SwissSys has the two players who finished with 5.0 split the 1st overall and Class C prize. Why do they split the 1st overall and Class C prize rather than the 1st overall and Class B prize? (Since it has the two players with 5.0 split the 1st overall and Class C prize, it gives the 4.0 2nd overall and gives the 1699 the Class B prize).
I am going to treat this as a technical programming question rather than a question about what should be done.
The program probably included the best prize available as it reached each player in the tie and started with the highest rated in the tie (1st was available when getting to the 1747 and by the time the 1591 was reached only 2nd and C were available so it pulled in C).
What should be done depends on the logic the TD used and I am not going to give a definitive answer.
Until such time as the prize distribution rules are explicitly codified for situations like this (which wouldn’t exist if the class prizes were slightly different [the greater class prize would be included] or if they were under prizes [the greater amount would be included if they were different amounts and the U1800 would be included if they were the same amount]).
The basic principle should be that 32B4 and 32B5 apply not just to individuals but to score groups and prize-eligibility subgroups within them. (And actually trying to word that in a way that doesn’t cause eyes to glaze over is not easy). The top two players are entitled to split $175, and the highest priority prizes that achieves that are the 1st and top B.
And yes, this is the fault of the organizer in setting up a flawed prize fund.
Because of the way the prize fund was set there are three possible splits that give the 2 five-pointers $87.50 each and the four-pointer $50. However you split it will require you to state your logic clearly.
I’ll bite. What’s the 3rd? If it involves somehow splitting the $75’s (which isn’t countenanced by the rules), then there are an infinite number of ways of doing that.
U/1800 and Class B are not fungible categories. A 1599 players is eligible for the former but not the latter. But IMHO it is still good idea to minimize rules confusion by not having a lot of identical dollar prizes.
If each of the prizes also has a monetary component, the choice of rankings is easy: The prize with the higher cash award is ranked higher. If monetary components of prizes are equal (e.g., 3rd place, 2nd Under 2000, and 1st Under 1800 each has a $100 monetary component along with a trophy), the rankings become more difficult.
I assume it’s so that a certain amount of money is guaranteed to go to a certain group. An A prize will go to an A player. A U2000 prize might go to a B player. It’s not because it’s simpler for prize calculations, as it isn’t.
This is why we pay organizers the big bucks - to design an equitable prize fund considering as many situations as possible.
I have seen a class prize (in this case 2300-2399) go unclaimed, because there were two prizes and just one player in the rating range. Indeed this player finished below all of the U2300 prize winners. The organizer has since transitioned to U2400 and U2300.
No doubt. But it’s hard to logically explain why a player with a higher rating and a lower score should get a prize over a lower rated player with a higher score.
As chessplayers we are comfortable with the idea of handicaps; that is ways to give 1500 players a chance to win prizes at the same time as 2400 players, whether by restricting their opponents (everyone they play is required to be rated under 1800) or by reserving prizes for the supposedly less able. Most of us are far less comfortable “protecting” A players from B players.
I suspect most of us who “believe in” class prizes do a serious rethink when they see a real world example of paragraph one.
To which the answer must be “When the perceived chance of winning prizes for non-masters is so low that it limits turnout.” For example, if an organizer has an Open section and a U1800 section with only place prizes, and he realizes that none of the 1200 players in his area have showed up, he certainly will.
You’ve obviously looked at A LOT more crosstables than I have, and probably more than anyone here, but is it really all that unusual for a B player to outscore all the A players, or perhaps an E player to outscore all the D players? I guess I’d be surprised if that sort of thing doesn’t happen at least 5% of the time.
Keep in mind the crosstables show what their pre-event rating was, not the rating that was used at the tournament for pairing and prize classification purposes.
Players whose actual strength is well above their official rating (whether that’s just a result of recent improvement or ratings manipulation) do pose challenges. (I think it would be nice if the new ratings programming could keep and display the rating the TD used, but figuring out where to put it without cluttering up the crosstable or making it confusing is another challenge.)
Because their rating for pairing purposes is low compared to their actual strength, they got different pairings than if they had been, say, another 150 points higher. Whether those were stronger or weaker pairings varies based on the turnout and the round-by-round results and break points for each score group, but IMHO on average they get easier pairings than their higher rated Under/xxxx score group peers.
So is it fair for them to get the U/1800 prize when they were paired as, say, a 1500 player?
People routinely win money through (perhaps unintentional) Swiss Gambits. The money is distributed based upon points scored, not Solkoffs or competition average. So yes, if the lower rated player outscores higher rated players, I think it’s per se unreasonable that they win less money. But if the prize fund says A and not U2000, that’s life. But the organizer should be told that it’s not appreciated.