Prizes

Running Chess Tournaments
21

Organizers need to plan carefully in advance. Decide which section(s) unrateds are eligible to play in, which prizes (if any) they are eligible for, etc, and state all conditions explicitly in pre-event publicity.

Then, on the day of the tournament, enforce all conditions exactly as stated in the pre-event publicity, religiously and without exception.

Bill Smythe

22

If Mr. Ballou, or others, might be so inclined, an ADM regarding Rule 32B1 might be in order. Specifically, I think adding mixed doubles prizes to the list of standard exceptions in this rule would be a good idea.

23

Technically, it is not a list of standard exceptions but rather a list of examples of standard exceptions. Other exceptions could be: furthest traveled; oldest; youngest; plus score bonus; etc.

I’m fine with the current version as opposed to one that adds another three, five, ten, thirty examples.

24

Can someone involved in writing it explain what 32c6 actually means? I know how I would do the distribution, but I’m not sure I can tease that out of the rule as written. Ordinarily a list like that would be in (I think) the opposite order, i.e. ideally you would want to give it within the same score and prize group (#4), … and only if there are no available takers within a section would you actually move it to another section in the tournament (#1).

25

Technically, it is also (and, arguably, primarily) an incomplete list of standard exceptions.

Practically, this particular nit doesn’t require picking, as it is completely unrelated to the spirit of the proposal.

This proposal would not add “another three, five, ten, thirty examples”. This proposal would add one particular example that has taken on high popularity in the last few years, the use of which the Delegates have seen fit to specifically encourage.

26

The total dollar amount of all cash prizes announced or computed by “based on” shall be paid:

  1. Within the event.
    First, you should try to keep the extra money within the same tournament. You shouldn’t take the extra money and save it for the next tournament.
  2. Within the section in which the limit was awarded.
    Then, you should try to keep the extra money in the same section from where it came from.
  3. Within the prize group (e.g. place, class or under) in which the limit was awarded.
    Next, you should try to keep the extra money in the same prize group in the same section from where it came from. So, if the extra money came from a place prize, then you should allocate it to other place prize(s). If the extra money came from a class prize, you should allocate it to class prize(s) in that class.
  4. Within the point group in which the limit was awarded.
    Finally if you have been able to do all of the above with the extra money, you should also try to allocate the extra money to other players that had the same score as the player the money was re-distributed from.
27

That doesn’t quite get us there. In this case we have no one with 2.5 points. We still need to bring in the rule against multiple prizes for the same person to realize we have to treat this as an additional place prize as opposed to the other options (adding it to 1st prize violates this and tacking it on to the Under prize violates both that rule and #3 above.

28

So, here is an exercise: Suppose the prize fund is $200 1st, $100 2nd, $50 3rd, and unrated players may win no more than $25. The final standings are:

Alice 2200 5.0
Bob unrated 4.5
Carol 2150 4.0
Dave 2100 3.5
(all others have 3.0 or less)

What is the correct prize distribution, and why?

29

Has it been announced that the remainder of the prize goes to the next player in line or not? That’s the common practice in CCA events.

That leads to the question - what does “next player in line” actually mean? Added to the next lower prize, or goes to the next player who hasn’t won a prize?

And of course you also have the question as to why an event that allows masters would still have a restriction on unrated prizes!

30

Shouldn’t that be Ted in 4th place?

Alice $200
Bob $25
Carol $100
Dave $25

The complicated way would be to give Bob $25 of the $100 2nd prize. Since dumping the whole leftover $75 onto the 3rd would increase that beyond the 2nd prize, add just $50 and add the remaining $25 to the virtual 4th prize of 0$.

Probably more straightforward (though I don’t know whether it’s provably equivalent in all cases) is to do a “best fit” and give Bob $25 out of 3rd place, leaving the $100 2nd and $25 of 3rd to be distributed in the obvious way.

31

Thank you. I understand that’s the idea. I’m just saying that something like this is usually written in the opposite order: try to do 1, if you can’t, try to do 2, … This is written as (implicitly—note that there are no instructions), do 1, and if possible do 2, and if possible do 3, …

32

Alice $200
Bob $25 (2nd subjected to limit)
Carol $87.50 (remainder of 2nd (3/4 of a prize), then 1/4 of 3rd)
Dave $37.50 (remainder of 3rd)

33

Assuming that “balance goes to next player in line”…

Alice - $200 (clear first)
Bob - $25 (clear second, but capped)
Carol - $75 (eligible for two prizes, but balance of second > clear third)
Dave - $50 (highest remaining scorer, so third)

34

I’m with Boyd.

35

I was afraid that I must have missed something when I saw the first two responses. My answer matches Boyd’s.

36

I would do it this way.

37

I have done it this way. The logic is that the balance of the prize goes to the next prize in line, but shouldn’t exceed the prize it came from.

So:
$200, $100, $50 with an unrated in clear second and limited to 25% would become $200, $25, $100 (adding the entire balance of $75 to third would make third exceed the number allocated for second), $25.
$200, $100, $50 with an unrated in clear second and limited to 60% would become $200, $60, $90 (the balance of second added to third does not exceed the number allocated for second).

If you simply take the balance of a prize and insert it then you have:
$200, $100, $50 with an unrated in clear second and limited to 25% would become $200, $25, $75, $50 (the player in clear third gets an amount between second and third place money and the player in clear fourth gets full third place money)
$200, $100, $50 with an unrated in clear second and limited to 60% would become $200, $60, $40, $50 (the player in clear third place gets less than the player in clear fourth)

38

I think Boyd would distribute it $200, $60, $50, $40. Giving the greater of the third place and left-over second place to the third player.

39

I’m not used to the idea of merging/splitting prizes between players that did not tie with the same score. It has some logic. I wouldn’t do it that way and I wouldn’t overrule an organizer/TD that did do it that way.

A potential issue would be:
$200, $100, $50 with the second place unrated limited to $60.
The percentage split would have $200, $60, $70 (40% 2nd + 60% 3rd), $20 (40% 3rd)
A rolled down split would have $200, $60, $90

If there are four or more players then the fourth place person actually gets something with the percentage split. If there are only three players then the final $20 stays with the organizer with the percentage split.

40

Granted.

I’d simply find the smallest prize that covers the entire amount due the limited player (3rd in the case of a limited player getting $25 or 2nd in the case of a limited player getting $60) and then put the balance into the next prize (taking the remaining $25 of 3rd to create a 4th or adding the remaining $40 of 2nd to 3rd).

I wouldn’t do it the way Boyd suggested, and I wouldn’t stop Boyd from doing it his way.