Rule 28D Question: Unrated players

[W.T_Hales]

All of the unrated players who will be attending have quick ratings with
the exception of one. They should be eligible for prizes and not considered unrated.

This one completely unrated player is not an unknown quantity, but his rating can be reasonably approximated to place him in the bottom section. This is based on his play against another rated player.

I will assign him a rating under 28D5. According to 28D, this makes him
eligible for prizes. If he wins a prize in the bottom section, he will get his money and hopefully no one will object. I think 28D5 gives me the right
to award him a prize.

I doubt that anyone will object to an unrated winning money, but you
never know. My experience is that the majority of players are more
mature than that.

In the future, I will consider it a lesson learned. I will plainly state my
intention to allow unrateds specifically to compete for prizes in the
bottom section.

Nolan, perhaps you are right. While the rulebook cannot possibly
anticipate every situation, I as a new TD should. I should have known
to design my tournament better. This remark I found hurtful.

Over the past six months, Asheboro Chess Club under my leadership has
hosted a simul with an IM, signed up 10 new USCF members, held 5 quick rated tournaments, and organized Asheboro’s first ever chess tournament. We also now have four USCF certified TDs.

At each step of the way, I’ve had to deal with unbelievably tedious procedures to get things going with USCF. The attitude that I should be able to jump through hoops if I am competent enough to be a TD doesn’t sit well with me. I have enough hurdles to overcome as it is.

I do not see any other monthly swiss in my area stating specifically how they will deal with unrated players. I guess this may be why this issue
did not come up until now.

Asheboro Chess Club is working hard to bring in new USCF members, so we need to deal with the issue effectively and fairly.

I and my team of TDs have worked extremely hard on this tournament. I do not consider it poorly designed.

Nolan, please forgive me for getting a bit off topic here, but I felt compelled to respond. You just hit a sensitive spot, and pehaps I am over reacting.

I appreciate this forum–it has been invaluable to me. Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

Sincerely submitted,

William “Tom” Hales, TD newbie
Asheboro Chess Club

[khyde]

In any case, the rating has to be official not web. If you did not give notice to use the web rating, if the quick rating is un-official and no regular rating (un-official or official), the players rating should not be used.

This is not correct.

28D3 says that directors are encouraged to use unofficial USCF ratings that have not yet appeared in a rating supplement.

[khyde]

I doubt that anyone will object to an unrated winning money, but you never know. My experience is that the majority of players are more
mature than that.

http://home.triad.rr.com/asheborochess/TAO1.htm

Tom,

Your tournament advertisement states your intention for flexibility in sections so I think you are very justified in putting unrated players in the lower sections; 28D5 is good justification for this.

Players paying $25 for a chance to win $125 for 1st in a one-day tournament are not going to complain if an unrated player happens to be in their section and wins.

It might become more of an issue if there are larger prizes and larger entry fees. A player may travel a great distance with high hopes of winning big prizes; he might expect to only compete with players near his rating (not unrated players).

I like what you are doing with your club and encourage you to keep it up!

-Kevin

[nolan]

IMHO, 28D3 is in need of a review by the Rules committee and/or TDCC in the light of our changing technology.

With our new rating programming it is possible that someone’s unofficial rating could change several times in a day, and that NONE of those ratings will be the player’s official published rating when the next supplement is prepared.

Which of those ratings will the TD find? (If events are rated out of order, it isn’t always clear which is the ‘most current’ rating ahead of the next rerate.)

What if a subsequent unofficial and unpublished rating changes which section or which prizes a player qualifies for? Is using a rating that changes between when the TD looks it up and when the event begins fair to that player or to the other players in that section?

I’m all for using whatever ratings information can be gleaned to produce better pairings, I"m uncomfortable with using unofficial and unpublished data for section or prize eligibility purposes, even in trophy or small-cash events. (I do agree that big money prizes offer far more opportunities for problems arising from the use of unofficial unpublished ratings for otherwise unrated players.)

[relyea]

I remember when I was starting tournament play back in 1987 the TD would assign ratings for the new players. I think I won the Class E trophy as an unrated once.

Alex Relyea

[aceterp]

@nolan

While the rulebook tries to cover most situations, it cannot anticipate every possible situation.

This is largely a tournament DESIGN issue, not a tournament DIRECTING issue. A well-designed tournament does not raise these kinds of problems, because there is no doubt raised about who’s eligible for what.

@W.T.Hales

While the rulebook cannot possibly
anticipate every situation, I as a new TD should. I should have known
to design my tournament better. This remark I found hurtful. .

I don’t think Nolan intentionally meant to hurt your feelings. I think he was emphasizing how important the design of a tournament is… and how difficult it can be. I’ve had trouble, because sometimes I want to include TOO much info about my tourney, and it makes my flyers to hard to read. (and vice versa when I don’t include enough info and i’m barraged by questions). I too am a new TD, and haven’t directed that many events. And i’ve made some mistakes, and I’ll probably make some more. But right now I’m holding small club events… and while I’m eager to run a larger event, I know that I’m not ready, and I keep learning new twists and turns each time I run an event, whether its with prize distribution, pairings, or ILC (insufficient losing chances) claims.

Mr Hales, I encourage you to keep it up and don’t give up - always believe that your club members are very appreciative of you directing.

I have found this forum to be invaluable. There are a LOT of very experienced TD’s here - and after a very short time you know to listen to and whom to ignore. Some of the best advice I’ve recieved as a new TD here was from Nolan, Bill Smythe, realyea, martinak and many others that i cant think of off the top of my head.

Take a look at the thread Club TD in the Chess Club Organization forum for some good tips.

[nolan]

No insult was intended. Organizing and directing tournaments are related but not identical tasks, and like any skilled tasks they both have learning curves.

Further, the organizer’s task often impacts the TD’s tasks, in my opinion far more frequently than the TD impacts the organizer.

Go back and read the recent thread about prize distributions and unrated players for the type of conundrum that can arise. A better (or at least less ambiguous) tournament flyer might have prevented the problem, or at least made the situation less confusing.

[jwiewel]

William, if you are having difficultly locating the thread Mike is referring to, it is in the tournament direction forum, is titled “Extra prize money after limit on unrated player’s winnings”, and currently the most recent post was on 4/11/2005.

[rfeditor]

@martinak

@rfeditor

That’s correct. Place prizes in an Open section are (must be) available to all. To avoid confusion, refrain from using the term “place prizes” for the top prizes in a class section. This is the default policy under the rules. If you want to do something else, write it out and announce it.

In my previous reply I gave a variety of examples from CL TLAs that don’t appear to agree with your understanding of the rules. I thought it might also be useful to look at National events. From the May 2005 CL, most aren’t explicit about which sections and which prizes unrateds are eligible for (except for events with a special unrated section). The only example that I could find is:

May 28-30. 63rd Annual US Amateur Champ East
Booster: U1400 … (Unrateds only eligible for 1-5)

So here too, the section while not explicitely welcoming unrateds in the title or UXXXX description obviously allows them to enter and makes them eligible for the place prizes in that section.

I can’t speak for all organizers, but I don’t believe your interpretation is correct. In general, if a class section does not specify an Unrated prize (or an amount unrateds can win), unrated players are not eligible for prizes in that section.

Note that I said “in general.” This is true of all CCA tournanments, all tournaments in Southern California, and big events like the National Open and Western States. (I don’t include the U.S. Open because it has only one section.) Of course, there are (and should be) regional variations; I believe a different policy is popular in New England.

The logical problem with your argument (as opposed to legal or practical) is that it results in an absurd interpretation of 28D. If your reading were correct, it would mean that given, say, an U1600 section with U1400 and U1200 class prizes, an unrated player would be eligible for the U1600 prizes but not the others. While an organizer could certainly decide that this was what he wanted to do and announce it in his TLA, it makes absolutely no sense as part of the Rulebook.

[rfeditor]

@martinak

“When substantial cash prizes are offered in sections for lower-rated players, unrateds are ofter ineligible to enter or have a prize limit far below that of rated players.”

That prize limit phrase would seem to me to be referring to the place prizes in that section.

For example, grabbing my June CL, and looking at the display ads:

Page 63, Northeast Open:
Under 2000/Unr: $800-400-300-200, Top Under 1800 $500-250.
Under 1600/Unr: $800-400-300-200, Top Under 1400 $500-250.
Under 1200/Unr: $500-300-200-100, Top Under 1000 $200.
Unrateds may not win over $100 in Under 1200, $300 in Under 1600, or $500 in Under 2000.

These prize limits must be referring to the place prizes in the UXXXX sections, so the unrateds are eligible for those prizes. Similarly for the Pacific Coast Open ad on page 65 (where they just use U2000 rather than U2000/Unr). The Continental Open ad on page 66 is the same (again without the “/Unr” in the section title). And similarly for the other CCA events.

They refer to the U2000/1600/1200 class prizes. Any prize which is limited to players below a certain rating is, by definition, a class prize. This is a purely semantic distinction, but words have meaning. The first prize in an U1600 section is not the same thing as the first prize in an open tournament.

As to the specific question here: You seem to be assuming that, if those prize limits for unrateds were not listed, the unrateds would be eligible to play in any of those sections and win the top prizes. I don’t think this is correct, and I am reasonably sure Bill would agree with me if he were asked. If that language were not included, unrated players would not be eligible to win any prizes in those sections.

[martinak]

@rfeditor

I can’t speak for all organizers, but I don’t believe your interpretation is correct. In general, if a class section does not specify an Unrated prize (or an amount unrateds can win), unrated players are not eligble for prizes in that section.

It seems strange that in all the examples that I have seen that have specifics for unrateds are given as “limited”, “only”, “not over”. That seems to me to imply that the default is to allow the unrated to win all place prizes in sections that they have been deemed eligible to enter and that the exceptions are then given limiting what they can win. If the default was to not allow an unrated to win a place prize, then it would seem to me that the comments would be in a positive form, showing that extra opportunities are being given to unrateds. Something on the order of “allowed”, “up to”, “including”, etc.

@rfeditor

The logical problem with your argument (as opposed to legal or practical) is that it results in an absurd interpretation of 28D. If your reading were correct, it would mean that given, say, an U1600 section with U1400 and U1200 class prizes, an unrated player would be eligible for the U1600 prizes but not the others.

I don’t think the place prizes in an U1600 section are class prizes. They are place prizes for those deemed eligible for that section, whether by rating or by lack of rating.

You might also want to take another look at:
Extra prize money after limit on unrated player’s winnings

For example, David Kuhns’ post at Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:14 am:

By the way “The club has a policy that…”
I hope this was advertised that way in the TLA for this particular event,
or the unrated is due his full prize.

Would seem to imply to me that unless you specify a limitation, then the unrated is eligible for the place prizes.

[nolan]

It seems to me that if unrateds are declared eligible to enter a section, they are eligible for the TOP prizes (ie 1st, 2nd place) in that section unless there is a specific prohibition of that (and presumably some prizes listed that unrated players can win).

But I also think that rather than leave any doubts, the tournament design should make it clear EXACTLY who is eligible and EXACTLY what prizes they are eligible to win. That way the TD doesn’t have to rely on looking up and citing rules that may or may not directly address the specific situation he’s stuck with.

However, even when there are no ambiguities, it can still take a few minutes of work to figure out the proper distribution of prizes.

[rfeditor]

@martinak

@rfeditor

I can’t speak for all organizers, but I don’t believe your interpretation is correct. In general, if a class section does not specify an Unrated prize (or an amount unrateds can win), unrated players are not eligble for prizes in that section.

It seems strange that in all the examples that I have seen that have specifics for unrateds are given as “limited”, “only”, “not over”. That seems to me to imply that the default is to allow the unrated to win all place prizes in sections that they have been deemed eligible to enter and that the exceptions are then given limiting what they can win. If the default was to not allow an unrated to win a place prize, then it would seem to me that the comments would be in a positive form, showing that extra opportunities are being given to unrateds. Something on the order of “allowed”, “up to”, “including”, etc.

@rfeditor

The logical problem with your argument (as opposed to legal or practical) is that it results in an absurd interpretation of 28D. If your reading were correct, it would mean that given, say, an U1600 section with U1400 and U1200 class prizes, an unrated player would be eligible for the U1600 prizes but not the others.

I don’t think the place prizes in an U1600 section are class prizes. They are place prizes for those deemed eligible for that section, whether by rating or by lack of rating.

You might also want to take another look at:
Extra prize money after limit on unrated player’s winnings

For example, David Kuhns’ post at Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:14 am:

By the way “The club has a policy that…”
I hope this was advertised that way in the TLA for this particular event,
or the unrated is due his full prize.

Would seem to imply to me that unless you specify a limitation, then the unrated is eligible for the place prizes.

I think we’ve reached the end of useful discussion on this. I believe your interpretation is wrong, but if you can find any organizers of major tournaments who agree with you I might be willing to reconsider. You can certainly do it that way in your own events, though.

As for the semantic question – breaking a tournament into two sections at 1600 does not change an U1600 class prize into a “real” prize. Calling it a place prize does not change what it is, but makes it more difficult to engage in meaningful conversation.

[martinak]

@rfeditor

They refer to the U2000/1600/1200 class prizes. Any prize which is limited to players below a certain rating is, by definition, a class prize.

This appears to where we differ. I don’t think that the 1st, 2nd, etc prizes in an UXXXX are class prizes. I think that they are place prizes. You claim it is so by definition, but I don’t see that definition anywhere. Where it talks about place prizes in the rulebook, I don’t see any specification that the discussion only applies to the Open section and not to any other section. In particular, if unrateds are allowed to play in that section, then by definition it isn’t a class section - since it doesn’t only include players rated under XXXX. So by allowing unrateds, haven’t we made those place prizes by definition not class prizes?

When I’m giving out trophies in a UXXXX section, I would normally have “1st Place” not “1st UXXXX” on the plate. When our state scholastic added UXXXX sections we did raise the issue of where unrated players should play - and everyone agreed that they should be in the lowest UXXX section (barring evidence of other ratings, etc). We didn’t specifically discuss it, but we always gave out the place trophies to unrateds when they finished at the top. From my own standpoint, I think we didn’t discuss it, because none of us could even consider the idea that we would make a player eligible for that section and then not allow him to win a place trophy.

[martinak]

@rfeditor

@martinak

You might also want to take another look at:
Extra prize money after limit on unrated player’s winnings

For example, David Kuhns’ post at Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:14 am:

By the way “The club has a policy that…”
I hope this was advertised that way in the TLA for this particular event,
or the unrated is due his full prize.

Would seem to imply to me that unless you specify a limitation, then the unrated is eligible for the place prizes.

I think we’ve reached the end of useful discussion on this. I believe your interpretation is wrong, but if you can find any organizers of major tournaments who agree with you I might be willing to reconsider. You can certainly do it that way in your own events, though.

The quote that I gave came from the chairman of the rules committee.

@rfeditor

As for the semantic question – breaking a tournament into two sections at 1600 does not change an U1600 class prize into a “real” prize. Calling it a place prize does not change what it is, but makes it more difficult to engage in meaningful conversation.

If unrateds are eligible for the section, then it is not a class section - it is a section with unrateds and those rated UXXXX. Calling it a class prize “by definition” despite that does make it difficult to engage in meaningful conversation.

[Forsythe]

@khyde

In any case, the rating has to be official not web. If you did not give notice to use the web rating, if the quick rating is un-official and no regular rating (un-official or official), the players rating should not be used.

This is not correct.

28D3 says that directors are encouraged to use unofficial USCF ratings that have not yet appeared in a rating supplement.

28D3. USCF label or printout ratings. Players who have unofficial initial USCF ratings on labels or printouts that have not yet appeared in a rating supplement, and who are believed to have no foreign ratings or categories.

Nolan is right, the rule 28D3 needs to be changed. With the label or printout, are on our Chess Life and the other snail mail. It only change once a month with the unofficial ratings, not like the printout of the MSA that can change more then once a day.

Since we now have the MSA, the players can bring in a copy of their MSA printout. If the director does not have a computer, the MSA rating as a printout can or did change before the director gets the printout.

It has been my policy, only use the official rating not the web rating. If the web rating is used, it should be used for all the players not for only the unrated players. It would not be fair to have someone without a offical rating to be placed in a different section because of the web rating. When someone with a official rating cannot be placed into a different section because of their web rating. If the web rating is used for one, it should be used for everyone.

[martinak]

@rfeditor

I think we’ve reached the end of useful discussion on this. I believe your interpretation is wrong, but if you can find any organizers of major tournaments who agree with you I might be willing to reconsider. You can certainly do it that way in your own events, though.

How about the CCA? It’s hard to find a tournament they ran which allows unrateds in a lower section, doesn’t specify a limit on winnings, and includes the prizes on their website, but take a look at the U1200 section:
chesstour.com/eco04r.htm
Final Standings: Rated Beginners’ Open
1 Mohammed Zaman 13028615 unr. 4 - $90

There are also some examples of sections with trophies as prizes, but while they list the players in tie-break order, they don’t specify how the trophies are distributed.

[rfeditor]

Let’s see if we can reduce this thread to some kind of order. The questions which have been raised are:

1. Can unrateds play in an Open section?
   A: Yes. Anyone can

2. Can unrateds win the top (“place”) prizes in an Open section?
   A Yes. Anyone can.

3. Can unrateds win ratings-restricted prizes in a section, open or otherwise (e.g. U2000 in an Open or U1200 in an U1400)?
   A. No. Everyone seems to agree on this, albeit via different lines of reasoning.

4. Can unrateds who are allowed to play in a ratings-restricted section win the top (misleadingly called “place”) prizes in that section?
   A. No consensus. In my opinion the answer is no, but the opposite position is not absurd.

5. What should organizers do?
   A. Decide in advance what you want to do about unrateds, and specify section and prize eligibility in your TLA/flyer.

[BobMessenger]

@rfeditor

The logical problem with your argument (as opposed to legal or practical) is that it results in an absurd interpretation of 28D. If your reading were correct, it would mean that given, say, an U1600 section with U1400 and U1200 class prizes, an unrated player would be eligible for the U1600 prizes but not the others.

I don’t think this is absurd at all. It’s exactly the rule we use in tournaments such as the Massachusetts Open, New England Open, NorthEast Chess Getaways, etc., only we don’t consider 1st, 2nd and so on to be U1600 prizes. They’re place prizes, just like 1st and 2nd in the Open section.

I believe this is also the rule used in CCA tournaments, some of which I’ve helped direct. Certainly unrateds can win prizes in the sections which they’re eligible for, but there are limits on how much they can win. In the 2004 Vermont Resort Open, for example, the prizes in the U1400 section were $400-200-100-50, top U1200 $150. The TLA stated that “Unrated may not win over … $100 [in the] U1400 [section]”. I wasn’t at this particular tournament but I’m pretty sure that unrated players were eligible for up to $100 in place money in that section but weren’t eligible to win any part of the Under 1200 prize.

Maybe this is a regional difference: one rule is used consistently in northeastern tournaments and a different rule is used consistently in California.

Bob Messenger

[nolan]

There is one aspect in which a ‘place’ prize in an ‘under’ section is definitely a class prize. That’s if a player wins $1000 or more. Those (if under 2000) have to be reported so that the players can be assigned floors.

Beyond that, while I disagree (mildly so) with John on whether unrateds are eligible for those ‘place’ prizes, I concur with his statement that the best solution is to have the TLA and flyer clearly identify who’s eligible for what.