A much easier way of handling this entire situation would have been to not allow unrateds to win place money at all (in an under-XXXX section), instead offering a separate unrated prize of $25 in that section.
Bill Smythe
DING, DING, DING, we have a second winner! IMHO, This rule, as quoted earlier, creates more problems than it solves and should be used with a great deal of caution.
At the Castle Chess Grand Prix held every June we have seven section, and allow unrated players to enter any section except the top one. Each section places a prize limit on unrateds (actually on all players having fewer than 10 rated games.) The limit is $150 for the U1200 section, rising by $50 per section, so that the limit for the Expert section is $400. It doesn’t make fiscal sense for us to add an unrated prize of this magnitude to each section, which would end up being $1650 in total.
In each section the limited prize could be fully funded by the second place prize. If I am understanding each method correctly, Mr. Reed’s proposed distribution scheme would award prizes differently from Mr. Doan’s should an unrated finish first in a section (which hasn’t yet happened.) I have always thought that Mr. Reed’s method was the best one, but Mr. Doan makes some logical arguments as well.
It seems clear that USCF needs to work on this to come up with one method for awarding prizes in situations like this. As it is now, TD A in one tournament could award prizes one way, while TD B in another tournament could award them a different way, and both ways could be fully within the rules. That situation is never a good thing. I don’t have any emotional stake in which method is adopted as the national standard, but some method needs to be. Until then I think organizers should be explicit in stating how limited prizes will be handled so that players will know going in to the tournament what distribution scheme to expect.
I cannot agree that my distributions are inconsistent. When I am required to distribute a prize fund that has limited prizes, I treat any leftover prize as its own entity. This provides the simplest explanation to the players, and follows the rules. If I have to deal with limited prizes (thankfully, this doesn’t generally happen to me except at CCA events), this is how I do it.
I agree in principle as well (which shouldn’t surprise anyone, as I’ve long acknowledged Tim Just’s role in my TD development). My preferred solution when designing a larger, multi-section event usually involves creating an unrated section, and offering those players a choice between that section and the open/top section, where they’re eligible for overall prizes in either. I acknowledge this is a somewhat limited philosophy, but it’s simple, and is fairest to the field of rated players competing for class prizes or in class sections.
One of the ways I was told to think about this when I was being taught how to deal with such situations is to think what prize would the players have won if the unrated player did not participate?
In this case Carol would have finished 2nd and therefore been eligible to win up to $100. Therefore, I take the money left over from the unrated player ($75) plus the 3rd place money ($50) and give Carol the maximum she could win for finishing 2nd, $100. The remaining $25 then gets passed down to Dave.
That’s the Doan/Goichberg/Immitt/Messenger method.
That holds true for the player who would have finished second, not the players down the line, third place in the current example. Thus, under this method the person who would have finished third bears the bulk of the loss as a result of an unrated player taking second. Obviously, not everyone can win as much as they would have had the unrated not won a prize, why not split the reduction either evenly or proportionally among the remaining players?
Grant Perks stated
That holds true for the player who would have finished second, not the players down the line, third place in the current example. Thus, under this method the person who would have finished third bears the bulk of the loss as a result of an unrated player taking second. Obviously, not everyone can win as much as they would have had the unrated not won a prize, why not split the reduction either evenly or proportionally among the remaining players?
Grant Perks
I believe that is not a good idea. Taking equally from everybody is not fair to the people who scored better and who are disadvantaged by the unrated player.
Bob Messenger refers to this as the Doan/Goichberg/Immitt/Messenger approach. Chris Bird also seems in agreement. I am in that camp. So now maybe it is the Doan/Goichberg/Immitt/Messenger/Bird/Hater approach (I am sure I have left somebody out). For a practical example, please see the 2014 Boardwalk Open Under 1600 section which was directed by Immitt/Hater and which Goichberg was consulted before paying prizes.
I will summarize:
Prizes (based on- 2/3 gtd): 1st $1500, 2nd $800, 3rd $400, 4th $200 1st Under 1400 $900
Prizes (actual 2/3): 1st 1000; 2nd $533; 3rd $267; 4th 133 1st Under 1400 $600
Scores (names NOT changed to protect the guilty - guilty being Immitt/Hater)
Aaron 1203 4.5 (eligible for Under 1400 prize)
Kyosu Unr 4.5 (limited to $600) (not eligible for Under 1400)
Whiteside 1482 4
Ming 1570 3.5
Culp 1231 3 (eligible for Under 1400 prize) no other players with 3 points for the Under 1400 prize
Of the above, only Aaron and Culp are eligible for class prizes; there is no 5th place; there are no other players with 3.5 or more. There are other players with 3, but none under 1400. See the complete crosstable at boardwalkopen.com (need to select previous year archive).
Which two prizes do Aaron, Kyosu get? We decided 1st and 2nd; Note 1st Under 1400 is greater than 2nd place. Therefore, 1st and 1st Under 1400 are greater than 1st and second, but Kyosu cannot bring in the Under 1400 prize but Aaron can.
Solution: Aaron $933; Kyosu $600; Whiteside $267; Ming $133 Culp $600
I realize some may prefer to not deal with this issue by claiming that the prize distribution or structure caused the problem. While that may be true, it doesn’t solve the problems that Immitt and I faced last year (even if those problems were caused by the tournament design).
IMHO, no matter how many minds “work on this”, there will be as many solutions as there are minds. The whole idea is so half-baked to begin with, that it is hopeless to expect a satisfactory solution.
If it is prohibitively expensive to add an unrated prize to each section, perhaps the following second-best idea should be considered (and should be written this way in the TLA):
“Unrateds (except in the Open section) may win no more than 3rd prize.” (Or whatever the last prize is, e.g. 4th prize if there are 4 prizes, etc). “An unrated who wins, or ties for, any place prize will be considered to have won, or tied for, 3rd prize, splitting the prize with any other players who have won or tied for 3rd prize.”
Bill Smythe
When you reduce prizes due to a poor turnout, do you also reduce the unrated limit?
Alex Relyea
It’s not entirely clear from the rules, but for CCA and MACA the answer is no.
Sorry, but I would have done Aaron $1000, Kyosu $600. In fact, I think this is one of the cases where the rather vague rule in the book actually would lead to that conclusion. If there weren’t a limit, they would certainly pull in $1600 combined. Since you can redistribute the extra $200 share that Kyosu can’t take over to Aaron without exceeding the max prize of $1000, you’ve kept it within the score group where the restriction was applied.
That was my initial thought, but then I took a second look. If the U1400 pulls in the $1000 then only $533 can be pulled in by the unr. If the Unr pulls in $600 from the $1000 then that leaves either $933 ($533 from second plus the $400 balance of first) or $600 (U1400) to be pulled in by the U1400.
The only way to pull in both the $1000 and the $600 is to say that either:
U1400 is next in line after first because a U1400 player tied for first, essentially changing the distribution depending on the players on top
or
the full prizes are always pulled in and divided and only then is any balance moved to the next prize in line. That could run into a fun little situation like a prize fund of $200, $150, $100 with unrated limited of $50 and a three-way tie for first with one unrated. In that case the other two would each get $200 (more than they would get in a two-way tie for first).
If the reallocation is done as the prizes are pulled in then the $200, $150, $100 with unr limited of $50 and a three-way tie with one unr would have a result of $175/$175/$50 and $50 for fourth.
PS if the unrated limit (or provisional limit for some events) is listed as no more than third place money then a reduction in based-on prizes would be a reduction in the limit (and an increase of based-on prizes would be an increase of the limit).
I agree with the distribution Mr. Hater cited in his practical example. My rationale (which may differ from the one he used) is below.
Aaron and Kyosu tie for first. If Kyosu were not restricted, Aaron and Kyosu would each get $767 (after rounding up to the next dollar). So, Kyosu can only win $600 of the first-second split, passing the remaining $933 on to Aaron (who is the next player in line, in this case).
My thinking here is that Kyosu’s prize should be awarded from the 1st/2nd pool - because Kyosu’s prize distribution there would have been greater without restriction. (If, OTOH, Kyosu was part of a tie where the prize without restriction would have been less than the $600 limit, Kyosu would just get that prize.) This is fair to Aaron - who still ends up making more than what the “natural” prize would have been (two-way split of 1st/2nd). It’s also fair to the other players, who do not get their prizes reduced.
The remaining distribution should not require further comment.
If there were no restriction, wouldn’t they take $1000+$600?
No - they’d take first and second, which are $1000 and $533. (As an unrated, Kyosu is only eligible for the place prizes.)
No, they’d each get $800. $1000 from Kyosu for 1st, $600 from Aaron for 1st U1400, divided by two.
There was disagreement among the CCA directors about the prize distribution, but Bill Goichberg’s decision was to award the prizes as Dave Hater described. Steve Immitt and I thought they should have been awarded the way Tom Doan described. Of course, Bill’s the boss when it comes to CCA tournaments.
Hypothetical question: how should the prizes have been awarded if the prize limit had been $800 instead of $600?
My question was rhetorical (unless there was a recent dramatic change in basic prize distribution rules that I missed).
This distribution gives Aaron more than one prize, which violates Rule 32B1.
I’ve disagreed with Mr. Goichberg about more complex restriction-related distributions before - but I never disagree for too long. After all, it’s not my money. 
However, on this one, I happen to agree with him.
I always look at what the natural prize distribution would be, and proceed based on that. In this case, I’d give Kyosu and Aaron $767 each - their natural split of first and second. Aaron maxes out, Kyosu still stays under the limit, and the other prizes remain undisturbed.