TD Certification

Running Chess Tournaments
1

It looks like this forum has some concerns about the rules and regulations regarding the TD Certification process.

I appreciate the input many of you have had regarding this topic. It seems to me that if a change is needed some solid suggestions are in order. If some TD Certification rule/regulation/procedure needs to be changed there is a USCF method that can do just that!

Anyone can have his or her state delegate make a motion to change how the USCF deals with TD Certification at the annual delegates convention (next week!!). In writing state the current rule/regulation and then state the change you suggest in writing using the exact language you want in implementing the change. .If the language for change is not exact or grammatically correct you have downgraded your odds of succeeding.

To speed things up it would be probably be a good idea to submit the suggested change to the TDCC as well as your state delegate. Right now you can get that done by e-mailing me (the TDCC chair) at: uscfrulebook@yahoo.com.

You might even try just sending your suggested wording change directly to the TDCC (be sure to include your reasoning in a readable format).

The USCF Board of Directors selects the TDCC chair and committee each year at the U.S. Open. So, be patient if the committee has a new chair or new members (the TDCC has stayed pretty much the same, with me as chair, for the last few years).

On Wednesday August 11, travel arrangements willing, I plan to add the concerns I have seen in this forum to the TDCC workshop agenda.

Tim Just

Chair TDCC

2

oops!?

Change:

"If the language for change is not exact or grammatically correct you have downgraded your odds of succeeding. "

to

“If the language for change is not exact or grammatically incorrect you have downgraded your odds of succeeding.”

Tim Just

3

Depends on the parentheses! If you meant “not (exact or gramatically correct)” you were right the first time! If you meant “(not exact) or (grammatically incorrect)” then your change was in order!

:laughing:

Bill Smythe

4

As a logician, may I point out that there is no perdefined order of operations in a logical statement such as yours, Tim. Therefore, as Bill points out, the parentheses are required!

So “not exact or gramatically correct” in fact means "(not exact) or (grammatically incorrect) already - these parentheses are redundant as the not, or negation, is applied to exact first then the or, or disjunction, is applied to the result of “not exact” and “grammatically correct.”

What was meant, I think, was: “not (exact or gramatically correct)” so the or is applied first and then the not modifies the whole statement. BTW, by DeMorgan’s Law, “not (exact or gramatically correct)” is logically equivalent to “(not exact) and (not gramatically correct).”

Sorry, just nit picking .

Regards,
AJG

5

At this late date, as the US Open is only a few weeks away the workshop would be the best order. As any rule change will be a number of years away. Even if the 2004 US Open do look into the problems for the correct meaning of what the forms stated: would be rational to hold off till the 2005 US Open or the 2006 US Open so a batch of changes could take place.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

6

Change:

"If the language for change is not exact or grammatically correct you have downgraded your odds of succeeding. "

to

“If the language for change is not exact, [i]nor[/i] grammatically correct, you have downgraded your odds of succeeding.” …

:slight_smile:

7

OOPs, that still doesn’t sound right.

Maybe what was meant, was: “not (exact and gramatically correct)” which is logically equivalent to “(not exact) or (not gramatically correct).”

Oh no, am I turning into a Chess Lawyer too? …how about a Chess Logician?

Regards,
AJG

8

Garcia, if Mr Forsythe is a chess lawyer then how do we pay the legal fees?

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

9

Ok, I made a mistake.

Just rewrite the rule/regulation the way you want it to read with correct grammer. Word the motion so that the committees/delegates have the power to act. That way if the change gets approved it goes into effect right then and there.

Tim Just

Chair of the “not (no logic)” committee

10

Dear Tim Just:

Established Rating. Except at the club level, all certified TDs must have an established USCF rating as an over-the-board player. TDs are encouraged to remain active as players to maintain proper perspective when directing. (page 240)

Change to:

Established Ratings. Except at the club level, all certified TDs must have an established classical and established quick USCF rating as an over-the-board player. TDs are encouraged to remain active as players to maintain proper perspective when directing.

As there are a number of directors (local, senior, associate national director, national director) that have a provisional or no quick rating. The directors should have some time to become a established quick player. Would let the TDCC work out that issue.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

11

Yikes. That’s farther than ANYBODY wanted to go. I thought the debate was between requiring an established classical rating, and requiring an established classical OR quick rating. You are proposing a third, even stricter, requirement.

As long as we’re at it, though …

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

How about requiring an established classical rating for directing classical tournaments, and an established quick rating for directing quick tournaments? A TD could be certified classical but not quick, or vice versa, or could be certified at different levels for classical and quick. There could even be two versions of all the certification tests – after all, the rules are slightly different, so shouldn’t the tests be too?

Yes, why not double the number of versions of the certification tests? I’m sure Tim Just and the TDCC have nothing better to do than to come up with more tests!

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Bill Smythe

12

I would suggest the following adjustment to Localtdforsythe’s proposed change (proposed changes in parenthesis):

Established Ratings. Except at the club level, all certified TDs must have an established classical [i]or an[/b] established quick USCF rating as an over-the-board player. TDs are encouraged to remain active as players to maintain proper perspective when directing.

If the purpose of the requirement is to make sure Tournament Directors have experience from both sides of the tournament, there is no reason that we must specify which particular games they must play as well.

I would completely rephrase the other statement of:

"If the language for change is not exact or grammatically correct you have downgraded your odds of succeeding. "

to

“Exact and gramatically correct language should be used to avoid downgraded odds of succeeding.”

:unamused:

(Oops, looks like someone beat me to this! And by only 4 minutes!)

13

Tim Just says:

I would think that clarifications, as opposed to changes, could be handled by the TDCC alone, without going through the Delegates. The current hubbub about established-classical vs established-quick would be a good example. Of course, the Delegates could always reverse the “clarification” at its next meeting, but if the TDCC were to jump in occasionally on its own, some time and red tape might be saved.

Bill Smythe

14

I already emailed the following for consideration:

[i]The only problem I find in the rule book is that mention is made of a player’s “established rating,” but this term is never adequately defined. This occurs at least twice that I have seen in the current rulebook.

b Chapter 7, Section 2:
Except at the club level, all certified TDs must have an established USCF rating as an over-the-board player.

(p261) Chapter 8, Section 4a:
Both players involved [in match play] must be rated,[/b]

…

Further, there is confusion as to what “rating” means. Does the term “established rating” in chapter 7 or the term “rated” in chapter 8 refer to the classical rating, the quick rating or both? Does “established rating” in chapter 7 or the term “rated” in chapter 8 mean any sort of rating, or a rating with more than 26 games recorded?

I think the wording in both cases, should be “must have an established USCF rating…” However, a clear definition of what an “established USCF rating” is should be given either at the begining of chapter 7 before the term is used, or at the begining of chapter 8 (the chapter about the rating system).

Please allow me to I suggest the following definition:
“An established rating refers to either a Quick or a Classical USCF rating based on more than 26 OTB rated games played in USCF rated tournaments.”[/i]

What do you guys think? Of course, now I realize that the implied definition of “established USCF rating” is “not provisional” (ie: more than 26 OTB rated games). Still, which one is required, Quick or Classical or Both???

I guess my problem comes down to: based on the original wording, I thought I had met with the requirements for taking the Local TD Exam simply be having any rating!!!

The Chess Logician in me now wants to modify the definition further:
“An established rating refers to either a Quick xor a Classical USCF rating based on more than 26 OTB rated games played in USCF rated tournaments.”

Note that “xor” means that only Quick “or” Classical, but not both, are required.

Come to think of it, Provisional USCF rating isn’t even mentioned in the rule book as far as I have seen. Why not define Provisional Rating and then define Classical Rating with respect to Provisional Rating (or visa-versa)?

BTW, Douglas, I think that Chess Lawyers are way over rated and that us Chess Logicians are way undercompensated…

Regards,
AJG

15

The reason for established classical and established quick, if the directors do not need both established ratings: then players would never take a quick rating as being important. The federation has changed quick from G/10 to G/29, then to G/10 to G/60, and the last change G/5 to G/60 – for the reason that more active players will establish both ratings.

If someone is starting to play chess and can find tournaments at different time controls, for provisional players for both ratings, would find being in a G/30 to a G/60 tournament would be the most rational; as the player would still play one game: would still get credit for the classical rating and the quick rating. Most scholastic tournaments, players that been in time control between G/30 and G/60: only gain credit for only the classical rating, not as often for the quick rating. As a number of scholastic tournaments do have club tournament directors: they only report or only willing to spend for only the classical rating – not for the classical or quick ratings.

TDs are encouraged to remain active as players to maintain proper perspective when directing.(page 240)

If we are asking directors for proper perspective as a player, we are asking directors above the certification of club tournament director too have this perspective as a established player. How could a local tournament director or senior tournament director have proper perspective of any quick tournaments, when this director only has a pervisional quick rating or no quick rating. If a director (abover certification of club tournament director) could be a director of tournaments with time controls between G/5 and G/120 SD/60: how can a director only needs perspective as a established classical rating over-the-board player of time controls of G/61 (as quick is between G/5 and G/60) or slower: when they can be a director of tournaments as fast as G/5.

If a local tournament director has a established classical over-the-board rating, then does not have a established quick over-the-board rating as a player – were is directors proper perspective during a quick rated tournament. As the federation has two different ratings, there must be two different proper perspectives.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD

16

Guys,

The only problem that has arisen here is that Mr. Pond alluded that he would not consider the Quick rating as significant to upgrading to Local. That is, he would not send Mr. Garcia the Local test until he had an established rating. Mr. Garcia does, in fact, have an established rating in the Quick system.

I believe Mr. Pond was in error, according to the current rulebook language in chapter 7. If there’s any clairification, it needs to be from the Rules Committee and the TDCC to Mr. Pond. I think a reasonable suggestion here is that the TDCC and/or Rules Committee clarify their position with the USCF office. The rules, to me, are clear: you need an established rating!

Regards,
tww

17

Dear Garcia:

You are right, and we have found that the offical rules of chess has two different schools: 1) established player is only a established classical rating, 2) established player is a established classical and established quick. This questions effects all the chess players on what is the correct school of thought.

The term for a established over-the-board player has been in effect even before the federation had quick ratings, even before the federation changed G/60 down to G/30 as a classical rating. In the mid-1980’s the federation changed this time control, during the 1980’s G/30’s were called tornados.

The old guard would say the classical rating would be the only need for being a established over-the-board player, as the term established rating only needed to deal with only one rating not two. Starting as a scholastic player in 1980, sure this rule of established rating was in the second edition: that was published in 1978. Back in 1978, as slow as any tournament could be rated was G/60: we have change the times down to G/30 in the mid-1980’s for a classical rating. Then in the early 1990’s the federation started quick ratings between G/10 to G/29, then G/10 to G/60, then G/5 to G/60. The federation established G/30 to G/60 as classical and quick rated. So many rule changes for time controls below G/60, and a old rule that has not changed since 1978.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD

18

What school are you in, the school of established players that go back to 1978, a established player is a established classical over-the-board player; are you in the school that a established player needs a classical over-the-board and established quick over-the-board rating; are you in the school that any established rating as a over-the-board player?

If you are in the school that a established player needs a established classical rating, that was published in 1978 in the second edition. Then there is a store out there for you, someone must still sell vinal reconds, 8 track and disco music.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD

19

where the hell do you see in the rulebook any mention of the word classical rating regarding the need for an established rating among TDs?

The rulebook says you need an established rating. I interpret that to mean that you need an established rating.

Repeat this as often as necessary:
The rulebook says you need an established rating.
The rulebook says you need an established rating.
The rulebook says you need an established rating.
The rulebook says you need an established rating.
The rulebook says you need an established rating.

Once again, this has been blown out of proportion due to an incorrect interpretation of the language of the rules by Mr. Pond. Until the TDCC decides that only “classical” ratings are valid for these purposes, then the USCF office is, in my opinion, misapplying the rules.

Whether or not I disco to vinyl records and 8-track tapes is irrelevant to this discussion.

20

If this rule goes back to the second edition in 1978, then there was only and only one over-the-board rating. During that era, nobody could have any match, and tournament, not one single game that could have anything with time controls below G/60. During that era there was only one time control, was never a need to explain one time control as the meaning of the sentence was clear: as a established over-the-board rating was a given.

When in 1993 the 4th edition became its’ final form then taken into effect January 1, 1994 – Tim Just was clear that quick ratings were new, only a small group of players even had a quick rating. When the 5th edition came out: the rule was just cut and paste into the edition. True, during the ten years between the 4th edition and the 5th edition major changes happened – the question of what is a established over-the-board player was not a major question.

If you can say that having only one established ratings is only needed, at one time a player needed 20 games to become a established classical over-the-board player – then needing 21 to bebecome official; at the same time a person needing a established quick rating only needed 10 games to become a established quick over-the-board player – then needing 11 to beome official. If we go back to the 1990’s, would it be rational to say you only need 11 games [G/10 x 11 = 11(10 x 2) = 3 hours 40 minutes max] with one or 21 games [G/30 x 21 = 21(30 x 2) = 21 hours max] that would make the difference of 17 hours and 20 minutes. If we use the time difference between the two ratins to get a official rating with one more to take the slash off the time. Time to get a established quick rating [G/5 x 26 = 26(5 x 2) = 4 hours and 20 minutes; time to get a established classical rating [G/30 x 26 = 26(30 x 2) = 26 hours. The difference in time between a established classical rating and a established quick rating – 21 hours and 40 minutes.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD