distance from the playing room, usually by 5-10 minutes after the pairings go up.
Any announcements to that section for the upcoming round are made at that time to the gathered players.
The players are then instructed to enter the playing room very quietly, proceed directly to their board (which is already set up from the prior round) and begin playing as soon as both players are seated at the board.
After a couple of minutes, games with a missing player are each quietly instructed to start he clock for white and begin the game. We then go searching for the missing players.
This seems to produce less distractions and confusion than any other method I’ve tried in this situation. I really do understand why organizers want to use the ASAP round starting schedule. The youngest section is usually finished with all rounds by shortly after lunch. After they leave, it’s really amazing how much calmer things are. Then the second youngest group leaves a short while later and things really calm down a lot for the older and higher rated players.
Likewise, there are those who are adamant about all sections starting at the same time in this type of playing facility, and I respect their opinion too. There is always more than one way to skin a cat.
Feel free to suggest the methods above to the tournament organizer and TD at future events under these conditions. Even better, you can also offer to help the TD and organizer gather the players at the designated place. It never hurts to suggest, as long as we respect other’s right to decline.
My argument here is that the children were confused of the poorly set tournament hall. (Which I can not blame the organizer as they were caught off-hand by the large turnout - last year there were only over 100 participants, this year it’s close to 300). The division of sections is not clearly set. My son who was playing in K-3 is at once in the same table with K-5 playing. My daugter who were playing in K-5 is at one instance directly behind kids playing in K-8.
I said no clear announcement as to when a round will start is true. The Chief TD’s instruction before first round is children should not wonder far because round starts as soon as pairing is posted. This is true with most children. My daughter said they also started as soon as the’re on the table but the TD did not make them restart because their’s is not finished yet - still in the middle game. Why can’t the result with this boy stand just because they finished theirs early?
It is hard to make argument when all details is not present.
Picture this…
300 players in one single hall with tables already preset with boards and pieces. One chief TD, and 3 or 4 assistant. 2 of which is putting more time in K-3 as they are the most problem.
Sections are not clearly divided. Some K-3 playing in the same table with K-5, K-5’s same table with K-8 and so forth …
Announcement by chied TD prior to first round is children should not wonder because round will start as soon as pairing is posted.
They post the K-5 pairing… A runner howler “K-5 your round is up”.
Children goes to the table. Found their opponent. Shakes hand and starts.
Finally the assistant TD was called to certify for a result, and refused to certify and made them restart because he said they haven’t started yet.
My daughter who was playing in the lower board about 4 tables far also were playing but was not instructed to re-start?
I was at the tournament as one of the TD’s and I was in there when the mother came in to ask about it and after everyone told their piece of the story it resulted in a different view of events.
Before I heard anything about the complaint I had talked to the winner (of the 2nd game) and he had told me he had gotten lucky in his last round game because he’d lost a 1st game and then won a 2nd. So no doubt the players played two games and there were different winners for each game.
The mother of the student came and told me the story has you told it. The TD who actually was there 1st hand and made the ruling told a different story.
The TD who made the ruling said the players did not bring it to anyone’s attention after finishing the 1st game. They simply started when everyone else started and played a 2nd game. It was brought to a TD’s attention when the 2nd game completed. The kid who had lost said that he had won a 1st game after the 2nd game had been completed, according to the TD that made the ruling.
If that is true and the issue wasn’t even brought up to a TD until the 2nd game is over then it’s a very clear matter.
Now for a minute let’s assume that there was a different TD that the winner of the 1st game talked to who wasn’t around there when we were discussing the dispute. This is possible since the main TD in the area wasn’t there at the time. This was after the last round and trophies were being given out, and that main TD was watching the trophy presentation. So it’s possible they really did bring it up to a TD but that TD just wasn’t there when we were talking to the mother. (Although the TD that was there was pretty adamant about the situation.)
In that case I think the dispute still has no grounds. While some of the older sections were starting their games fairly randomly, the section this was in was (I’m told, because I was very interested in the high school games so I was in another part of the room most of the time) was very specific about having everyone start at the same time. Lots of times the kids played around after finding their boards. At a certain point you’d tell everyone to please get ready to play and start. Given the unified starting time I think the correct ruling was made.
Bottom line is I think everything was done the correct which whichever scenerio happened.
(One last piece of information for everyone - this was a scholastic tournament with 290+ kids and wasn’t USCF rated.)
The tables had just not been set up very well. It was a rectangular room (for the most part) and the boards were set up going the long way. So one row of boards could be 50+ boards long. Obviously having boards going the short way would have been better - especially since that would have been how the pairings were distributed. So they way you were facing you could have someone from one section behind you and another one in front of you, since the number of boards in a row was more than the size of the average section.
Of course hindsight is 20/20, and I wasn’t there when this was all set up. It also created more traffic corridors the long way (rather than one on each end), so I wouldn’t criticize it too much anyway.
Last year the tournament had 184, this year 290+. It was an increase, but there were 233 pre-registrations, so the 290+ wasn’t shocking.
In every section I witnessed there was a point where the TD eventually said to start. Sometimes this was because a player would ask if it was time to start and we would say yes (loudly), other times we announced a start time.
All day we were rushing, because of the 50 on-site registrations we were an hour late starting, and another group had the facility at 5:30pm so we had to be out by a certain time.
As much of reading the reporting of the tournament, it looks to be very strange. Its’ not the debate of how the tournament was run.
If the pairings are up, the director should not have a problem if the players want to start early. As scholastic tournaments set at G/30 or slower, they get done most of the time in less then 10 minutes. If the director posted the pairings of the round, the first game should be only one rated.
If making the pairing for the next round, and there is a one hour lunch between rounds. The pairings were up for a hour before the official starting time. Would not stop the two players to play the next round. If they get done during the lunch hour, would not force then to restart their game.
It sounds like the TD’s created an environment in which misunderstanding was possible, so I would have to fault the TDs somewhat here, even if they didn’t really do anything wrong. (Hopefully they learned something about directing, I usually do at every event I run.)
I’ve held large multi-section tournaments in one room on occasion, too. I try to make it a point to make it clear when a round starts when their either is no published schedule or the tournament is so far off schedule that the published schedule no longer matters.
A few ways to do this:
Write the start time on the pairing sheet, eg, ‘START at 2:15’.
Write ‘OK TO START NOW’ on the pairing sheet.
Write "DO NOT START UNTIL TD SAYS IT IS OK’ on the pairing sheet.
Looks to be more problems then just this one game at this board. Just having 300 adult players is a huge problem. Having 300 scholastic players, with so many not understanding the standards of a tournament. Would place any director at a higher stress level.
Not sure who was the chief tournament director, with a level of 300 would need a Senior Tournament Director. Since Douglas Stewart was one of the floor directors, and he was not the director that made the judgement. With only three or four directors, it looks to be the floor directors were under staff. With three directors out of 300, would make one floor director for ever 100 players. Can see why the assistant director could have made a poor judgement, as they were over worked for the level of their certification.
This was an unrated event, and I think was the largest our State had so far. Aside from the above “problem”, I think the event run fairly well. The organizer and TD’s did what they can do to handle the almost 300 kids (also the other 500+ adults outside the playing hall).
My post here is to make sure I am giving someone a correct advice just in case this situation happen again.
Also thanks to Doug Stewart for his response, that clear something up. (I only heared one side of the story of course).
I will make sure my advice to the parents will be as follows: “If these happen again, make sure your son make his appeal to the TD before agreeing to play again.”
In general I seldom find sufficient reason to restart a game (or order a new one) assuming the first one matched the right opponents with the right colors just because they started a few minutes early.
However, large scholastics tend to create more ‘situations’ than other tournaments, in part because the players don’t know the usual tournament routine. Most experienced players would know to ask someone if it was OK to start and most would also know to appeal the director’s ruling.
That’s why they’re learning experiences for the TDs as well as the players.
Next time I would hope the TDs find a way to make it clearer when the rounds start and their policy on starting early, either by covering it in the pre-game announcements (and once or twice during the day) or by making it explicitly clear on each round’s pairing sheets when to start and whether to wait for the go-ahead.
It may even be possible to include that in the standard text that the pairing program prints on each pairing sheet. I usually give the time control that way.
I see a few comments about TD certification levels, etc., and I realize that people aren’t really getting what the situation was.
Almost 300 kids (100+ more than the year before), with a range from K to 12
Hundreds of parents and other family members
50+ onsite registrations, too many of whom showed up late and no one had the heart to turn people away or make them wait past the 1st round to start playing
Unrated tournament! (any USCF rules would be optional anyway)
One computer
Many (half?) of the kids had never played in any kind of chess tournament ever
5 games in one day! (and they all needed to be played between 10am and 5pm)
Only one Local TD (me, 1850 USCF standard) and one Club TD (the organizer, who is rated around 600 USCF and was more running the tournament than having time to watch games), and a bunch of non-USCF certified TD’s. Probably the majority of the TD’s were current or former USCF members, but some were just chess coaches.
I floated around to try to help deal with the trickiest situations best I could.
I thought everything went splendid considering. Sure I’d like to see a few things done differently, but this is not the World Open we’re talking about.
Just remember that many situations are local in nature, and while there might be a whole pool of Senior TD’s available for some big USCF rated scholastic tournament in Michigan or Crossville or wherever, all locales are not equal.
I apologized if comments here seems to be getting out of hand. As I made it clear from the start, I was not criticizing the tournament. I also thought that it was run fairly well considering the large turn-out.
I posted a question here to be sure I was making a right advice/comment to someone. When I was told of what had happened, like any “mother” I sided to the one closest to me and “run” my mouth giving my personal comment. If you read my first post… I asked “did I made the right advice?” that’s because I was not sure myself, and I want to correct any erroneous comment I might have said before it escalate.
Nothing particularly unique about any of your tournament conditions, except maybe having that many of them all at once.
Most TDs can tell a few war stories about situations they found themselves in. I still have nightmares about the National JHS in Peoria, where the trophy ceremony STARTED at 3:30 AM Monday morning!
I once showed up at an event and found the chief TD still taking registrations 15 minutes before the first round was to start, with a line of on-site entries that stretched a good 30 feet down the hall outside the TD room. (We wound up with over 100 on-site entries in a total field of about 300, still an all-time record for me.) I was the incoming treasurer of the affiliate sponsoring the event, I took over advance registration and we actuallly registered 50 people in less than a half hour, the first round started only 27 minutes late! (I also had to get the hotel to set up tables for an additional 30-40 boards.)
A few years ago I showed up at an event 90 minutes before the 1st round but the computer wouldn’t read the preregistration files I had spent the previous evening preparing (for over 100 players), so I had to re-enter the entire tournament, all 4 sections, into the computer before I could get the rounds started. At least I had written the ratings on the registration printout, so I didn’t have to look everyone up again. (I added IDs later.) Every section started on time!
However, I think my ‘favorite’ was when I showed up in Kansas City for the National High School and was asked to be the chief floor director, for over 900 players, and then told to go recruit coaches as my assistant floor directors, 2 hours before the first round was to start! Only one floor ruling was appealed to the chief TD. (And that one wound up inspiring a change in the 4th edition of the USCF rulebook.)
For what it’s worth, I’ve found that the larger the event the more it helps to structure the ‘easy’ things. That way you CAN concentrate on the special situations.
Iit sounds like you mostly did good, so pat yourself on the back and then write yourself a note listing everything that went right, everything that went wrong, and what might have worked better.
This is my idea to take care of the problem, only have pre-registeration only, and no onsite registeration for a large scholastic event. Having onsite registeration, will have the problem with new USCF members and expired USCF memberships (if USCF rated). The problem of having way to many trophies or not have enought. The “Michigan Chess Association” has this policy in place.
Not all locales are equal. When I lived in Ann Arbor (1987 - 2004), Washtenaw County the year I left had three Senior directors and three Local directors, all within 15 miles from each others home. The major city was Ann Arbor, with a population of 118,000. Now Im in Grand Rapids, with a city population over 230,000 with Kentwood, Wyoming, Grandville, Walker and East Grand Rapids all with populations over 50,000. Kent County is very close to one million people. I’m the only local director in the county.