Do you mean the prize distribution is bad, the fact that they are using the higher of a players NWSRS and US Chess rating for section eligibility, pairings, and prizes is bad, or some other aspect of the tournament is bad?
Alex commented on prizes as did I. I assume you don’t see the problem.
But using the higher of. 2 ratings with no judgement as to why one is higher and which most accurately reflects a player’s performance capacity is fraught with problems too.
This looks like a case where everybody sees problems with the tournament conditions. I get the feeling Micah is looking for help in listing all of the potential problems so that he can influence future organizers away from using NWSRS for the Washington Open.
Actually 4 ratings: US chess OTB, US chess online, FIDE and NWSRS.
It would be nice if you would refrain from rude and insulting comments like “I assume you don’t see the problem”.
How about you explain the problem with the prizes Allen.
I don’t consider it an insult to note that you may not understand why something is a problem.
Whether someone chooses to explain it to you or not is up to them. I had a couple of mentors in my early days as a tournament director and as an organizer. I didn’t agree with everything my mentors said or did, and sometimes their explanations were baffling.
A baffling explanation is superior to a nonexistent one if your goal is to educate the other person.
Not so sure I agree with that. When I was in college I took a course in computer processor design, we suggested that the textbook for the course had negative educational entropy, the act of writing it actually decreased from the sum total of knowledge in the universe.
In mathematical texts, it is commonplace to say: “Proof of the above is left as an exercise for the reader.” Whether that means the author actually knows the proof or not is not always obvious. It took over 350 years for a valid proof for Fermat’s Last Theorem to be accepted.
The only thing that looks really off is that unrateds can win not just unrated money in the U1400 but the whole nut.
For something really complex, I’d go along with that sentiment. But prize structures is not the most complex subject known to man. If a bunch of people say “this is a lousy prize structure” and nod to each other knowingly, it could just as well be groupthink. In any event, no one who will learn much. If you can’t explain the assertion that this is a lousy prize structure, than why should anyone believe you have a legitimate reason for saying that?
Note: I have not and do not plan to look at the tournament cited in this thread.
Considering the number of REALLY BAD prize structures I’ve seen over the years, I think it is easy for a non-experienced TD/organizer to set up a bad one. (Most of the prize structure questions on the exams are based on real tournaments, so to paraphrase a recent President–someone DID build that!)
Here’s a partial list of things to avoid:
Lumping unrateds in with any category other than ‘open place finishers’ is almost always a mistake.
Having two identical amount prizes that several people might qualify for one or both is almost always a mistake.
Having prizes that depend on information that might change between advance registration and on-site registration is almost always a mistake.
Having prizes that depend on ephemeral information, like what MSA has on ‘most recent rating’ is almost always a mistake.
Assuming that some numerical value in ratings system X is comparable to some numerical value in ratings system Y (the same or different number) is almost always a mistake.
There are times when any of the above are NOT mistakes, but you have to know when you can break the rules and what the possible complications are.
OK here you go - here is the low hanging fruit to start. There are other problems.
In the open section if the top player under 1900 has the clear 6th place score, which prize have they won? Same question in the Premier section the clear 6th place is 1400 - which prize have they won? Again in reserve. If the 1400 is tied for 6th, which prize have they won?
Making the section prizes the same for each section causes this problem. If you cannot determine which prize they have won, then you start getting confused when you have to pool prizes to split them in the case of ties. Adn the players won’t understand it at all. These are the sorts of questions on the TD test series that alwaye cause issues. You solve this problem by clearly making the higher section have the hgiher prize so it is clear what prize the player is getting.
Also unrated players under these terms are elgibile for the top prizes in the reserve section. That causes difficulties. Likewise they are not restricted from the U1200 and U1000 rating prizes since those are all set up as under rating rather than as class prize for a rating band. Using rating bands or class prizes also solves the problem as a player inthe lower class down is not eligible for the higher class prize.
It is not clear wher an unrated player must play. Ar ethey restricted to the U1400 section? If so that is the least far to everyone else. Unrated does not mean beginner or 0 rating. It means we have no idea. While an unrated player who is a beginner may be clocked playing in the open section, that is fairst place to put someone who we know nothing at all about. Or oyu have an unrated section off to itself so those unknowns don’t impact anyone who does have a rating.
On the ratings it does not stipulate if it is an established rating, provisional, if another systme is more recent etc… So a 4 year old NWSRS rating that is higher than a very active current US Chess OTB rating could kick the player to a higher section. Foreign ratings are used without any sort of conversion between systems.
And there is more.
Adult only swiss. Who is eligible for that? is it by age? 21? 18? 16? Grey hair perhaps?
The 2 day schedule is so tight between rd 1 nd 2 that, with a 10 minute delay, a game that exceeds 60 moves stand a good chance to push the next round to be late.
I’ll step aside and let others contribute if they wish. I have to go back to tax season.
Clearly the better design is to have slightly higher money in the higher Under categories, but the rules are fairly clear that they win higher category money. If it were $225-$175 for U2100 and $200-$150 for U1900, the 1900-2099’s aren’t going to be much happier if a <1900 takes the 1st U2100 money, just slightly easier to explain. OTOH, strict rating limits can be manifestly unfair; a player can outscore a higher rated player and make less money.
A couple of “for examples”:
Why are all of the “top female” prizes based on TPR, not score? What is a “female”? Is one required to be coded as “female” with US Chess? Many players have no “gender” coding. I just did a tournament with at least 80 players without. Will there be some sort of announcement requesting players to declare their gender before their first round? If there are four women in the Premier section and one wins 3rd and another wins 2nd U1500 are the first two “Top Female” prizes to be awarded?
I’m in agreement with Mr. Priest about the bizarre titling of the “adult-only swiss”. Since, as far as I can figure, the tournament is open to all players (or at least no restrictions are cited), then I don’t see what is keeping a six-year-old from entering a whimsically named side event. The round times are such that playing in this side event may allow you to enter the main event, but with no real ability to know which rounds you can and can not play, yet the flyer indicates that you can play with a minimum number of byes.
Alex Relyea
Simply making sure no two prizes are exactly identical still might not solve this problem, either.
What if there is, say, a $300 prize for 3rd place, and a $200 prize for best under-1800, and there are 3 players tying for the former and 2 players tying for the latter? Which of these 5 players wins 1/3 of $300, and which wins 1/2 of $200? And what if some of these 5 players are eligible for either one, e.g. they are in the 3-way tie for 3rd and in the 2-way tie for under-1800? How many, and which, players end up depriving various other players (not involved in the tie) of a piece of which pie?
You would almost have to extend the “no two prizes should be exactly the same” concept to say that “no two prizes should be in a simple integer ratio x/y with each other”, where “simple” could be defined as something like “when x/y is reduced to lowest terms, both x and y are less than 10” or something similar.
Bill Smythe
As is clearly spelled out in the rules, the player gets the higher under prize in these scenarios. Not hard to figure out or explain to players.
Actually, I asked the question about unrated players eligibility for under prizes before on this forum and was told they are not eligible for under prizes unless it says they are by, for example, the prize saying U1200/unrated. Also, the discussion of class prizes vs under prizes has come up before on this forum and it was generally agreed that under prizes are better.
I think it’s clear they can play in any section. Also, forcing all unrated players to play in the Open section would be a huge mistake at most tournaments. There probably won’t be enough unrated players to have a separate unrated section.
All the things you say are clear, won’t be clear to some players. Try explaining a prize distribution to someone’s by saying they won this 200 prize but not that 200 prize. Especially when the 200 prize you said they won results in them getting less money due to ties.
You totally miss the point on unrated player issues.
Once again you demonstrate you don’t want to learn. You just want vindication.
So Mike Mulford, you have your answer.
In my area (southern Wisconsin), we came to the opposite conclusion years ago, and have never seen any reason to change our minds. It’s not so bad to have one such section (typically the lowest section in the event), but having more than one is a bad idea. Aside from the points raised in this thread, if you have multiple “under” sections, you can have players eligible for multiple “under” prizes. Someone with a 500 rating, for example, is under 600, but he/she is also under 800, 1000, 1200, etc. And these days, the actual strength of a “500” player could easily be well above that. So you could have a 500 player doing well enough to win any of 4 or 5 different prizes. This creates confusion. And confusion is bad.
This shows you clearly don’t understand the rules. If a player is eligible for “200 prize A” and “200 prize B” and giving a player “200 prize A” over “200 prize B” would result in them getting less money due to a tie, then they would get “200 prize B”. If you still think you are correct on this, please share an example.
Actually, I didn’t. You just don’t want to admit the suggestions you made on how to handle unrated players were bad.
And wasn’t your area still doing schedules that would easily allow for adjournments until very recently?
Things can be argued both ways. When first place in a class are the same amount ($ for top A = $ for top B) and an A player and a B player are in a two way tie for first overall, it is a bit confusing as to which class prize to bring into the tie while it is clear in the rules that U2000 is brought in before U1800 when the dollar amount is the same. (it may not be clear to a player but at least it would be clear to a TD and the TD can use the rulebook to explain it to a player).
When the prizes are trophies then it is clearer that first overall goes to the better tie-breaks between the A and B player while the other one in the tie either gets top A or top B (class prizes) or top U2000 (under prizes). However if the trophies are 1st, 2nd and 3rd each in U1600, U1400, U1200 then there can be questions as to why a 1095 is given 2nd U1600 instead of 1st U1200 while there would be no confusion over 1st class E.