Tournament director fails to have loaded the most recent monthly database and is instead using an old database and also asking on-site registrants as they arrive to provide their rating and then using those ratings without verification for purposes of doing the pairings. This seems to me to be clearly improper. TD feels that using “approximate” ratings is an acceptable deviation sanctioned by the rulebook. I tend to disagree.
TD also looks arount the room at the beginning of round one, and then alters the pairing with respect to players who aren’t there (some combination of assigning byes at that point and/or pairing players who have not yet arrived but are still expected to arrive against each other).
Both of these seem like fairly serious rules violations. I would appeciate input from others on this scenario. I think the TD would likely mend his ways if he were convinced that these were serious violations. By the same token, I don’t want to overreact if these as minor issues.
Personal though, I actually think there is some merit to the second point (giving byes to players who do not arrive at the start of the 1st round), but I would think that this counts as a major variation that would require advance announcement.
Final tidbit of information, I would be much more tolerant of these practices for a weekly $5 friendly tournament, but I think that a “major” event, like a state championship, should be more circumspect.
A number of scholastic tournaments do re-pairings to cover for round one no-shows. Part of the reason is that a forfeit win is usually not good for the tie-breaks for trophies. That is less of a consideration for events with splittable monetary prizes, but even some multi-thousand-dollar prize fund events have tournament rules allowing round one re-pairings.
Thanks. Helpful perspective. In my mind, it’s reasonable to re-pair for first round no-shows, especially for a scholastic tournament, but it should be announced in advance. I know for a fact that Millionaire Chess required entrants to check in or else they would not be paired for the first round, but that was announced in advance, which I view as a key difference.
As you say “hypothetical,” I can’t assume this has actually happened. However, if it has, ask the TD to show you exactly where the justification for his practice is in the rulebook. I doubt he will be able to do so. The rules do allow the director to assign a higher rating than the player’s officially published rating for pairing and prize purposes if the director believes there is justification for the higher rating. Otherwise, unless announced in all pre-tournament publicity, the ratings to be used are the ratings from the official published rating list in effect at the beginning of the month in which the tournament starts.
Again, if there is a requirement for advance entrants to check in before the first round is paired, or if the forfeit time is anything other than one hour (or the duration of the first or only time control, if shorter than one hour), that also needs to be announced in advance. But, depending on the size of the event (is it practical to have advance entrants check in?), requiring advance entrants to check in may be useful, especially if the organizer expects a lot of newcomers or relatively inexperienced tournament players (such as scholastic events).
The MetroWest Chess Club (meets Tuesday nights, usually draws between 70 and 80 players each round) has a policy of changing pairings after 30 minutes, although the forfeit time is still one hour. After 30 minutes, if there is a late player and a player with a full point bye (paired out), or if there are two late players, the club has the right to change the pairings if the players present agree. Players usually appreciate being able to get a game rather than a free point. The club publicizes that on the web site and announces it periodically to the players as a reminder.
First of all, this doesn’t sound like an hypothetical to me, but whatever.
If the TD does not have access to updated rating information on-site, what else is he/she to do? Obviously, if there’s enough time, the TD needs to get the correct info, and if internet is available, then there shouldn’t be a problem; I assume that it isn’t available.
TDs need to be prepared, and a State Championship is certainly an important event, but while I would give him/her a pass on this one, I would hope that future preparation is considered important.
EDIT: I wouldn’t think him being too far awry of the rules, considering players whose rating change from a previous event generally aren’t great enough to warrant that much worry about strength. Yes, the player may be paired in a section lower than his true rating would allow, but I don’t see it as being that much of a stress factor for the players in that section. For instance, I, at 1669, wouldn’t be too bothered by having a 1750 player accidentally being placed in my section of u1700. I stipulate that this is one player’s opinion, that might not be shared by others.
I don’t see it being an excessive burden for the TD to have the current USCF golden database installed on the computer(s) used to do pairings before the event begins. For that matter, a TD should have the current USCF golden database on a USB flash drive as a matter of habit. That way, there is no need to rely on internet access at the site to ensure up-to-date ratings are being used.
Well, OK, but my attitude toward those who complain about minor switches tends to be, “You’re right, but so what? Go take your tranquilizer.”
When I was running tournaments on Lunt Avenue, we ran events somewhere between a “$5 friendly tournament” and a major event. We typically ran 4-round 1-day events with a $20 entry fee and a $100 perfect-score prize.
One weekend we ran a 2-day tournament, 5 rounds, $30 entry fee, with a $150 (or maybe it was $200, I don’t remember) perfect-score prize. Two of the players in that tournament had a nasty history of forfeiting without notice on Sunday morning (round 4). I was proud of the fact that, with comparatively minor fiddling with the pairings, I was able to pair them against each other (they each had 1 point out of 3). Sure enough, both of them forfeited without notice.
One thing to consider is the effect of the end of printed rating supplements.
For most of us that is not a big issue, but there are still folks who face challenges in re tech savvy, finances, site constraints or who simply don’t know how to access rating lists online. (A practical example: TD leaves his laptop which contains the downloaded rating lists at the office on Friday; the site for Saturday’s quad has no 'Net access, even if the TD can find another laptop or tablet.)
I would guess that quite a few small/local/club events are held under the policy “give me a rating I can believe,” as is the case at one club I know.
That’s not ideal but for tournaments at that level I do not object to it. I recently discussed this offline with a very experienced TD, who pointed me to this thread.
I mentioned ways that TDs/organizers can obtain official monthly ratings for any event:
If there is WiFi at the site, you are set. If there is such a thing as a tournament-ful of rated chessplayers none of whom has a mobile device that can access the Internet, they should use analog clocks to atone for it.
1a. If the TD or fellow traveler has a device with a data plan, you are set even at a site with no or wonky WiFi.
You can print out the latest list and the Golden list from TD/A. That will cost a bit in ink and paper, but it’s only once a month. Of course you then need to remember to bring it with you to the site.
You can download the list (s) from TD/A to your hard drive and/or a USB stick and bring your laptop/tablet to the site. That way you are good to go even with no 'Net access.
For TDs of clubs with a semi-regular player pool, you can do a mass search via ID number to get rating info for all players, print it out and bring it with you. This is what I did years ago as TD of club events, before I had a laptop. Downside is what to do if a new player shows up.
Variation on the above: Print out crosstables for recent events run by the club/affiliate, possibly announce in advance you will use latest ratings, etc.
Objections to the above I have heard: TD has no mobile computing device; TD has no printer; the site is not secure enough to risk the theft of an $800 PC for the sake of a club quad; the site has no WiFi; TD has not the time, money or inclination to print out huge rating lists each month and keep track of them; “Where can I find rating lists online??”
At times I also sense a faint hint of “They took away my rating list security blanket so I don’t wanna jump through any hoops for Them.”
Anyway: No debate that official (monthly) ratings need to be used for big tournaments. Not much debate that it would be ideal to use official ratings for any rated event. Down on the farm it does not always work that way—and beyond a certain threshold I understand that.
Doing away with printed rating supplements for $$$ reasons might have been a good idea overall—but the potentially negative ripple effects, especially far down the food chain, are real.
Sometimes a TD comes into a situation where the computer and printer are provided by the organizer, and the TD is not using his own personal laptop. It can’t hurt to have the latest golden database on a USB flash drive just in case.
If I have too much stuff to lug around for a tournament, I make a copy to the “Active List” of players after clicking on our club’s ID# under the “Clubs and Tournaments” section on this website. That covers most if not all of the usual suspects who will come to the event. In a compact form I have the players’ ID#'s, membership expiration dates, and updated ratings. I also make a copy of the results of the latest round of the Pittsburgh Chess League. That covers most of the area’s players ratings and ID#'s. Total of 4 or 5 sheets of paper with everything I need and faster to use than a computer search for individuals. If a player shows up who is not on either list, we do a check by using a phone and searching the USCF website for the player’s basic info.
I used to like the printed rating supplements. Not only ratings and ID#'s, but also the TD Corner with tips, rules changes, suspension lists (both players and TD lists), top player lists in a variety of categories and other assorted USCF information all in one place to look at in leisure. After registration, players would usually browse the list between rounds to check on rating changes by friends and acquaintances. They would see who moved up on the Masters or Junior lists. The annual list and the 5 year book were very popular. It was good publicity for the USCF as well as helpful for the TD. It showed you were a serious club and USCF affiliate if you had a bunch of rating supplements for club members to access and explore. Something is lost as well as gained when everything goes digital.
One current limitation on the ‘active player list’ for an affiliate is that it only gives the players’ regular ratings. (This feature hasn’t been revised since Blitz ratings were introduced.)
Additional options are available through the ‘custom rating list’ feature on TD/A. For example, you can generate a similar active player list for an affiliate (players in that affiliate’s tournaments over the last 2 years) in the format of the printed ratings supplements (as a PDF), so that all 3 ratings are given. You can also select players by state or by zip code range.
We do not currently offer a PDF of the Golden Master list in rating supplement/PDF format. One reason for this is that it would be huge, The rating supplement/PDF format gets about 208 names to a page, so a Golden Master Rating Supplement PDF, which would have about 840,000 players on it, would currently be over 4000 pages long and around 60 MB.
In your first instance, I’ve seen it happen before and I’m sure I’ll see it happen again. Unfortunately, not every TD is as prepared as they should be but sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to get that 1st round going. However, I would expect that once the 1st round is going that the TD would then make every darn effort to get his ratings database up to date and ensure that the accurate ratings are reflected and used for all future rounds.
For the second problem, I’ve previously done something similar with people that have informed me they want to play but haven’t paid their entry fee. I will give them until a little before the round to come and take care of that otherwise they won’t be paired for the 1st round. However, in your case is sounds like the TD was trying to be proactive against forfeit wins for the players that showed up on time. Sometimes as a TD you get to know your local crowd and do a little bending over backwards to ensure everyone gets a game. Also he might not have wanted to turn away the entries, say you get 6 players walk in the door after the round has started, do you turn them away or possibly lose them by offering half-point byes, or say you can get them all in but they’ll have to play each other?
That reminded me to download the November supplement for a tournament this Saturday (11/1). Sometimes the supplement has not been available until very late in the month and a TD did not load it before tournament early the following month.
People unlikely to be particularly perturbed about using the August supplement for a September tournament would be those who remember when it was quick to have a tournament rated within a month of it finishing, and not uncommon for a tournament to not get rated in time to get into two successive (bi-monthly) supplements.
There has been a major revision of expectations since then, with players now complaining if they don’t see their new ratings the morning after the event (and I’ve had inquiries three hours after leaving the site of an event - usually after the tournament had been submitted but before it had been rated and displayed).
You even have organizers who feel that the monthly supplement is not updated quickly enough to catch the changes in players’ strengths, and thus pull in the most recent unofficial rating for use.
In a single-section tournament I can easily see a TD opting to use old ratings for pairing the first round and using that round to pull in the newer ratings. If there are no ratings-based class prizes (before you ask, some tournaments have school grade or age based class prizes) then running the entire tournament using the old ratings would not often be a huge distortion on what would have otherwise happened.
In a multiple section tournament there is a strong risk of players discovering that they entered in a section they were not qualified for. The correction for that is standard (remove the players from the section, give them half point byes for the completed rounds, move the games to a different section just for rating purposes, give their opponents in their old section half-point byes if the opponent lost and full-point byes otherwise). Let the players know that correction will be used if necessary once the ratings are determined (potentially eliminating chances for prizes), and hope that will be a strong incentive for players to give you accurate information (of for active players near the upper limit to opt for safety and move up a section).
I’ve created a new topic, Anticipating disaster - Preparing to direct a tournament, for discussion of Boyd Reed’s proposal that a document should be created with advice for TDs on what they should do when preparing to direct a tournament.
