In any case, making the ruling on myself would be a bias
Huh? You make a ruling based on rules, not trying to cheat your way to win a few bucks on prizes. If people ask about your claim, you point them to the rulebook.
thunderchicken:
If a judge has ‘personal stakes’ in a criminal or civil trial, the judge would remove self from the case. As a director can point out this rule or that rule. Say for example, during the end game both white and black have even amount of material, one queen, three pawns and the king. White touched my pawn and touched the queen, the queen can capture the pawn; the only two players that seen this was myself and white. If telling white to capture my pawn with the queen, then on the next move capture the queen with my pawn would shift the balance of the game into: king, queen and two pawns vs king and three pawns.
If the player makes a claim of not touching my pawn and only the queen. Then who would deal with this problem, without any ‘certified tournament directors’ would have to make the enforcement of this claim from myself and white. If not being the player, then asked to make this ruling would find white and black both making the same claim. There is zero witness for both sides: as white and black do say that white did touched the queen, and the conflict with the claim of white touching the pawn – would have to rule that white must make any move with the queen. As there is only the word of black that white did touched the pawn.
In my case can see that white did touched my pawn. As there is zero witness to this claim, and knowing as a player and as a director that white did touch my pawn then touched the queen. As a player want white to capture my pawn with the queen; as a director would need to find a witness to this act. Thunderchicken, can you see the problems of being a director and play in the same tournament.
Uhhhh…
Once again, you’re way off line. Comparing a murder trial to chess is like comparing Hitler to a cute puppy dog.
There are rules in the USCF rulebook you can always go back to.
So what’s the difference if the TD wasn’t watching the game? It’s still white’s word against black’s, and the TD’s rule is final. Not any different if the TD is playing the game.
Thunderchicken, can you see the problems of being a director and play in the same tournament.
No, I’ve been to many tournaments where the TD plays, and I’ve never seen a problem. Why should a TD sit around for 14 hours and not be able to play? USCF endorses people to start a club and run tournaments, so they shouldn’t play?
That’s poppycock.
Thunderchicken:
Lets try it this way: for this idea you are a Grand Master with a USCF rating of 2725. You are the tournament director and the first place prize of $5,000. The organizer has paid you $225 plus hotel and meals.
The tournament has 100 players with yourself as a player, you have the number one ranking with the rating of 2725, the second in ranking is 2125 all the way down to 560 as ranking number 100. In theory you should win the tournament, then win the $5,000 first place prize money.
What is the difference if the first place is $5,000 or the first place is only $50. If someone steal $5,000 from a bank or $50 from a bank – it is still a crime. It does not matter what the prize money would be for the director if the director did play in the tournament.
Or in this case: the prize fund for the tournament will be $300 with the first place prize money of $100. If being the director and then have a very strong rating should win the first place. If the director wins the first place out-right, then the prize fund would only be $200 not the $300. If being the director and the organizer, could save myself the cost of 1/3 of the prize fund if being in the tournament.
What if being the director and then also be in a ‘scholastic tournament’ with the age group of 6 to 10, with the ratings between 300 to 700. Being 38 years old with a class C rating, should be able to win this ‘scholastic tournament’.
Have little problems being the director and play in the same tournament. It has been my policy never to accept any of the prize money after the tournament. If someone has a rating of 2725, and wins $5,000 for first place with others in the tournament that are 600 points or lower then the 2725 player. If someone is a adult and the tournament director, that plays and wins the ‘scholastic tournament’ with the age group of 6 to 10. Then why is it ethical for a tournament director to win any prize money.
Myself, would have to make this claim: will play in the tournament if and only if not able to win any prize money.
The organizer has paid you $225 plus hotel and meals.
Then you are paid to run the tournament, not play in it.
So that whole scenerio is irrelevant.
I still wonder what you’re smoking up there. Can you send me some?
The going rate for a ‘tournament director’ in Michigan: if it is a "Michigan Chess Association’ event is $75 per-day. If the first place prize fund is $5,000, then it would be more common of being a three day event.
You would only have a problem if the director got paid $75 a day plus hotel and meals, then won the $5,000 prize money?
Hi, read what I wrote.
Then you are paid to run the tournament, not play in it.
Try again and keep smoking whatever it is.
What if the organizer does not care if the director also plays in the event? What if Robert James Fisher was the 'organizer" and the “international arbiter” during the Fisher -Spasky 1972 match.
And thunderchicken, have been and always will be a ‘non-smoker’.
OK, so what’s the point in paying a director to play if he’s going to play anyway? That’s like throwing away part of the entry fee and still makes no sense.
Like I said, what are you smoking up there?
The ‘organizer’ is still going to pay the director to be the director; the ‘organizer’ is still going to pay for the prize fund. If the ‘organizer’ is going to pay the director $225 plus hotel and meals, then also pay for the first place prize money with all the prize fund. The ‘organizer’ is not going to lose any money: as it does not matter to the ‘organizer’ with the cost of the director and the prize fund.
Think of it this way, IM Ben Finegold did run the ‘Moter City Open’, it is a “Michigan Chess Association” event. As it is a three day event, he did make $225 plus hotel and meals; then he won first place for $300 – making the take $525 plus hotel and meals. Does it matter if IM Finegold only gotten $225 plus hotel and meals, then someone else gotten $300 for the first place prize money. The organizer is still going too take care of this cost one way or the other.
Thunderchicken: if you support my claim, well do you see a little problem of being a director and also play.
if you support my claim
I don’t think I’ve agreed with anything you’ve posted on here.
You compare National and Championship events to something that’s so far away from the original post.
There is absolutely no problem with a TD playing. It’s been going on for years.
What’s the point in running tournaments if you can’t play in it? Isn’t that the whole point? People obviously can’t make a living off of running their own tournaments every month. I don’t even make a profit when I run mine. But I do it so I can play because there isn’t squat around here. Crying about TD’s being biased is like crying that you’re not any good.
There are rules set in a thick USCF book.
Once again, you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Thunderchicken:
Have little problem if you want to play in you’re own tournament. The only problem of being a director and also being a playing director: is the win of a prize money. If there is a ethical problem if the ‘tournament director’ can make as a playing director a huge amount of prize money: then why not a problem if the ‘tournament director’ could only make $50 or $100.
If you want to be in you’re own tournament that is fine. Do not even care if you want to play in you’re own scholastic tournament with 6 and 10 year old children. The only problem would be taking any of the prize money, or any of the titles or trophies that you as a player could win. Being a playing director, if too win any prize money would be unfair and unethical. Most of my tournaments have been the ‘organizer’ and the ‘tournament director’. When this happens do plan to give out the prize fund when a number of people meet this goal, if as the director win some prize money would not take or accept the prize. If the total prize fund is $300, and as the director win first place with a prize money of $100 then only have to take care of the $200 for the total prize fund. This would in theory be cheating the other players in the tournament
If being in my own tournament, and win or lose the game then it does not matter: as in zero way could not win any prize money if banning myself of the prize money. If having a tournament and the ‘unconditional guaranteed prize fund is $1,000’ and first place is $300. If as the ‘playing director’ wins first place out-right, then only have to have $700 for a ‘unconditional guaranteed prize fund’.
It does not matter if telling the players the prize fund is only a few hundred dollars or thousands of dollars. If the ‘playing director’ wins any prize money, then it takes away from the total prize fund.
Yes, you have said it over and over again in poor english.
Who cares if the director wins a ton of money. Whoopty dooooo
Thunderchicken:
Do you read any of my posts with a open mind?
As the person who initiated this thread after having received several e-mails, presumably from a rather upset USCF member, I don’t think this is a trivial issue.
The individual who raised the original question was VERY UPSET about the TD who played in his own event.
He didn’t provide sufficient details about it to identify either the event or the TD. But at the end of the discussion, he indicated he would not be renewing his USCF membership or playing in any additional USCF-rated tournaments, and I don’t think this was just a troll.
I’m equally concerned about some of the attitudes expressed by others, and I don’t see a lot of ‘open minded’ discussion going on here.
I’m especially concerned about two lines of thought:
-
Because we don’t have a boatload of verifiable complaints, there is no problem.
-
The only reason to organize and direct a tournament is so I can play in it.
Here’s my take on the subject:
A TD who is also playing is NOT giving the other players in the tournament, who presumably paid their entry fees with the expectation of a properly-directed event, the full attention they should EXPECT of the TD.
A TD who is a contender for the major prizes in an event (and ‘major’ is a very relative term here, most of us have seen players fight like crazy for a rather small sum of money) has an INHERENT CONFLICT with all of the other contenders for those prizes.
If the TD is also taking a significant cut of the entry fees in terms of either a TD fee or profit as the organizer, that raises the significance of BOTH of the previous concerns. There are just too many possible situations that could either be a direct conflict of interest or at a minimum raise the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Even an appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided, as it can easily lead to misunderstandings or hurt feelings, or more.
Even player committees chosen by the TD could be considered by a player as biased in favor of the TD who appointed it. If a problem is major enough, the USCF’s phone referee system might be a reasonable alternative, but I don’t see it being practical for ‘small’ events, there are just too many of them.
I suspect this is a much bigger problem than just this one complaint, though I also suspect that there are people who are bothered by playing TDs but reluctant to raise the issue locally. Most areas don’t have a huge surplus of TDs and organizers, and I can easily see why some players would silently stew over perceived or real problems rather than make a public issue of them.
There will always be a ‘appearance of a conflict of interest’ when the director does play in the same event they are directoring. As the director that is also playing in the tournament would be ‘playing for free’ in most case studies, then win some prize money without the personal cost of the entry fee is a clear case of a conflict.
If having a total prize fund with having the amount of players for the tournament. As being the ‘organizer’ and the ‘tournament director’ there is little ethical way to pay myself the entry fee of the tournament: as it would place my entry fee from one pocket right into the other. With the ‘tournament director’ that is also the ‘organizer’ then play in the tournament would have a free entry fee. As the ‘organizer / tournament director’ there is only risk of making a profit or a loss in the tournament. As a playing director there is no risk as there is no entry fee; but if win any of the prize money would have won the prize money with no risk. The other players that did come to the tournament, and given their entry fee has given some risk to win some prize money.
This is one of the reason not wanting to be the playing director. There is always going to be some risk during any game for a director needing to make a judgement. Even if a ‘chief tournament director’ does have a ‘assistant tournament director’ too be the final judge during the game; the ‘chief tournament director’ still have great power over the ‘assistant tournament director’ during and after the tournament. The ‘assistant tournament director’ could feel unwell making a claim against the ‘chief tournament director’ as the ‘assistant tournament director’ would feel they could be replaced or fired.
Do know that some parts of this country have very few ‘tournament directors’ or have a small amount of tournaments. Can understand the conflict of being a player and also being a director. The only fairness for the players if being forced as a ‘playing director’ would not take any ‘prize money’ during the tournament. Even informing my ‘assistant tournament director’ if needing a ‘house man’ they can not win any of the prize money. If not having a ‘assistant tournament director’ too be the house man, then only and only play if there is a odd number of players. Would only place myself as a house man, and would not take any of the prize money during the tournament.
The TDCC should look on a limit of players in the tournament before the ‘tournament director’ would not be allowed to be a ‘playing director’. As ‘playing directors’ are only in very small tournaments most of the time.
The TDCC can make a ruling that any director that has 20 or more players: the director is not allowed to be a ‘playing director’.
Having a tournament with less then 20 players, the tournament will be small and the prize fund would also be small also. Having a ‘playing director’ would not be that much of a problem; as the prize fund will also be small, the duties of the director would not be of a major problem. Having a ‘playing director’ with greater then 20 players, the prize fund would be greater, and the duties of the director would be much greater.
Tim Just and the TDCC should take up this issue some time in the next few years. They can make the upper limit higher or lower, as this is some place in the middle of the road. Small tournaments can support a ‘playing director’ with larger tournaments the idea of a ‘playing chief tournament director’ would only take away from the duties of this director.
Mike,
I agree that we should try to avoid any appearance of impropriety and should focus on doing one thing: directing. That way, there will be no questions. Well…at least less questions!
Douglas,
You seem to say it is okay to be a playing director, as you often do in your small tournaments, but object to the director taking money. I agree with that as well, but…
Many players are not necessarily entering tournaments for the small prizes. They enter for the sake of good, fair games AND some (many?) enter in order to improve their rating. So, it can be also argued that even if you win and do not take the money, you have “taken” their rating points! So…inasmuch as it is permitted, I think a director should avoid playing. Just my two cents worth…
I think we have far too many rules already, and we’re inconsistent at how we apply the ones we already have.
Any additional rules on TDs playing in the events they direct would have to come up with limits or guidelines which would be completely arbitrary. Why is a 20 player event enough different from a 16 player event to justify drawing the line there?
Further, many of the rules we have are, IMHO, a poor substitute for a little common sense, something that far too many TDs and players fail to exhibit.