TDs who play and direct

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Recently the USCF’s feedback address received a question regarding TDs who play in the events they direct.

As this is generally only the case in local events, many of which might not even be held if the director wasn’t also the organizer, this is probably not a major problem.

However, the player’s concerns, though a bit overwrought, are still valid.

I’m going to post some excerpts from his e-mails along with a response from Tim Just.

Mike Nolan

First here is the rule:

21E. The playing director.

A tournament director must not only be absolutely objective, but must also
be able to devote full attention to directing duties; for this reason, a
director, on principle, should not direct and play in the same tournament.

However, in club events and others that do not involve substantial prizes,
it is common practice for the director to play. A director may also serve
as a house player (28M1). Those who choose this double role should be
especially careful to maintain objectivity. If possible, a playing director
should appoint another director to make rulings involving his or her own
games.

A player director who must devote time to a dispute in another game may
stop his or her own clock during this period. While the clock is stopped,
the director should not look at the position of his or her own game, but
the directors opponent is permitted to do so.

Note that the rule is a “should” rule, not a “must” rule. So a TD can play
in an event they are directing.

See my other comments below.

We have just started a chess tournament in our area and I would like to ask a
few questions.
Does the TD have the right to play in the tournament?

Yep; but we recommend against it due to the appearance of conflict of
interest. Very few TDs actually engage in a conflict of interest consciously.

If so is he or she allowed to win money?

Yep.

If he or she is allowed to win money, what are his or her limits as far as
compensation?
Anything that is agreed upon by the TD and organizer. Since TDs that play
are usually directing small events the compensation is almost nonexistent.
Often the TD takes a free entry as compensation.

Please send me a list of rule of conduct at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your time

The TD told me it was a rated tournament and it was posted on your web site.
The TD did in fact play in this tournament and I feel this is not a good idea
to allow a TD to play in a tournament that he could affect the outcome in his
favor. Please help me to understand and give advise on how to handle this
issue.
If a player feels a TD has broken any rules or acted inappropriately to
influence events at a tournament to gain some sort of advantage they can
file a complaint (be specific!–“I feel that…” will not do!!! Facts!
facts! Facts! Also, ask for specific compensation, like $$$ or TD
suspension, …) with USCF for $25.

The tournament director is the only one responsible for this tournament he in
turn has hired himself. I feel this TD is taking advantage of the players.
Please help me to solve this problem.
The hard answer is that they can change the rule via the Rules Committee or
their state delegate at the U.S. Open can make a motion to change the rule.
The chances of such a rule barring TDs from playing is pretty slim.
Why? Many small events would not take place if the TD was not allowed to
play.

I still feel that allowing the TD to play in the tournament is shady and
gives way to much freedom for one person to take advantage of new members.
Please
feel free to pass my message on to the proper people but as for me I will be
ending my membership. People should be warned about such weak boundaries
given
to TD before they waste their money on a membership.
Thank you for your attempts to solve this problem
That would require a rule change. Perhaps the TD could agree to not
receive prizes or a TD fee?

In all the years I have been on the rules committee only one complaint was
filed about the playing TD and that revolved around how the TD’s free entry
effected the number players counted towards the based-on prizes.

This really has not been a problem. In real life when the event is large
the TD has no time to both play and direct. In small events allowing the TD
to play is the only way to avoid having an odd number of players. Remember
the TD can appoint someone else (not even another TD) to make rulings in
his games only. He can have a third party oversee the pairing process
(even better–use pairing software); i.e., there could be checks and
balances if the TD plays.

Tim

2

There will always be a need for the ‘playing director’ when it happens in small tournaments: when talking about a small tournament, talking about less then 20 players. It is always best for any director too have a assistant tournament director, as the assistant tournament director can always play as the ‘house man’. If not able to have a assistant tournament director being the ‘house man’, will be a ‘playing director’ during the tournament: if the tournament would have a odd number of players.

The question that the person made about the ‘tournament director’ that would play for free. With small tournaments the director could be the organizer: all the profits will go to the director, or all the cost of the tournament will go to the director. Lets say for example a tournament with 19 players with a entry fee of $20, after the tournament the director takes home $100 in profit from the tournament. If the director becomes the 20 player, with the director not wishing to take a prize fund or could not win a prize fund, if the director did pay the $20 entry fee the director would have $120 in profit.

As a director as organizer, would only take the entry fee just to give it right back too the director. Example: It would be like having a bottle of soda, you purchace you’re own bottle of soda for $10 then pay yourself. This is the reason if being the ‘playing director’ would never take the ‘prize fund’, as the prize fund is ethical (ethical under USCF guidelines) for the playing director to win, as the system would not let me pay for my own entry fee, then taken the prize fund would only make myself feel it is un-ethical.

If as a ‘playing director’ if the other person is much lower in rating then myself: would use “rule 28M4 extra rated games” to take care of a player that would get a bye. In the case of having a odd number of scholastic players: 1) as scholastic players would more be in line of having a performance rating then a established rating; 2) the goal of the tournament is to have all the games be performed; 3) the goal is to make everyone use the tournament to earn a established rating. Would give the scholastic player a full point bye in the tournament, then play a extra rated game, so the scholastic player is closer to a established rating. Would use 28M4 only if the scholastic player would want to play a game.

Would find problems with a ‘playing director’ if the ‘playing director’ would make some one earn a bye during the tournament. Then the director is not performing the full duties as a director, as it is a hardship on the event when someone does earn a bye with a ‘playing director’.

3

It is quite clear that something specific happened to this player – something very bad in his own eyes. Perhaps if he could step forward with some specifics, further discussion would be fruitful.

I have played in quite a few (small) tournaments I have directed – usually to make an even number of players. One problem here is that a playing TD may have to repeatedly withdraw and re-enter as the number of players changes from odd to even to odd as the tournament progresses. What scores, then, should the TD assign himself for pairing purposes, for the missed rounds? If he assigns himself 0 points for the unplayed games, he may be the strongest player (or close to it) in his score group, perhaps by a considerable margin. This could result in well-founded complaints of unfair pairings from those he is paired against.

The higher-rated the TD, the more likely it is that players will feel they have been paired unfairly. Even for TDs in class A and below, it is best if they count their unplayed games as 1/2 point for pairing purposes.

Even though, in theory, a playing TD can win prizes, I think it is best if the TD excludes himself from prize eligibility, at least if he has given himself any half-point byes. (Of course, in a plus-score tournament, this wouldn’t matter – another advantage of that format!)

If a TD uses himself as a house player, I think he should NOT pair himself against the player who otherwise would have received the full-point bye – that player should get a much weaker opponent. He should pair himself according to his score and rating (probably, as above, counting any of his unplayed games as 1/2 point).

Bill Smythe

4

This part is right and just, as a ‘playing tournament director’ does not pay for the entry fee: without a entry fee, then the director does not bring risk into the tournament to win a prize fund.

28M4. Extra rated games. Directors may acommodate players who wish to play a rated game without giving up a full-point bye by placing both players in an extra rated games section with its own wall chart.

Will not count myself with any points during the tournament if being the ‘playing director’. Will do the parings, then find the person that would become the player that would gain the full point bye: this would be the person that would play against me. If this person rating is less then mine by 300 points, would place this person in the extra rated game. If the person is around my rating, or have a greater rating then mine: would not place this person in the extra rating game section.

The reason to play the person that would earn the full point bye, because if it was not for myself as the ‘playing director’ then this person would only earn a full point bye. If as a ‘playing director’ being paired with the higher boards like board one, then would be cheating some player that came to the tournament to have a shot at the stronger players.

5

I’ve played in most of the tournament I’ve directed, with very few complaints. I’ve always paid my own EF, and I’ve always made myself eligible for prizes. Again, with no problems. I think the main thing in these situations are to remain absolutely objective in all decisions - just as you would if you weren’t playing. One thing that I found that helps while pairing, if using cards, is to not look at player names. Unless your policy is to avoid pairing family members, players from the same location, etc., I don’t see any reason to look at names. Looking only at ratings and color issues should be suffficient to make your pairings. Of course, if you’re using a pairing program, the issues are even less - or should be.

Just my .02

6

If you pay into you’re own tournaments, with the ‘entry fee’, after the tournament how did you take care of the profits or loss. If you have a tournament with 9 people with the entry fee of $20, that would be $180. If you take that $180, then after the cost of the prize fund, after the tournament have a $10 profit. If you pay the ‘entry fee’ of $20 would make the total take of entry fees of $200: if you made a $10 profit with 9 people, with you’re ‘entry fee’ would have a profit of $30, as you’re own entry fee just made the profit greater. If you take away the entry fee of $20 from the profit to cover you’re cost: you still will have a profit of $10.

Even if the director is the organizer, it does not matter if the director pays the ‘entry fee’ at the start of the tournament or not. Even if the director pays the ‘entry fee’, the cost of the ‘directors entry fee’ would still come out of the profit or loss at the end of the tournament. It works both ways, if the director makes a profit or makes a loss at the tournament.

Even works if the organizer pays a director to be the chief tournament director, or the organizer pays for the assistant tournament director. In Michigan, the ‘Michigan Chess Association’ pays the directors $75 per day as the chief tournament director, and the assistant tournament directors. If we take the “Michigan Open” being a 4 day event, the chief tournament director will make $300 for the work as chief tournament director.

If the organizer pays for a tournament director, as example $30 for a one day event. If the director has to become the ‘playing director’, then pay the entry fee of $20 – the director has worked for the organizer for only $10. In general, it is very common that the director would play for free, even if paid by a organizer or the director is the organizer.

7

What’s the point in running a club if you can’t play in it? It’s not fun to sit around for 16 hours when you rarely have problems.

When you play with adults, there are rare times there are incidents regarding problems during gameplay.

Even playing for almost 20 years in adult tournaments, I can’t remember a problem during game play.

8

Now what is this about a profit? For most small tournaments I would suggest against making a profit. Get enough to pay for the rating fees, the location and any necessary supplies(Software, Forms, Scoresheets, Food, Drinks etc) and put the rest of the money into the prize fund. That would take care of the playing directors problem of paying himself and it would be more fair to the other players as well. In my club my members get annoyed when I don’t play in the tournaments I direct. If you are making a profit use it to make the tournament better. The main reason most small tournaments are run is because the TD wants to be able to play in the tournament.

9

The irony is there’s big ad in the tournament section of Chess Life - No Tournaments in your area, start running them yourself. It’s hard to find TDs to do local tournaments. If you’re going to turn around and not get to play in them the tournaments you are now providing, why would you want to be a club TD?

10

The question of the tournament makes a profit, or does not make a profit is a major issue. With the tournaments that have a prize fund, never had one that did not have a profit or lost money. The best way for a club to have is sets, boards and clocks: if the tournament makes a profit it should go right into the purchase of equipment. Most small tournaments are designed for just the club membership, if they feel that it is going into the equipment: then they would not feel the need to bring boards, sets and clocks – when the ‘club has them for the membership’.

When talking of the term of profit, the profit should not go into the pockets of the director, if the director is working for the club. One of the questions of ‘directors burning out’ of being a active tournament director: with having tournaments that they know or understand they would lose $100 or more dollars would burn out any director. Having a director willing to lose $1000 a year on tournaments is a very nice guy, but not a rational reason to do so. Being a director or run a chess club, must be willing to lose just on chess around $200 or $300 a year just to build a club.

11

In most small tournaments there is never a problem. Most of the problems that can happen is during registering. Like knowing who are in the tournament, knowing their ratings and knowing if they are active or new USCF members, ect… If the director is the ‘playing director’, if there is a problem during the tournament, then the director must leave the board with the directors clock running to take care of the problem. It puts problems on the director to find a faster way to take care of the issue; as the “director understands that the ‘directors own clock’ is running during the time of the problem”, could make the director make a faster judgement then it should have been done. If the director is a ‘playing director’ place a "bias to make a faster judgement’ that could be ‘wrong because the director is also thinking of their own game’.

12

I run a chess club and do not lose a penny. Our entry fees for tournaments are only $5 and we play in a Used Book Store. All the money goes to rating the games and purchasing equipment for the club. There is no need to lose money to run tournaments. You just need to make them cheap and make sure any extra amount is given to the club to provide services for the members.

13

Can understand that players that can not find tournaments in their area, less then 50 miles from their home. Like telling people, if there are a few chess players that are USCF members, they each know each other: then can have a no prize tournament. It could be a ‘closed tournament’ with only the friends that wish to play each other. Do understand some tournament directors would call them ‘fake tournaments’ as there is zero prize funds: is it not the wish of the players to play in a tournament. If it is a no prize tournament with a no entry fee tournament: then there is little problems with myself to play in one.

The problem with the thoughts of tournament directors, they only plan to have huge tournaments with a huge prize fund. If the director has 3 or 4 players, with a no prize fund and no entry fee tournament, just the rating fee and the post to send it out is all the director is out.

14

Quoting from the rule that nolan quoted in the first post:

'A player director who must devote time to a dispute in another game may stop his or her own clock during this period. While the clock is stopped, the director should not look at the position of his or her own game, but the directors opponent is permitted to do so. ’

15

That is true! If it takes 5 or 10 minutes to take care of a judgement at a different board. If to stop my clock to make a judgement at a different board, then my game would also be late. If my game is late, would have the problem to make the next round pairings. The next round can only start after my game, as the director is done. If as the director stops the clock on the board, then the next round pairings could be late.

Give a example: if as a ‘playing director’ have on round 1 twenty boards. As the ‘playing director’ being on board 12, needing to go to board 18 too take care of a judgement call. If as the director stop my own clock on board 12 to make a judgement call on board 18, if it take 10 minutes to make a settlement on board 18: going back to my board would be 10 minutes extra to finnish this game. If at my board we are ‘both only seconds left on the clock’ at the end of the game, with the 10 minute delay: would make as a director being late to make the second round pairings.

This is the reason as the director would not stop my own clock, as it is more of my duty as a tournament director to get the next round done on time. If making a judgement call on a different board, and my flag falls would accept the lost game. It is the will of the players at the tournament to have the rounds done on time. Making the next round being off for 10 minutes or how many minutes late: because of my personal game is not doing my duty as a director.

16

I think profit is not the issue here. When I was directing events for the Lincoln Chess Club, I probably played in a few. I didn’t take a fee for directing, not even a free entry. If there was any money left over, it went into the club treasury.

I’m just a 1400 player, so I was never much of a factor in the prizes anyway, but some of the other directors were experts or masters. If there was a ruling on their games, another person would handle it. I don’t ever recall there ever having been a pairings issue.

Like Tim, I’m really a bit curious as to what happened to get the original writer so riled. I think it was more likely a misunderstanding of the rules than taking unfair advantage of them.

17

SmartIdiot is quite correct. If all you need to pay for are ratings fees and maybe have some money left over for club equipment, ie: you have a free site and no TD fees, you really shouldn’t be losing money. I usually run a 3RR with $6 EF and $12 for first in each QUAD or a 3SS with $6 EF and $$24-12 for first and second in each OCTO. Usually I only run rated QUADs. My OCTOS are usually just club events for a Ladder Board competition without any EF or prize (except some club trophies at the end of the year for the top players on the ladder).

In fact, the rating fees were an issue for small events due to the $5 minimum. I mean, that’s nearly $1 per game for a QUAD! Now, rating fees are no longer an issue if we use the online form. I’m correct in assuming that there will no longer be that $5 minimum rating fee per event, right? Will the fee still be $0.20 per game when we use the online form coming out this month?

TIA,
AJG

18

I have some qualifications to add some ideas to this post as I’ve both played and directed in the same tournament for close to 150 tournaments.

A couple of aspects that influenced my decision. I was organizing the event as a service for the casual or up-and-coming player in the Louisville area. The entry fee was $5. The prize fund was total entry fees minus rating fee expenses minus dinner expenses (else my wife would not let me do it). I was rated 2000. I never advertised sections, all sections were based on who showed up that week for this 3-round, g/30 tournament. We regularly drew between 25-35 players with 52 as the high.

Two-thirds or more of the tournament would be rated under 1400, and closer to proably 800, most but not all of these were kids getting their edge for the local scholastic scene.

If there were several people rated 1700 and higher we would organize a 4-6 player section of those, and I would compete for prizes. If there were not, then I would still usually play, and play for the “expert” prize of $5, my entry fee. It was kind of funny, because if I went 3-0 or 0-3 I still got the same amount, $5. The other sections’ prizes would be $15-$30 prize depending on entries. Most of the U1800s relished a chance to beat me, and they sometimes did!

If I had regularly played against sub 1400 competition for the full prize fund each week, I am sure that while completely fine with the rules, most of the players and their parents would have considered me a scumbag and left. But obviously for three years, until I had to move, it was a great success. Parents thanked me every week for doing it.

The actual duties were so incredibly small. I had a computer program and printer. So starting the tournament was the same as always and entering results was pretty easy too. Many times the U800 section(s) were finished by the time I had finished my second round. Sometimes I took the hit on my clock to do pairings, sometimes I asked my opponents to stop the clock. Since personally, I could care less about my rating (why do people care about ratings?!), I never strongly worried about my game. I have to admit that things on some weeks would have been much worse had I not had the help of other club or local TDs on site to assist me. But that was just because they were so many nice people who showed up offering to help in one way or another. The only hard part was when I might forget my laptop and/or printer, leaving it in the other car or forgetting a power cord, etc. Still I soldiered on, and although it was a bit more time consuming, it all worked out in the end.

I always wished more 1800s+ would have come, but I was in it for the chess for me and the community. If I had to play three 1200-1400s that week, I enjoyed those games immensely, but just stayed away from the prize fund. If I had not been allowed to play in the events, I doubt I would have continued to do them for so long. So in conclusion, long live the Playing Director rule!

19

You did an excellent job there , Ben! I wish I could have played in a couple. I did play in one of Steve Ds and it was really enjoyable.

Take it from a very experienced TD/organizer (bbentrup), folks. Playing and directing is fine, if you keep your senses about you.

20

Have little problem if the director does play in the tournament. The only problem would be the prize fund and being the director. If having a tournament with players with the ratings around 900 to 1100, then play in this tournament as a class C player: then should win the tournament or win a prize. It has been my policy: “never to win any ‘prize money’ in any of my own tournaments”.

During the tournament could be on board one during the last round: there is a question that needs a ‘tournament director’ for a ruling. Even if there is a ‘certified tournament director’ other then myself the chance are small. Having a ‘players committee’ with three members in the tournament with nobody in the tournament as a ‘certified tournament director’, – who picks the members on the ‘players committee’. If as the ‘tournament director’ that picks the ‘players committee’, (as the game is a money game) the bias would be as a fair statement, “would pick people that ‘will or are willing’ too support my claim”.

In any case, making the ruling on myself would be a bias; picking the players committee would be picking players that would support my claim: making the ‘players committee’ have a bias. Want to be a director that has little evidence to make a charge of a ‘bias’. If not being in a tournament to make players sure on a non-bias game, then willing not to be the director and player. The only way for myself for being in my own tournament as a player: would not make a claim of any of the prize money.