Prototype of new online tournament editing form

Running Chess Tournaments
1

A prototype for the new online rating report editing form (to handle several changes made by the Delegates in August) is available in the TD/Affiliate Support Area.

Log in to TD/A then click on the link for the test program, which is at
secure2.uschess.org/TD_Affil/tnmt_edit_test.php

See BINFOs 201100464 through 201100476 (so far) for background information and some explanation of what is being changed and why.

We hope to have the new form fully implemented around the first of October, which will include support for the new 3 month trial memberships discussed by the Delegates and being implemented under the promotional membership authority for now.

Update 1: Based on feedback from Tim Just, the TD information fields have been modified somewhat to allow for a chief, a chief assistant and two assistants at both the tournament and the section level. This should be more compatible with the current requirements for TD advancement and renewal.

Update 2: Aside from affiliate selection (which requires logging in to TD/A) and support for multiple sections (which requires being able to save the results), the prototype appears to be complete. The comment period will remain open until next Friday (9/23.)

Update 3: A revised version of the test form, which includes the ability to save data in a TD’s work area, was posted on 9/26. We hope to be able to go into open beta testing with this new form in early October.

2

As of today (9/30/11), the test version also includes the module to upload the three dBase files. Unless new features are added or revised, or bugs reported, this is probably the last version of the online editing program that will be posted before the new module goes into open beta testing.

The event validation program is still being written.

You do have to log in as a TD to view the test programming, so clicking on the link in the previous post will take you to the TD/A login page.

Testing is proceeding well, though only a few comments have been received (and none posted here.)

The new programming includes support for a chief TD, a chief assistant TD and two assistant TDs at both the tournament and section level.

It also supports entering color information and entering separate time controls by round, where applicable, as well as events with multiple schedules. Complete time control information, including the delay or increment setting used, will be required for all events.

There is also a text box to enter a list of assistants and volunteers (other than certified TDs) that you wish to thank, and a text box to enter a short news story about the event, like the old ‘Here and There’ stories that used to appear in Chess Life. (USCF staff review may be needed before these fields can be posted on MSA.)

We hope to be able to place this new module into open beta testing around October 10th, and the old programming will probably be retired before the end of November.

3

Will TDs at some point be able to add such a text box to events which have already been rated (for example, if the TD’s ID matches the TD’s ID on MSA), or is this only going to be for events held after November?

[i]System Administrator’s Note:

There will need to be a way of editing them, or adding them after the fact, because the TD submitting the report may not necessarily be the best person to write up a story on the event, or have the time to do it right then. There isn’t much difference between editing a recent event or editing one from further back, once we have that capability for newly submitted events we should have it for other events as well.

Either way, there are questions about how to review the content (including revisions) that are still being considered. [/i]

4

And will TDs have to enter that text info when they upload those tournament report files? Doing the text report later would be a feature. Being forced to do it with the tournament report–perhaps not so much a feature?!

5

I think this is an extremely well taken point.

[i]System Manager’s Note:

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. --Lao-tzu[/i]

6

A question has come up regarding the diversity of time controls in use.

Does anyone run events which use 4 or more different time controls, or are we safe allowing only time controls like the ones below (which are intended as examples of how many different time control fields are accepted, not of what is advisable.) For simplicity, all of these assume 5 seconds delay.

Sudden Death primary time control:

G/30d5

Sudden Death secondary time control:

30/30,SD/30d5
30/60,20/30,SD/30d5

No Sudden Death time control:

30/30d5
40/120,20/60d5
20/60,20/40,20/20d5

(In an event that is not using a Sudden Death final time control, if a game runs longer than the last time control listed, the final time control is repeated as many times as needed.)

7

Two questions:

  • Does the d5 (if listed) automatically apply to all controls, or is the organizer allowed to turn on the delay only for the final control?
  • In the event of no delay and no increment, will this automatically be assumed if not explicit, or will the organizer be required to explicitly list “d0”?

My opinions:

  • An organizer should not be allowed to have different delays (or different increments) in different controls. The delay or increment should be required to remain the same throughout the game.
  • An explicit listing of “d0” should be required, if there is to be no delay and no increment. This would tend to prevent unwarranted assumptions of no delay.

Suggestion: In the two ways of writing:

30/60,20/30,SD/30d5
30/60,20/30,SD/30,d5

– wouldn’t the second be preferable? The extra comma makes it more apparent that the delay applies to all controls.

Bill Smythe

8

Rule 5Fb, which was NOT altered by the Delegates, already says:

“A game with a mixed time control, e.g., 50 moves in two hours followed by sudden death in 30 minutes (50/2, SD/30), is to use a time delay clock set with 5-second delay from the beginning of the game, if available.”

However, the TD Tip that follows this rule seems to permit the delay to be set only on the final sudden death time control, but strongly cautions against it. Perhaps that should become a variant that must be included in all pre-event publicity starting in 2012.

The data entry program will require ‘d0’ or ‘+0’, whether the TLA should also require that has not yet been announced.

The parser could be set to permit it either way in shorthand notation form, but will standardize it to whichever version is declared ‘preferred’. (It also permits things like ‘d/5’, ‘delay 5’ and ‘inc 5’, but will standardize both delay settings to ‘d5’ and the increment setting to ‘+5’.)

What about increment mode? 30/60, 20/30,SD/30,+5 seems clumsy.

9

I’m glad the TD Tip strongly cautions against having the delay only in the final control. My point here, however, was how the parser would handle the situation.

For example, in:

(a) 30/60,20/30,SD/30,d5

– with or without the final comma, the d5 presumably applies to all three time controls. If it is to apply only to the third, how would it be written? Perhaps:

(b) 30/60d0,20/30d0,SD/30d5

That’s why, in (a), I prefer to include the final comma – it makes it look as though d5 applies to all controls, whereas without the final comma, it looks more as though d5 applies only to the last.

OTOH, I can understand why it might be desirable to impede organizers, as much as possible, from trying dumb and foolish experiments like having the delay only in the final control. :slight_smile:

OT3H, I guess I’m really more concerned about the TLA than the rating report data entry form.

I certainly hope this requirement will apply to the TLA as well. Otherwise, if the lack of any explicit mention of delay or increment is interpreted to mean there is no delay or increment, we’ll be flooded with unintended no-delay events, much to the consternation and confusion of both players and organizers.

I have no particular visual problem with a comma and a plus sign appearing together. Just as with d5, the final comma before +5 does a better job of portraying the intent, which is that the +5 applies to all controls.

Whew! What nitpickers we both are. (And that’s a good thing.)

Bill Smythe

10

Use different punctuation.

30/60,20/30,SD/30:d5

Wherever the : appears, the following delay applies to all prior time controls.

If you wanted a 10-second delay in primary time and 5-second delay in the others, you could write:

30/60:d10,20/30,SD/30:d5

Also, if byte count is an issue, you could use : (without the d) for delay and + for increment.

30/60,20/30,SD/30:5 (delay 5)
30/60,20/30,SD/30+15 (increment 15)

11

Neither the current rules or the 2012 rules from ADM 11-36 take into account whether or not delay/increment is in use from move 1 or just in the final sudden-death time control in determining whether an event is quick rated only, dual rated or regular rated only.

As a result, at this time the parser does not need to know whether delay/increment is in effect from move 1 on or just in the final sudden death time control.

Although ugly, if we DID need to know that information, the following seems the best way to handle it:

IF the delay/increment is in effect from move 1, it is indicated at the end of the time control information, ie

40/90,SD/30d5

But if it is NOT in effect from move 1, or if (heaven forbid!) a different delay/increment setting is in effect during one or more non sudden-death time controls, then the proper delay/increment setting for EACH time control will need to be indicated next to that time control, ie:

40/90d0,SD/30d5

An even uglier example would be:

40/90d0,30/30d5,SD/30d10

This method of coding the time control information would appear to leave little room for doubt as to exactly what is intended in each time control, which was one of the motivations behind changing the rules. It also removes the possibility that a missing or unintended comma (or someone mis-reading that information) significantly changes the interpretation of the time control information.

[b]Emphasis added: Also, it is a VERY BAD IDEA to require players to have to carefully examine the time control information, looking for something as small as a semicolon or a comma, in order for them to know whether the delay/increment setting applies from move 1 on or just in the final sudden death time control.

The STANDARD under rule 5Fb is that delay/increment in in effect from move 1 on. If something other than that is intended, each time control should have to state the delay/increment setting which applies to THAT time control.

However, the parser does not currently have the capability to parse a time control field which specifies a different delay/increment setting for each time control, and unless this is NEEDED, it will probably not be added.[/b]

Are there digital clocks that would have the ability to switch from delay to increment mid-game?

That would permit even uglier time control settings such as:

40/90d5,SD/30+10

12

A Chronos can’t do this. If a Chronos can’t, it’s a safe bet to say that no clock can. (I’m certain about the Chronos, the Excalibur, the Saiteks (blue and pro), and the DGT North American and related clocks [DGT 2000, DGT 2010]).

Of that list, the Chronos is the only one I know of that would allow a different amount of delay in different time controls (such as changing from d5 to d10).

13

This may be an issue for the Rules Committee, the EB or ultimately the USCF Delegates to decide, such as by mandating that delay/increment must be used from move 1 and must be identical in all time controls, UNLESS OTHERWISE ADVERTISED.

USCF policy should probably not be based on what digital clocks COULD do, now or in the future.

Note, an updated version of the ‘Rulebook changes since the 5th edition’ document has been posted in the “About USCF” → Governance → Reports area of the website.

The file name is “RulebookChanges2012.pdf”.

It will not be cross-linked to come up as the ‘current’ rules update document until January 1, 2012.

14

I might as well throw an even wrenchier monkey wrench into the soup here. :smiling_imp:

What about having both increment and delay in the same time control? e.g. G/90 inc/30 d/5.

My ancient (pre-1996) Chronos, with a switch on the bottom, can actually do this. There is a mode called DL-CU, which means delay, move count, unlimited. It’s intended for something like 40/120, then 20/60, 20/60, etc indefinitely, with a 5-second delay.

But it could just as easily be set for 1/90, then 1/0:30, 1/0:30, etc with a 5-second delay. (That’s 1 move in 90 minutes, followed by 1 move in 30 seconds indefinitely, with a 5-second delay.)

Can any clock still on the market do this? I don’t think even current Chronos models have this option. (That’s a challenge to all you up-to-date clock owners.)

Bill Smythe

15

Trying to program for all possibilities is somewhat of an impossible task?! How about programing for the masses and a bit more (perhaps 90%?)? Then leave the odd out of bounds stuff for staff action?

16

Let us not forget that World Championship matches are played at a time control that includes increment only for the last control. (40/120, 20/60, SD/15, Inc-30 from move 61.) So are other top-level tournaments, such as the one about to resume in Bilbao.

Good to see the usual suspects nit-pick this one. There is a guy at our club who strongly objects to delay in the primary control—though he not only tolerates it, but likes it, in the SD final control. I have offered to try using delay in the final control only next time we play, to see how it goes.

There is some logic to this. USCF made delay from move one the standard for the sake of simplicity and uniformity, I reckon; I tend to agree it has more upside than downside, (opposite of move counters or the Fajarowicz Gambit), but there is logic to the other way.

For this discussion though, how would it make a difference as to which rating system applies? Maybe something like 30/32, SD/30, with a 5-second delay from move 31? As long as the correct rating system is applied, I would not worry too much about upsetting the parser.

What I would like to see from Rules and the Delegates next year is a standard for minimum allowable non-SD time controls. As of now it’s anything goes. Enter 99/20d0 on the new form and see what happens…

17

I agree. But that wasn’t what I was saying. I just wanted the final comma added for clarity, so there could be no mistake (on the part of the reader) that the delay or increment applied to all the controls:

40/90, 20/30, d5

By the same token, if the delay applies only to the final control, it should be listed for each, without commas:

40/90 d0, 20/30 d5

However, this entire point really applies to the TLA, not the rating report.

I agree that, for the purpose of giving the rating software enough information to determine the tournament type (regular, dual, quick), the parser doesn’t appear to need clarity in this area. For that purpose, it doesn’t even matter whether the delay applies to all controls or just the final control.

Again, this is primarily a TLA issue, not a rating report issue. TLA’s should be made as clear as possible.

Bill Smythe

18

Aw, gee. You’re trying to take all the fun out of these posts. :slight_smile:

Bill Smythe

19

Be wary when kow-towing to the unusual opinions of just one person. There are a bunch of potential problems here.

I was on the rulebook revision committee (5th edition) in about 2003 when this issue came up. At the time, I argued strongly for delay throughout the game, not just in the final control. Part of my reasoning was:

  • The “look and feel” of the primary and final controls should be as nearly alike as possible. If a player were on move 34 in a 40-move control, with 2 seconds remaining and no delay, the desperation level would actually be greater in the primary control than in the second, where the delay would be in effect.
  • The desperation level described above is likely to cause bad player behavior, such as using two hands, knocking over pieces without replacing them, etc.
  • An opponent who regularly plays in events where the delay applies throughout, and is now playing with no delay until the second control, may be unaware that the delay is not in effect. The result could be unexpected time-forfeit claims, unnecessary disputes, and hard feelings all around.
  • Some clocks may not be able to be set with the delay only in the final control.
  • Even on clocks which can be set properly, there may be no uniform method of determining when the final control begins. It may begin when the move counter reaches 40, or it may begin with the first time control reaches 0:00:00. In the latter case, the two players may enter the second control at widely varying times. For example, if white’s initial time runs out at move 43, and black’s at move 49, then for six moves white will have the delay and black will not.
  • Will the move counter always be set? The answer may determine which method (above) the clock uses to begin the final control. Do all clocks even have move counters? Even on those that do, does the move count always trigger the final control, or does this vary by clock brand?

As I recall, when I presented these arguments to the 5th edition rulebook revision committee, Bill Goichberg responded with “I agree with all of this”, and added yet another point:

  • The bad behavior alluded to above is likely to be disruptive to others playing their games nearby.

At the very least, anybody who likes delay in the final control but not in the primary should not also be opposed to move counters – that position seems inconsistent.

Bill Smythe

20

And yet that is what often happens and will likely happen with regards to the new online editing form (and any future rules changes to allowable time controls), because fewer than a half dozen individuals have offered any comments on the new data entry form, either here on the Forums or via email.

Others may save their complaints until the new form goes live, at which point changes will probably be a lot more work to make.

Woody Allen once said that 80% of success in life is just showing up.

As to why there may be additional changes to the allowable time control rules at the 2012 Delegates meeting, consider this:

Suppose there is an event with a time control of 30/25d0, SD/30d15.

Is this event supposed to be dual rated or regular-only rated under the 2012 rules?

And what about this weird time control:

99/10, SD/60d5?

Should this event be regular-only rated, which is how it would be treated under both the 2011 time control rules and the 2012 time control rules?

Several rulebook revisions ago (probably before we had quick ratings) there used to be a rule that each time control period must be at least 30 minutes long. That may need to come back in some form for regular-only events, at least for non-sudden-death time control periods.

Or do we want to allow time controls such as this for regular rated events:

30 moves in 30 minutes followed by 1 minute per move (5 seconds delay).

Another possibility that has been discussed is to look at the average time per move in a non sudden-death time control. If the average is slower than one minute per move, make it regular only. If it is faster than 30 seconds per move, make it quick only, otherwise make it dual rated. (How to take the delay/increment setting into account is unclear, and that could get even murkier if events which only use delay/increment in the final sudden death time control are considered.)