Terry, even with open book, the Senior Test is hard as nails to pass. The vast majority of senior and above TDs I know failed the test at least once–and this was primarily because of the problems of cash
distribution which scholastic tds do not have to deal with. For a long time now, I have thought the idea of a SSTD to be appropriate. Some of the finest floor TDs, whose ability, demeanor, and expertise
exceeded that of some national TDs i have witnessed, were local level
tournament directors. It seems to me questionable that that which has zero to do with being a scholastic td (ie cash prizes) should be a determining factor in the level of tournament directed.
I have no idea about the area you live in, but for most of the last decade we had very few senior tds in the DFW area to run many larger events. So I would suggest to those who attempt the imposition of rules without common sense of local situations, that it is quite often either the local level TD, or bye bye USCF.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, Rob, there isn’t currently a distinction between a Scholastic Senior, and a Senior TD (I know you know that, just wanted to mention it for others).
I do believe that I had to retake the Senior TD test before passing. It was a long time ago. But, that’s the idea of the tests, we want good TDs who know the rules, and sometimes we can learn from the tests that we fail. That should not stop a TD from upgrading, and if they can’t pass the test, or don’t have the inclination to try, then they don’t need to be directing, in my opinion. I know that’s a harsh opinion, but I consider the best interests of the players, and the organizers, to be most important.
I am one RR with an average rating of 1800 away from testing for ANTD. It’s not that I don’t want to do the test, it’s that, in my area, there aren’t such opportunities for me to TD such an event. I’ve wanted to test for ANTD for a long time.
Can you find eight blitz rated players with an average rating of at least 1800, or perhaps quick rated? An eight player blitz round robin would only involve 70 minutes of playing time, and it could be done in less than two hours. (A quick rated G/9 d/2 would probably take no more than three hours.) You could even do it in someone’s home. Bribe the players with free pizza, and just play for the fun of it. Two such events will satisfy the RR requirement. (Don’t run them on the same day.)
I’m a Local TD trying to upgrade to Sr. TD (and then ANTD) and I’m in the process of trying to round up 8 players to run exactly the kind of blitz/quick round robins that Ken describes.
I’m writing here with my own personal opinion, and I absolutely do not presume to speak for the TD Certification Committee.
Personally, I don’t think the RR requirement (at least in its current form) makes sense any longer. Back in the day, when there were “FIDE futurity” events, it probably made a lot more sense. As I remember, it used to be much more difficult to get a FIDE rating. FIDE ratings were essentially restricted to master level players, and the “FIDE futurity” round robin was a way (the way?) to obtain an initial FIDE rating.
Nowadays, at least to me, the existence of rated blitz chess makes this requirement feel like a rather unhelpful hoop through which to have to jump. The rating restriction is especially puzzling to me. A longtime member of TDCC and editor of the Official Rules of Chess once explained that it was to allow the TD to develop experience with issues related to higher rated players, though I probably completely misunderstood the explanation. It’s true that there are issues specific to round robin tournaments that don’t occur with Swisses, but I would expect any TD competent to sit for the ANTD exam to be able to handle those issues easily. I would offer an analogy: I personally have never dealt with an “mixed individual/team” tournament (I met the category T requirement with a fixed roster team tournament), but I understand the principle and think I could competently manage to figure it out if I have to.
I’m just not sure what trying to round up eight highly enough rated players for an hour and a half of blitz proves or what the experience teaches the TD. I might feel more warmly about the requirement if the average rating requirement weren’t there. I’ve also heard an interesting proposal to allow substitution of two six-player round robins for one eight or more player round robin. That’s an interesting idea to me, as I know of chess clubs that hold their annual championship as a six player round robin (easily done with one round a week on a weeknight in a month with five of those weeknights).
I would absolutely welcome corrections to my memory of FIDE procedures in days gone by.
I don’t know if Utah can reasonably provide the players you need (travel distances may be a problem). I don’t know how much you travel out of state. If you do travel out of state then one option might be to try to do a quick round robin at reasonably strong chess clubs in the areas you travel to. G/8;d3 would be about three rounds per hour (often very little down-time between rounds in a quick round robin), so a club with four playing hours could handle it in one evening. You’d need to contact them ahead of time to make sure they would have the players available. You may need to provide prizes and/or refreshments without charging an entry fee.
The amount of time needed for even a quick round robin pretty much precludes trying to run then at a tournament that would otherwise attract the players. The US Open with its one game per day schedule is one where that might be possible (assuming it could be arranged with the organzers) since the conflict with the daytime quads may not be that bad. The Thursday night before a National scholastic is another possibility (assuming it could be arranged with the organizers), but that would have a definite conflict with the blitz event.
I was fortunate enough to have a club that has an annual tournament that used to be strong enough to provide the 1900-minimum (back then) required for two current NTDs, a current ANTD and a current SrTD that hasn’t gotten around to requesting the test even though all of the requirements were met quite some time ago.
Generally, if somebody needs to be the chief of events for which ANTD or NTD certification is necessary then that person is likely to either live in areas where the round-robin requirement is feasible or to readily travel to such areas. If neither holds true then there usually isn’t a need for ANTD or NTD certification.
Thanks Jeff. Utah does not have a lot of players but I am comfortable that I can come up with 8 that meet the average rating requirement (if I get a couple of Experts that means I can use a couple of B players and 4 A players and still be okay). I know I’ll have to offer prizes/refreshments out of my own pocket but I’m willing to do that.
I also agree with some of Ken’s thoughts but for me personally I’m hopeful that I learn at least a couple of things from having gone through the process of doing round robins.
Not to brag or anything, but I just passed it on my first attempt. I don’t know my score yet, but MSA already has me listed as a Senior TD, so I must have passed. It was a hard test, but not all that hard. I was pretty confident about almost all my answers. I only recall one question about cash prize distribution, and I had no doubt about that answer. Of course, I have had to deal with that exact issue at tournaments numerous times, and had more experienced TDs to help me figure it out the first few times. But still, if you read through that section of the rulebook (and you have two months to do that), the concepts aren’t all that difficult. For what it’s worth, I received the test Monday evening, and finished it and emailed it this morning. I worked on it for a total of maybe 3 or 4 hours tops.
The point is one of practicality and officiousness for officiousness’s sake. As some have mentioned,
the availability of C and higher tournaments to work and get TD credit for, in many parts of our federation, is scarce. The idea of banning a TD or taking action against a TD volunteering his time,
building our federation, seems rather dubious to me. As stated, there are many local TDs far more
competent than higher level TDS, and many seniors far more competent than above levels. I daresay
take the higher levels with many grains of salt. Naturally some NTDs are truly incredible. But the
higher certification does not necessarily mean a higher level of competence.
The 40-question test (Club TD passing rate = 28/40, Local TD passing rate = 32/40) will have some questions that a particular TD will never have to worry about (the specific questions will vary from TD to TD), but the questions covering what the Club TD has and will deal with generally include more than the 28 needed to pass. If the Club TD is going to do more than just handle questions on the floor then that number goes higher.
I’ve done non-rated tournaments with various proctors who thought they knew the rules well but first checked with me in cases they were fairly sure (95%+ positive) of but not absolutely certain. They found out that were incorrect almost half of the time. That seems to be a fairly constant percentage of how an inexperienced TD will handle a very mildly complicated situation that they haven’t considered before. Testing will often correct that. I’ve talked with quite a few TDs who took the test and in the process double checked their answers with the rulebook and discovered that they had been ruling incorrectly.
I’d like to have Club TDs actually pass a test before becoming a Club TD but I realize that the need for assistant TDs is such that such a requirement would have significantly suboptimal results. The Club TDs I’ve mentored have eithered gone on to become Local TDs or higher, or have decided that they didn’t really like directing and stopped doing it before the three-year period was up.
I didn’t think any of them were all that hard as they are all open book. On the senior test I think I missed some points on a prize distribution question. Since I was mostly doing scholastic events I didn’t handle prize money all that much so to prepare for that I did some preparation work with an NTD here in town. He coached me up and I still have part of the answer wrong. Once I saw what I missed I had a head smack moment.
Passing on the NTD test is 80%. I got an 87% first try.
Usually I have found TD advancement is usually about a desire to advance mixed with an opportunity to accumulate all of the credits. I got most all of the credits serving our local chess community and traveling to events with my son playing. I looked up one day and realized I only lacked a few items for all of the NTD credits. At that point I got the desire to finish it out.
When you compare levels:
There are only about 250 Senior TDs.
There are only 10 or so ANTDs.
There are only around 50 or so active NTDs. There are another 25 or so not directing much or any.
(Since the NTD designation s for life one can be inactive and still retain it - the other categories have to be renewed with continuing experience requirements)
People are good at different things. Some whiz bang TDs dealing with adults ought to never set foot in a scholastic event. Some who are great on the computer shouldn’t be dealing with floor issues much and vice-versa.
Usually I have found TD advancement is usually about a desire to advance mixed with an opportunity to accumulate all of the credits. I got most all of the credits serving our local chess community and traveling to events with my son playing. I looked up one day and realized I only lacked a few items for all of the NTD credits. At that point I got the desire to finish it out.
When you compare levels:
There are only about 250 Senior TDs.
There are only 10 or so ANTDs.
There are only around 50 or so active NTDs. There are another 25 or so not directing much or any.
(Since the NTD designation s for life one can be inactive and still retain it - the other categories have to be renewed with continuing experience requirements)
People are good at different things. Some whiz bang TDs dealing with adults ought to never set foot in a scholastic event. Some who are great on the computer shouldn’t be dealing with floor issues much and vice-versa.[/quote
An idea i have heard is this- tournament directors who direct X number of tournaments per year, or sell X number of memberships per year, should have their USCF memberships paid for by USCF. I do think this is an incentive which just
might help spurn additional tournament activity. There are a good many really non-playing parents who become tournament directors and are a HUGE aide to local events. Such an incentive as above would aide our recruitment efforts.
Theoretically that shouldn’t happen, unless there’s a higher-level TD present, and they’re letting the lower-level TD have the credit, which is a common practice in our area. (Thanks to everyone who did this for me; you know who you are. )
The TD tests are harder than I would have thought, and I’m someone who’s normally good at multiple choice tests. Still, I understood the rationale for having to take the test, even though I had plenty of experience and didn’t strictly “need” the credential.
I always said to myself that once I was a Senior TD, I was done trying to move up. But once you’re a Senior TD, and if you’re not out in the boonies (or you’re willing to travel) I think you’ll find more opportunities open up to you to get those advanced directing credits. So I might get to ANTD after all.
For some Club TDs in scholastics, a tougher barrier is the 26-game requirement to take the Local TD test. There are people who are happy to read the rulebook, learn the software and learn the fine points of directing, but would rather not play 26 rated games.
Is that really true? The rules only specify that you must have an established rating. As far I know an “established rating” is only a non-provisional rating which is achieved after the 26th game. Admittedly it’s extremely unlikely that a player will win or lose all of their first 26 games, but I suppose it is possible depending who they are playing (assuming there was no cheating or collusion involved). And even that is not required at the club level.
There is a special case of provisional ratings. If a player either wins or loses every game, the rating remains provisional. The rationale is that if a player wins (loses) all his games, all the information the rating system has about the player is that he appears to be stronger (weaker) than all the opponents. But the rating system has no idea how much stronger or weaker the player is.
I can’t remember the player’s identity offhand, and I wouldn’t reveal it here if I did, but I recall having seen a player with over 80 losses and a provisional rating.
When I first looked at this I thought it said the Local was regularly the chief director of 500 player tournaments (not good).
Upon further review I see that you said section, which implies that somebody else was the overall chief. Rule 28 would still apply to a section of that size and violating that rule could have severe repercussions for the LTD and the chief if there were any problems with the event.
Doing it once or twice may be plausible. I was once the chief assistant for a CTD chief at a summertime scholastic (anticipating 30 or 40) and ended up very surprised when 80 players registered and played (close to the number attending during the school year). Even though 80 exceeds the 60-expected-player limit for an (assisted) CTD to be the chief of, the expected number was still low enough for the CTD to be the chief.
But, that’s the idea of the tests, we want good TDs who know the rules, and sometimes we can learn from the tests that we fail. That should not stop a TD from upgrading, and if they can’t pass the test, or don’t have the inclination to try, then they don’t need to be directing, in my opinion. I know that’s a harsh opinion, but I consider the best interests of the players, and the organizers, to be most important.
)