I run rated and non-rated chess tournaments in El Paso,Texas, and I been dealing with players from one school playing in another school in order to have one school or club receive a team trophy during a chess event. I see that one school has 3 players that attend school #1 and the fourth player is from school #2. regardless school #1 wins due to having majority of players from that one school scoring high against all other teams/individuals. I looked in the rule book and it only talks about unrated players in a rated team. but this is something I need closure on. some people are complaining that its not fair that kids from one school join another school with a chess team. but I see its okay as long as you have majority from one and that’s the school they are going to play for.
The tournament organizer has to decide on the rules for forming teams, and advertise those rules. At the Nationals, all players on a team have to attend the same school. In Massachusetts, all players on a team have to attend the same school, or a feeder school in the same district, in the state championship (the Hurvitz Cup), but we have other tournaments which allow both school teams and non-school teams. There are restrictions on the average rating of non-school teams in each section, but no restriction on the average rating of school teams.
This is a complicated issue that as more school types emerge, will get
more complicated. Are we truly doing justice to the individual player,
school teams, and USCF scholastics by an increasingly outdated way
of thinking that a player may only be eligible to play for the key
institution they graduate from?? The fact is more and more students
are receiving supplemental education from after market programs
such as Sylwyn Learning Centers, Genesis Learning Centers, etc.
Chinese Cultural Schools, etc. As our public education system continues (at least in the perception of many) to erode these centers
of learning will increase. As a great many schools do not offer any type of chess clubs, or programs, it would seem that it would be beneficial to USCF to embrace these after-market school providers.
To regard them in the same class as USCF regards public schools, private schools, charter schools, etc. Blended schools such as
home school + public/private education is also becoming more of a trend. USCF has taken the first step in recognizing home school programs.
This would also be very beneficial to the individual student who before
had no scholastic team that they were eligible for to finally have some
alternatives. A win-win solution, it seems to me for all.
IL allows feeder schools (a K-2 school and the 3rd graders of the 3-5 school the K-2 school feeds to can be a team in the K-3 section), but only if the feeder school is not fielding its own team and only from the feeder school to a school that includes the grade one grade beyond the feeding school, and only if the destination school includes the grade level of the section (no K-3 team spanning 20 K-5 schools that feed into 5 6-8 schools that feed into one high school - and also no K-3 team spanning 5 K-5 schools feeding into one 6-8 school). IL also allows home-schooled players to be considered part of the team of the public school they would go to if they went to a public school. Parochial and Montessori schools are substitutes for the public schools, and thus are school entities in their own right.
One problem with special schools (weekend Chinese language schools, Sunday schools, weekend chess schools, etc.) is that they don’t replace the public, parochial, Montessori, etc. schools and thus including them gives players multiple options and all of the players from such a school do not have the same options.
A second problem is that there may be complaints about a team from a weekend chess school competing since every player at the chess school is a solid candidate to play in a tournament. A 10-player chess school would stand a very good chance of fielding a larger and stronger team than a 200-student school, with coaches and parents of standard schools railing quite vociferously against the unfairness of including a chess school.
If the team eligibility is not based on being in the same school (USCF national scholastic rules) or even the same club (USCF National Youth Action) then anything can be decided by the organizer.
Rob,
What I’ve learned about team rules is there is no such thing as win-win. Team rules are a zero sum game. Anything that benefits one team (by allowing more players) hurts other teams (by increasing the strength of the competition). While the concept that stronger competition is better in the long run is true, there are parents and coaches who want to win now and believe anything that decreases the chances for their team to win is bad (and obviously unfair ). For that reason, in Maryland, we stick with the USCF team rules and pass the buck.
Mike Regan
I see little evidence of that. Team chess seems to be very popular all over the world, except in the U.S. Even here, the USATE is one of the biggest open tournaments every year.
Kentucky had a very successful open/adult team event with both 3 and 4 player teams just recently. I expect the KCA will do it again given the response.
There are many chess leagues around the country that are run with a team format. The Pittsburgh Chess League, for example, has been in existence since 1960. For the better part of its 50+ years of service to chess, the vast majority of the players on the teams have been adults. We also have an increasing number of youth teams with ages ranging as low as 5 years old learning how to compete as part of a team. Age is not an issue. Kids have as much fun and team spirit as the adults.
The Pennsylvania Scholastic Championships not only has individual trophies awarded but also gives team trophies to both the top school teams and the top club teams in the various sections. By expanding the types of teams being awarded, attendance at these championships have increased over the years. Some chess clubs have stepped up to support juniors, regardless of the particular school they attend. It often happens that a school only has a couple of players who are USCF members. By combining with other club members they can now form a team. IMO, it is very short sighted to limit team awards only to schools. The fear that some “professional” teams taught by a for profit organization will dominate the scholastic championships is overblown. That can be dealt with by having separate awards for such clubs.
I think there is a good argument that we should encourage club play and team play as a way of socializing chess and increasing membership.
With respect to team rules, its important to well-define the team and to stick to it. There is room to have “school-based” events and “club-based” events. There is even an argument for having separate “traditional -school” based events and “non-traditional” school-based events. Equivalency definitions can work to a point (as Jeff Wiewel notes in the IL rules) but there is always someone trying to take advantage of them. (For example, suppose home school-teams were not allowed, but a collection of home-schoolers got together and had regular meetings in a building and called it a “school”. Is it - or isn’t it.)
In general, I’ve long proposed that one of the fundamental rules that we use in tournaments all the time - but AFAIK has never been explicitly stated in the rule book or sufficiently so in the Code of Ethics is that a participant in a tournament (including a team) must be able to explicitly demonstrate their eligibility for the prize for which they wish to compete - or they should not be able to compete for it. Stating this clearly would create a better bright line test of prize eligibility.
Kevin,
I’ve actually thought that at Nationals all teams should have to turn in a form signed by the chief administrator of the team’s school listing all the players on the team and certifying that they do attend that school.
It amazes me the amount of work I have to do to roster my soccer teams to be able to play in local leagues to prove that they all are the correct age compared to the complete lack of any documentation required for teams competing for national championships in chess.
I’m pretty sure the Scholastic Council would not want to do this.
Mike Regan
The nice thing about the procedure that all USCF tournaments seem to use except for national scholastics - is that organizers don’t have to deal with documentation unless the participant is challenged. It is up to the participant to reasonably prove their eligibility for a prize. So that leaves practically no work for organizers/TD’s/scholastic council - and its consistent with the procedure in place in most events.
Another potential issue is the “last minute transfer”. Yes its happened. Or the home-schooled player who lived in two states and played for two different schools in Nationals a few weeks apart. It would be easier if we used principles-based rules.
Age differences in soccer are a way bigger deal than in chess. And some students of questionable age still slip through at times. Your main idea about chess team certification is a good one.
My point was not about age but about the process of proving that all the players on my team are eligible to play in events. This is to avoid any ringers. In soccer, having an older player is, in general, an advantage. In chess the hardest thing is to get four or more strong players all from the same school. Since we don’t even ask for any type of certification, the temptation to add someone who doesn’t attend the school is quite high.
Mike
). For that reason, in Maryland, we stick with the USCF team rules and pass the buck.