What??
Ken Ballou (wilecoyote) and Ernie Schlich are on the Rules Committee, in case you didn’t know.
2/3 of (A + B + C) can be considered to be two prizes, since 2/3 of 3 is 2, so the three players are, in effect dividing three prizes when 1st is also included in the prize pool. 1st + 1/3 of (A + B + C) would only be two prizes to be divided among the three players.
1st plus 1/3 or each of 3 prizes only adds up to 2 prizes. 1st plus 2/3 of each of three prizes adds up to 3 prizes.
In the given example, taking the 1st, Class A, and Class B prizes and dividing them equally among the tied players is a reasonable, equitable, and defendable way of distributing the prizes. This maximizes the prize money for the three players. It also allows more players to share in the prize pool as one or more extra Class C players will also receive a prize. To bring up only the Class B and C prizes, while allowing an A player to receive a prize will only bring grief and lower attendance to an organizer. My preference as an organizer is to favor the lower rated in instances like this as they tend to make up the bulk of your entries. The higher rated should have to earn the prize through a higher score, not have it fall into their laps. For the organizer to pocket the A prize is a big taboo and will be noticed by everyone. I have seen arguments escalate when an organizer tried to do something like this. Taking 1/3, 2/3, or 1/16 of various class prizes and mixing them together is unnecessarily complicated and tends to favor the higher rated players.
As to the given prizes, that is one unattractive list and size of prizes whether you are 2000+ or under 2000 in rating. If the entry fee was over $25, the players would have better spent their time studying, playing online, or going outside to get some exercise.
Oh, okay, well I wasn’t doing the math there. I certainly didn’t intend to convey as acceptable a solution that would not include three prizes for the three players, as Mr. Relyea thought; My apologies.
Does anyone besides me see the need for this to be cleared up in the rules? I’d be more than happy to write an ADM if I could see support for it. I won’t be attending the US Open this year, but maybe another delegate would be willing to endorse it?
It seems to me that it should be done analogously to the way it would be done if the prize amounts of the classes were different, such as 47,46,45, etc. I look at a Class A prize as being more prestigious than Class B, for example. The rules could be cleared up to state that.
As an aside, there was only one A player in this event, so class A was pocketed by the TD.
So, instead of aiming a simple ADM at the organizer (Example: no two prizes can be the same) an ADM that complicates prize distribution even more than it is already complicated is going to be offered? If the complicated ADM passes then I will be real happy to offer a workshop on how to distribute $$ to prize winners–calculators welcome, math degree may be required.
As much as I admire Mr. Just’s workshops, I think the probability of him being able to offer one that a well-meaning organizer can’t manage to “break” is vanishingly small.
Alex Relyea
Where does that come from, Tim?
In that situation I would have include 1st, A, 1/2 B and 1/2 C. The TD/organizer was trying to say that the A player brought in 1st and then the B player could only bring in B and the C player could only bring in C.
That would run directly against the guidelines if it had been 1st=57, A=43, B=42, C=41, in which case 1st, A and B are the three to bring in (definitely not 1st, B and C).
If the A player was clear first then it might be plausible to pocket the A prize, though I am not certain if 32C2 would still require awarding it (possibly by converting it to a 2nd place prize - something many TDs or organizers would do anyway).
I would have been quite skeptical if you had said “small”. Adding the qualifier “vanishingly” makes it believable. I am reminded of the threads about limited prizes or about class/place prize combinations when the overall money in the tie is a higher percentage of the total than the percentage of non-class players involved in the tie.
Various mathematical solutions were proposed with varying “ingenious” prize funds breaking proposal after proposal until finally a proposal seemed to survive.
As I recall the second edition of the USCF Rule Book had a (small) section about prizes. More importantly it had the suggestion that class [& I think that would apply to under even if it was not stated] prizes be of different amounts. Also, wasn’t there a thread about the TD/Organizer pocketing prize money that no one qualified for?
Larry S. Cohen
I assume the reasoning that some organizers etc choose to make prizes across the classes the same is one of perceived equality. Class C is treated the same as Class A etc.
So why not simply indicate that for the purposes of prize division that an imaginary penny is subtracted across the equal prized sections.
So for example.
A=100
B=100
C=100
D=100
would be treated as if they were valued at
A=100
B=99.99
C=99.98
D=99.97
The prizes would still actually be 100 but now the division process would have the unequal hierarchy in case of ties.
It comes from looking at proposed complicated wordy solutions when a simple one will do. BTW has anyone taken a look at 32B4. Priority of identical prizes? It might add an interesting dimension to this discussion (or proposed ADM)–or not.
Instead of an ADM how about considering a TD Tip–or, another example or two of prize fund distributions reflecting the kind of prize fund in the OP?
How does this square with rule 32C2?
The problem I see is that Mr. Winchester is manifestly not eligible for the A or C prizes. He was eligible for 1st and B. He and the C player can’t bring up the A and B prizes because they are more prestigious because neither qualifies for A.
Alex Relyea
The C brings in 1st, the A brings in the A prize, and the B brings in the B prize. If they were all a penny different, that would be how it would work.
Yes, I was speaking entirely in relation to 32B4. I don’t think it is applicable.
Alex Relyea
The concept of the priority ordering of equal prizes seems to be very relevant. If someone wants to do an ADM, then the simplest would be something like:
For awarding identical prizes, they should be prioritized by 32B4 and then treated as if the higher priority prize is a prize of a slightly higher amount.
There was an A player involved in the tie.