First an introduction as to the why I believe this could be beneficial to USCF-- for statistically, there are a number of active Senior tournament directors, at present.
A. The numbers of active senior tournament directors in some areas of high activity is insufficient to meet the growing demands for USCF tournaments, especially,
scholastic. The senior certification certainly does present a “stamp” of ability to perform in the minds of many organizers. It gives them a much needed sense of
security, peace of mind.
B. I would bet the vast majority of senior tournament directors obtain their qualification to test through the direction of primarily scholastic events. Many exclusively
or nearly so from scholastic chess. And many of these tournament directors have little if any inclination of running or directing regular USCF tournaments in which
cash prizes are offered, prizes being non-monetary.
C. Organizers may prefer to use tournament directors who have “grown up” or developed within their current system of operations. This would be very normal. Yet,
here is an issue-- many very otherwise, VERY qualified major tournament (100+ expected) directors are local level. Not that they choose to remain so but, primarily
because passing a very poorly written senior TD exam with multiple correct interpretations depending on a testers interpretations, and a HUGE portion of the test dealing
with cash prizes which have zero relevance or need in the typical tournaments conducted by many scholastic tournament directors. I have known VERY few individuals
who passed the current all inclusive senior exam the first time around. Quite a few even fail the second time around, open book.
I have known of several tds who because of this "failure" on their part, which in my opinion is truly a failure on the part of USCF to provide an adequate and fair test,
who no longer are directing USCF events, or do so far less frequently than before. No, I shall not name names. Little constructive purpose in that.
Why not have this certification?? It seems a great way to further promote USCF scholastic chess in our federation.
Rob Jones
Senior TD
Have a delegate of Texas submit an ADM for this, have the motion maker show up to the TDCC meeting at the delegates meeting in Indy this coming year (and the delegates meeting to debate it with the delegates if the TDCC doesn’t go for it) and lobby for it - just like everyone else does.
Good question- Ron. The answer first is how much sense for our federation to have guidelines as to the size a tournament director should direct, and at the same time not have tests
specific to the types of tournaments they most likely to direct?? The current test asks about apples and oranges when the only real expertise needed for most is knowing about oranges.
I had to propose a resolution to a fact pattern that I will charitably characterize as scholastic shenanigans on my ANTD exam. I didn’t mind doing so, because that is a skill a TD should have, even if scholastic events aren’t what s/he generally does.
A competent Senior TD should be able to correctly distribute cash prizes 100 percent of the time, regardless of the type of events s/he usually does.
Rob, why are you bothering with the USCF about this issue? The standards on the size of an event that a local TD can direct are guidelines. Read the “rules”. There is a lot of use of the ambiguous language of “should” and “may” in these rules. There are no TD Police who will show up to stop a local/Local TD from directing a 500 player event. Do you think the USCF is going to turn down rating fees and membership money because the TD was not on the approved level? The “rules” on certification level apply to USCF national events to determine who will be asked to be a TD and how much they will get paid. Yes, a Senior TD may have more experience than a Local TD, but not always. All it proves is that he took a test. The upper levels deal with more organizational matters of USCF national tournaments than actual directing. There are Local TDs that do not want to take the Senior TD test. There are other Local TDs that were Senior TDs, but had their status lapse because they did not direct for a while and don’t feel like taking a poorly designed test to prove what they already know again. These TDs potter along doing the tedious details of directing. They “don’t need no stinking badges” of authority, and their local chess communities are just fine with their work. Rob, you have been caught up too much with the USCF status/class/caste notions of TD levels. However, if you still want to go this route, then …
What you should target is your state federation. Have your state federation designate those TDs they think are suitable for running large events. You can have them called Texas Scholastic Marshalls or some such name that you create. Then the organizers who need TDs would have a list of these individuals to draw from. You might want to have all of the scholastic TDs in your state receive this special designation. This would distinguish them from the USCF Local and Senior TDs that prefer to do only cash prize events. Some of these latter TDs might want to be called Texas Scholastic Marshalls, too. Hey, you could make them take a Texas Scholastic Marshall test to see if they are good enough to qualify. This way you don’t have to go through the bureaucratic challenge of having to deal with USCF committees, ADMs, the Delegates, or the EB. The USCF is a federation. The state federations have power, too. You rail about the states not doing anything. Here is something your state federation can do.
First of all, fix the defective Senior TD exam, if indeed it is defective.
But a defective exam is not sufficient reason, by itself, to create a whole new category of TD to get around the defective exam.
However, there are some REALLY GOOD reasons to create a TD category like Senior Scholastic. I would hate to see a good idea implemented for a bad reason. There could also be an ANTD Scholastic, and maybe even an NTD Scholastic.
The thing to remember – or to become convinced of – is that the skills for directing a sizable open tournament are different from the skills for directing a sizable scholastic tournament. Notice I said “different from”. I did not say “greater than”, and I did not say “less than”.
A Senior TD for adult tournaments needs to know how to distribute cash when there are conflicts between place prizes and class prizes.
A Senior TD for scholastic tournaments needs to know how to deal with coaches, parents, and all kinds of problems largely unique to the scholastic scene.
The tests for each of these categories could be aimed at the specific skills needed for that category. That’s a GOOD idea.
I think Mr. Smythe’s idea is a very bad one. It encourages further ghettoization of scholastic chess. Already scholastic tournaments have different rules. Now we have a suggestion that, in effect, we have different TDs. Already scholastic chess is a ghetto where players have time controls that are as fast as possible and rounds as soon as possible with almost no attention to player development. It is no wonder that few of them continue to play after age 18 when these tournaments won’t let them in anymore, but making 100% separate TDs would make retention even smaller.
Rob, not certain why the paragraphs in your posts break up the way they do, but I hope you can correct it. It makes it very difficult to read your posts. Thanks.
Makes a much sense as saying in order to get a vehicle driving license, one must first learn how to pilot a boat. Skills necessary to be successful in one area are not necessarily important whatsoever in the
other. Further, it ignores a current and pressing need facing our federation in favor of a failed, and failing status quo, for the purpose of marching lockstep into the past.
Jeff Wiewel in one old post thought about how many different types TD codes there were: floor, backroom, scholastic, adult, [current certification level], bathroom, etc. etc. I believe there were over 50 different types of TDs possible…
… and that’s definitely not necessary since a TD should be good at everything.
I have taken one of each test level (no skipping). The Senior TD test is multiple choice so there is only one best answer. They do recommend that you have justification for your answer for possible partial points. I probably would have failed without the partial points.
That being said, I do think the Senior TD test is a fair test. There are not that many “money prize” distribution questions to fail a TD - I would suspect the the pairing question or floor ruling questions are the ones that failed the TD.
In lieu of money-prize distributions questions, would it then be fair to add some tie-breakers calculations (e.g. calculate the Modified Median / Solkoff for these players)? That is, the computer breaks down so the TD must calculate by hand before the frustrated parents starts yelling at them…
[For those struggling with money-prize distribution, highly recommended video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_LZ0Ch0aEU where Senior TD Scott Parker goes through a complicated money prize distribution ]
I do recommend, however, that all TD certification tests to be updated, if they haven’t already, to current 6th edition rules & updated rules so that if the answers are different between when the test was created til now, it would reflect those changes. (e.g. electronic/communication devices, digital clocks, no computer chess tournament questions?)
Mr. Langland, please move this thread and topic back to where it belongs— US Chess Issues. For this is a USCF issue, for at the core of the reason for this thread is to help and aide the growth of USCF scholastic chess. And, that sir, is a very key and important issue.
Rob Jones
So, Alex, having multiple correct answers for the same questions so that the tester can weed out senior td candidates based on his personal interpretation of the rules is a good idea??? This makes for a good exam??? Testing for that which many tournament directors may never have a use for, thus unnecessarily causing apathy (at best) is a good thing?? What is gained by antagonizing these TDs??
That keeping these very dedicated volunteers is the “further ghettoization” of scholastic chess??? So Alex, let me ask you was Vishy Anand a GHETTO world Champion??? I mean, after all, he won his last two world championships in a rapid tiebreaker format – the same time controls most often used for scholastic chess in this nation. No attention to player development— this is a slap in the face to nearly every single USCF
scholastic tournament director and organizer who are doing all to develop these skills. The problem, Alex, is that far too many “regular” chess events lack shorter time controls, and adequate U sections to attract the youngsters groomed in scholastic chess. Too often when youngsters go to regular events, they are given the “cold shoulder” and made to feel distinctly unwelcome. My thought is
that it is exactly the hostility towards USCF scholastic chess that you have shown by the words such as “ghetto” that is one of the very real reasons many scholastic players do not continue beyond their school years.
I could point to an large region where this has been proved in spades, but am told such violates the AUG.
Seems a lot more like only giving a vehicle driving license after showing you can go in reverse and drive on streets with traffic lights even if you only plan to drive to transport groceries to and from the store, you have a carport on a semicircle driveway so you don’t have to back up to go out, and you plan on parking at the far end of the parking lot pulling through one parking space into another so that you don’t have to back up there either.
Or maybe the state should issue shopping vehicle licenses that are more restricted than standard vehicle licenses.
Also, remember that an organizer does not have to be a TD. A promoter does not have to be a TD. A runner that posts the pairings and cross-tables does not have to be a TD. A back room assistant that simply runs the pairing computer that the chief set up, and does not make any floor rulings, does not have to be a TD (see certification rule 13 about tournament aides).
Anybody erroneously saying that such people have to be TDs to perform those functions is throwing an artificial barrier in the way of people that I have found quite useful and valuable to the functioning of a tournament even though they never went on the tournament floor.
There have been people that have posted on the forum saying that the TD tests keep such people from being able to continue performing those (tournament aide) functions. Such posts are incorrect and detrimental.
FWIW, at the last scholastic tournament I did as backroom TD, I drafted any nearby spectator (including players) to post pairings and wallcharts. No problems.
I have no opinion one way or the other, as I haven’t seen the Senior exam for years, and it was very different then.IFit is defective, then of course it should be repaired.
I strongly object to this characterization, especially when it comes to TDs. I know some Senior TDs of adult tournaments that I wouldn’t want to see anywhere near a sizeable scholastic tournament, AND vice versa. The skills are different, but neither is “above” the other.
There is a lot of overlap, though. Perhaps there could continue to be just one Senior TD exam, but there could be a handful of questions on each side of the issue. Maybe 90 general questions, plus 5 “adult” questions and 5 “scholastic” questions. An applicant who passes satisfactorily overall could continue to be promoted to Senior TD. One who passes most of the test but does poorly on the “adult” / “scholastic” questions could be named a Scholastic Senior TD / Adult Senior TD, respectively.
The TDCC has seen complaints from players in events run by under-certified chief TDs. When such complaints occur it is similar to somebody running a red light in front of a squad car. Not every red-light-runner is caught, but the ones that are do get ticketed (well, there may be extenuating circumstances such as somebody being transported to the hospital and no cross-traffic that would have caused an accident, but they have to be pretty good reasons to avoid a ticket).
Also, many of the actual problems seem to crop up in tournaments with under-certified chief TDs.
It has been said by some on the Rules committee that the phrase “should not” means “must not unless there is a darn good reason”. Planning from the beginning to run an event with under-certified TDs is not good. The unexpected does, however, sometimes occur.
One example of a darn good reason is a state all-grade where I was the designated floor chief and the chief TD got hospitalized from an auto accident just before the tournament with no replacement available. I wasn’t certified to the level needed for the event but I was the highest certified available and the organizer actually had a fully qualified chief TD contracted for right up until the accident. There were some hiccups and pairing errors (corrected before the games started) that I later learned how to avoid after getting more experience (I did say earlier that many problems occur with under-certified TDs), but that particular situation may not have resulted in an under-certified “ticket” even if there had been a complaint.
Another example would be a tournament run by a Local TD with a $500 prize fund based on 75, a history of drawing 60 to 90, and having 200 players show up (yes, the TDCC does look at tournament history in such cases - if the history is 150+ then a prize fund based on 75 is an insignificant blip compared to the 150+ history).
This way you don’t have to go through the bureaucratic challenge of having to deal with USCF committees, ADMs, the Delegates, or the EB. The USCF is a federation. The state federations have power, too. You rail about the states not doing anything. Here is something your state federation can do.
I probably would have failed without the partial points.
]