From a tournament a few years ago, there was disagreement on how the following prizes should have been allocated:
1st-$1000
2nd-$600
3rd-$400
1st U1800-$500
1st 6.0
2nd 5.5
3rd 5.5 (U1800)
4th 5.0
5th 5.0
6th 4.5 (U1800)
The 6.0 obviously gets the $1000. The disagreement was on if the two players who won 5.5 should get $550 each (splitting the $600 2nd place prize and the $500 1st U1800 prize, despite one of the players not being U1800) or get $500 each for splitting 2nd and 3rd.
It seems that $550 each was the correct decision. The person under 1800 should not be penalized as he did perform the best in his class and he tied for second. Cash prizes make this a tidy resolution.
There are some legitimately tricky price distributions. This isn’t one. It’s $550 each. Period.
I’m somewhat puzzled about the OP. It’s not in the form of a question.
Tom, it maybe obvious to you, but not to many organizers out there.
Here is the tournament that just concluded in our club where the the other method (as per OP) was used. Obviously, I didn’t complain, since I would benefit financially if the more traditional method of prize distribution was used, and I was helping out with organizing this event as well as playing in it.
Prizes:
Championship: $1000-$600-$300, U2200: $450-150, U2000: $450-150.
Standings:
Read below or go to: http://www.austinchesstournaments.com/files/ACC2Summer_Championship.pdf for the formatted standings.
MERGED 2nd ACC Summer Open -- CHAMPIONSHIP Final Standings, 9:00pm 7/6/2014
Place Name/Team Rate Score
1 Rodriguez, Daniel (1) 2352 5.5 - 1st/2nd/3rd tie $633.34
&2 Liu, Bovey (5) 2206 5.5 - 1st/2nd/3rd tie $633.34
&3 Lu, Tommy (9) 2152 5.5 - 1st/2nd/3rd tie $633.34
4 Langer, Michael (2) 2286 5.0
&5 Jiang, Austin (3) 2240 5.0
&6 Patel, Advait (4) 2216 5.0
&7 Balkum, Alexander Lee (7) 2185 5.0 - 1st/2nd U2200 tie $200
&8 Nguyen, Anthony Quan (8) 2154 5.0 - 1st/2nd U2200 tie $200
&9 Malazarte, Ernesto (13) 2125 5.0 - 1st/2nd U2200 tie $200
&10 McCartney, Patrick John (24) 1993 5.0 - 1st U2000 $450
11 Jiang, Alexander D (14) 2123 4.5
&12 Nguyen, Emily Quynh (15) 2106 4.5
&13 Vergara, Mitch (16) 2076 4.5
&14 Zhong, Howard (17) 2070 4.5
&15 Gucer, Vasfi (25) 1964 4.5 - 2nd U2000 $150
16 Rohrbaugh, James Vincent (6) 2200 4.0
&17 Ajiboye, Odunayo (10) 2140 4.0
&18 La Salle, Craig A (11) 2140 4.0
&19 Thompson, Seth (12) 2126 4.0
&20 Wlezien, Alexander (18) 2065 4.0
&21 Nguyen, Duy Minh (19) 2057 4.0
&22 McCue, Mark E (31) 1908 4.0
&23 Li, Alex (40) 1861 4.0
Michael Langer
Austin, TX
$550 is not self evident and I’d like to see rule support for that decision. The Over-1800 5.5 is not eligible for U1800 money and is receiving more money than the expected ( ( 2nd + 3rd ) / 2 ). See 32B5 Example 2 where an Expert loses out on any money at all due to summing only class prizes.
[Edit/Add: See Michael Langer’s crosstable above for a great example of tied players who are ineligible for Under prizes.]
I’d pay out $500 to the 5.5 score group based on (in)eligibility of the over-1800 player.
In the example given by Michael Langer, it appears that under the “standard method”, players #1, 2, 3 should get $683.33. Players #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 would share the third prize and the 2nd U2200 prize, each getting $75. In all, 10 players would receive some sort of prize, though the U2200 players probably would feel slighted receiving only $75. The 2200+ players would be ecstatic to get something, even though they finished, according to the cross table, out of the top 3 places. It does seem strange to finish in 4th place but receive 3rd place money, but that is how the prize distribution rule is written.
Under the example given, 7 players received prizes. The 3 U2200 players receiving $200 each should be over the top happy with the method used. They will likely come back again and again to play in this tournament. Their “brother” U2200 also received a big payday, though $50 less than the standard method.
The 2200+ players who scored 5 are out of the money, but they probably did not expect anything given their final score and placement in the event. Just curious, was there an argument over prize distribution at the end of the tournament?
You would be incorrect to do so. Please reread rule 32B3 carefully.
While you will not find this language in the rule book, the governing principle is that equal scores result in equal cash prize amounts provided that it is possible to pay each player’s prize using only prize money for which the player is eligible a priori. (This is an alternate way of stating the “unless any of the winners … are ineligible” clause of rule 32B3.) In this case, the under 1800 is paid $500 from the under 1800 prize money and $50 from the second place prize money. The other player in the tie receives $550 from the second place prize money.
Suppose for a moment that the prizes were reversed. That is, suppose the second place prize was $500 and the under 1800 prize was $600. This case is an example of the “unless any of the winners … are ineligible” clause of rule 32B3. The under 1800 player wins more prize money by claiming the under 1800 prize exclusively and renouncing any share of the second place prize money. In that case, the under 1800 would win $600 and the other player would win $500. (To use my phrasing above, it is impossible to pay the over 1800 player involved in the tie more than $500 and not dip into the under 1800 prize money for which the player is ineligible.)
That shouldn’t be that hard. The 5.5’s pull in the $1000, $600 (1st and 2nd) and $450 (1st U2200). They have to split that somehow. Since the average of $683.33 is more than the U2200 gets by taking the $450 alone, they all get even shares.
The 5.0’s pull in the 3rd place money, the 2nd U2200 and the 1st U2000. The U2000 obviously does better just taking the $450. The remainder have to split $300+$150. A six way split of that is $75 each. The U2200’s are better off with that than taking an even split of just the U2200 money so the six other 5.0’s (other than the U2000) get $75 each.
The remaining prize goes to the 4.5 U2000. Done.
The player carries the highest dollar prize for which s/he is eligible into the pool. $550 is correct.
And even before that, the governing principle is that each score group is jointly entitled to the maximum amount available to them as a group (with at most one prize per player). Where people seem to get in trouble is they think ahead to specific eligibility. First of all, figure out what the score group pulls in, then worry about how to divvy it up.
To verify I’ve revised my thinking correctly… The $550 pay out to the Over-1800 is OK b/c it is LESS than the pure 2nd place prize of $600. The reverse situation (U1800 as $600, 2nd as $500) made the Over-1800 ineligible b/c the $550 is MORE than the pure 2nd place prize.
All based on 32B3 and determining whether the end result is under or over the maximum eligible prize. Correct?
Except that the prize calculations should be completely blind as to what is happening at lower score groups.
Note that under 33D1a the ranking of the prizes would be:
1st $1000
2nd $600
U2200 1st $450
U2000 1st $450
3rd $300
U2200 2nd $150
U2000 2nd $150
The top three scorers would be given the top three prizes that they qualify for, which would be 1st, 2nd and U2200 1st ($2050). If Tommy Lu had been 2202 instead of 2152 then 1st, 2nd and 3rd would have been the top three that they qualify for.
Using Tommy’s 2152 rating, if there had been no second or third then Tommy could only bring in one of the two U2200 prizes and the three players would share 1st and U2200 1st ($483.33 is better for Tommy than taking sole possession of the $450 U2200 prize) while leaving the other U2200 prize for others to claim.
Ding! Ring the bell and award the full ten points! 
Now, it’s time for the advanced class. Suppose we have the following prize structure:
1st $2000, 2nd $1000, 3rd $500, 4th $300, Under 2400 $1300-$700.
Distribute the prizes if the results are as follows:
A 2600 6.0
B 2500 5.5
C 2450 5.0
D 2380 5.0
E 2330 5.0
F 2190 5.0
(all other players score less than 5.0)
Satisfied with your prize distribution? Now, distribute the same prize fund if the results are as follows:
A 2600 6.0
B 2500 5.5
C 2450 5.0
D 2380 4.5
E 2330 4.5
F 2190 4.5
(all other players scored less than 4.5)
Does your distribution of the prize fund in this case cause you to rethink your distribution in the first case?
Quite correct. Start by distributing prizes at the highest score group and work your way down. At each score group, you maximize the amount of money divided among the players in the score group subject to the provision that no more than one prize per player is put “into the pool.”
Concur. And one of the six shorted players really should file a complaint.
Right result in this case although the reasoning is not yet approved by the delegates (they will be taking it up again this year).
The real reason in the case of a $500 2nd and $600 U1800 is that the U1800 player would get more money by taking only U1800 money than by sharing with higher rated players (see 32B3). If you think of purple U1800 money and orange 2nd-place money then splitting $600 second and $500 U1800 gives the U1800 all 500 purple dollars plus 50 orange dollars (the player is eligible for both prizes) while the other player gets only 550 orange dollars (just a portion of second place money which is the only one of the two prizes the player is eligible for). With $500 2nd and $600 U1800 the U1800 player would get all 600 purple dollars and the other would get only the 500 orange dollars.
No argument as you predicted. Tommy Lu was very happy, since he rode an incredibly lucky streak to finish in a tie for 1st. 2200+ players who scored 5.5 didn’t think about the expert prizes. 2200+ players who scored 5 knew they will get pocket change at best, while U2200 players who scored 5 felt they deserved the higher prize amount for their performance.
I am certainly not going to complain. The way I’ve been playing lately, I would consider getting any cash prize to be a big joke.
Michael Langer
Didn’t the 2nd or 3rd edition of the USCF rule book have some sample prize distributions listed in it?
Also, I recall a tournament in the 80s where the prizes were 50-40, A 30, B 30, C 25, D/E/U 25 where a Class A player and a Class B player tied for second. Both players received $35, but the organizer took $15 from the A & B prizes along with the $40 second place prize to get the $35 for the two players.
Larry S. Cohen
Technically, I don’t see that the rules preclude dividing the A and B prizes in that manner. In fact, I seem to remember Jeff Wiewel giving an example of dividing prizes that way (but I’m quite ready to accept that my memory is wrong). I suppose that rule 33D1a would dictate that the $30 class A prize is ranked higher than the $30 class B prize, so the director should combine the $40 second place prize and the $30 A prize and divide those two evenly, leaving the full $30 B prize to be awarded.
However, one could justifiably reason: “OK, the A player pulls in the highest ranked prize into the tie for which he is eligible, which is second place. Then the B player pulls in the highest ranked remaining prize for which he is eligible, which is the class B prize.” The prize money for the tied players works out to be the same, but in this case the next highest A player would win prize money and the next highest B player would be out of luck.
Rule 33D1a allows other rankings, but states that “if the rankings are varied from the recommendation, the director should post the actual rankings at the tournament site in advance and include them in pre-tournament publicity if possible.”
If the director did use half of the A prize and half of the B prize, then the player who would have standing to file a complaint would be the next lower B player, who would only receive the leftover half of the B prize instead of the full B prize. I suppose a very strict reading of rule 33D1a would mean the player would be correct in his complaint. But I admit I would have a hard time feeling an injustice had been done. It just seems so arbitrary to rank one class prize above another class prize for the same amount because the classes do not overlap. (Of course, this would be a very different matter if the prizes were U2000 and U1800; in that case, there is a clear ordering.)