In the discussion in that chapter, it is obvious that eight feet “between rows” includes the width of the tables themselves, i.e. that “eight feet between rows” means eight feet center-to-center.
Also, a table width of 30 inches is apparently being assumed in that discussion. If the table is 36 inches wide, of course you’d have to add 6 inches per row in defining “borderline”, “comfortable”, and “luxurious”.
Calculating the number of rows possible by simply dividing the total room width (in feet) by 8 feet doesn’t quite cut it, though, because that ignores the edge effects at the first and last rows. You need another 18 inches total room width to allow for that.
If – Nis the number of rows, and – Tis the table width (e.g. 2.5 feet), and – Cis the desired distance between the table edge and chair back (e.g. 2 feet), and – Bis the desired distance from chair back to chair back (e.g. 1.5 feet, so players can get in and out) –
– then total room width would have to beNT + 2NC + (N+1)*B.
ForN=6rows, and using the sample numbers above, this becomes62.5 + 122 + 7*1.5which comes out49.5feet, slightly more than the 48 feet you would get by simply multiplying the desired center-to-center distance (8 feet) by the number of rows (6).
So, you could indeed say that 8 feet center-to-center is marginal.
I agree that this section is assuming a measurement of table center to table center. So are you. You state that this is “a decent standard.” It is not, at least not for adults. It is borderline useable. I also agree that 30" table width is assumed, but that is what virtually all set-ups use, and what this section endorses. It does say that 36" widths (which usually means two 18" tables pushed together) are “acceptable, but far from ideal.” If you’re forced to use them, certainly you’ll have to adjust your dimensions.
I have organized tournaments at hotels for a number of years. I have run into the 2 eighteen inch tables situation a few times, and as a result almost always request this be avoided if at all possible. In all the many years I have dealt with hotels for chess tournaments I have never had 30 inch wide tables. They have always been 36 inch wide tables [if not the 2 eighteen] and once they were 8 foot wide as well. I admit it has been a few years since the last major event, so maybe the 36 inch standard has been reduced to 30 inches.
Interesting. I have been organizing tournaments for 25 years and have only a couple of times run into the situation where the hotel had to take two 18" tables and bolt them together to make 36" wide tables. All the other times it has been 30" wide tables. I have never seen 36" wide tables. BTW - I think you must have meant that once you ran into 8’ long tables. If you really ran into 8’ wide tables I hope your players had very long reaches!
I saw 36" wide tables around 1972 at Norris Center at Northwestern University. I think they’ve long since been replaced. 30" is certainly the usual width at most sites.
Talking now about length, I’ve found 6’ to be most common. This is good for 2 games per table. 8’ is a little cramped if you set up 3 games per table, but is luxurious (length-wise) for 2 games per table.
Actually, my standard was not 8 feet per row. It was 5.5 feet between rows. This translates to 8 feet per row with 30-inch tables, except that you need to add a bit to take care of edge effects due to the first and last rows.
I have played in several events in the Chicago area where there is less than 5.5 feet between rows, so I have many times longed for my “decent standard” of 5.5 feet between rows.
Eight foot long tables with three boards per table are a bit cramped for adult tournaments, but are useable. For scholastic tournaments this set-up is not much of a problem. I once played in a tournament where the organizer had set up three boards on each six foot long table. Now that was cramped!
Whether you have 8 foot or 6 foot long tables to use, it is a best practice to place only two boards per table. In scholastic style events, I have put three boards on tables but only at the very end on the lowest boards, but even then I prefer not to do that. The long tables allow you to place board numbers more easily at the ends of the table; they provide more space for players to put drinks, snacks, scorebooks, and clocks.
As far as space between table rows, I pull two chairs out from a table to a spot where they would normally rest when players are seated and measure the space between. If it measures less than 18 inches, then there may be a problem if players get up to go to the bathroom or do a walkabout. I will then try to put more space between the rows. One difficulty is how many tables to put in a row. The more tables, the greater chance that players will have difficulty getting out and thus more complaints. Very long table rows of four or more are often more difficult to waddle through, especially for older adults. More ideal is two tables max. In one venue, we have several rows of one table each going east and west and one row with two tables or three tables going north and south to optimize the use of space. I, too wish the TD/organizer checklist and guidelines from Rulebook 4 were in subsequent editions. I have all of the Rulebooks and use some of the older ones to look for guidance in running tournaments and chess clubs.
For me, that distance is 2 feet. Few players will pull their chairs back any farther than that, and most will pull them a bit closer.
The odds of the players on both sides of the gap pulling their chairs back fully 2 feet are small enough that I’m willing to settle for 12 inches instead of 18 for the chairback-to-chairback allowance. This leads to my 5.5-feet-between-tables standard, which is 8 feet table-center to table-center for 30" tables. If you want 18" chairback-to-chairback, the total becomes 8.5’ table-center to table-center.
Whether your standard is 8 or 8.5 feet (or any other number), multiply it by the number of rows, and then add one extra chairback-to-chairback allowance (whether it be 12" or 18") because of the edge effects at the first and last rows.
If the table is 30 inches and the standard is 8 feet, that’s 5.5 feet between the tables. That’s considerably more luxurious than the 18 inches to 2 feet you’re talking about.
18 inches to 2 feet PER PLAYER, so that’s 3 to 4 feet of each aisle that’s in use already.
So of that 8 feet:
2 1/2 feet is the table
3-4 feet is where the chairs and players are
That’s up to 6 1/2 feet, which leaves just 18 inches between chairs, which is adequate but not really spacious. And if you have back to back 18 inch tables (that’s all some hotels have these days), you’re down to a foot.
9 or even 10 feet between rows (center to center) is better, but chews up the available space much faster.
Apples and oranges. I was talking about 2 feet between table edge and chair back, times 2 because you have 2 chairs back to back, plus 1.5 feet between chair backs to allow the players to squeeze through. That’s where the 5.5 feet (altogether) between tables comes in.
Bill Smythe
[ edited 2017-08-02 1:00 pm to correct the arithmetic ]
Hotels tend to treat chess tournaments like seminar classrooms, they assume everyone will be getting up and leaving at the same time, like for coffee break. Chess tournaments, where players are constantly getting up to walk around and where spectators and officials might want to wander down the row to see a game that can’t quite be seen clearly from the end of the row of tables, are foreign to them.
I’ve found that the maximum “banquet” seating (with rounds of 10) will, for most room sizes except rather small ones, roughly approximate the absolute max that you can use for a K-8 chess tournament. (Despite being a completely different configuration, it seems to have roughly the same density of people as a chess games setup for kiddies). Hotels generally have little experience with large banks of 30" tables with people on both sides—when we had to shoehorn 850 people into a set of spaces that would have been comfortable for 650, the hotel marveled at how many playing spots could actually fit into their ballrooms. When we looked at a space at Northwestern, they said they could only put 180 people into a 5500 sq ft room—I asked whether they realized that there would be people on both sides of each table.
With 30" width tables I aim for 10ft center-to-center between rows. 9ft can work but people will have to walk sideways to get past people at times. The problem is that some people need more room and some people take up more room than is “optimal”. For example, when people get up from the table, they push back their chair. This can put the back of the chair 3 feet from the edge of the table.
I can’t see anyway I would use 8 ft centers with adults.
Mike Regan
FWIW, the CCA standard is 6 ft tables that are 30 inches wide and 9 feet (doesn’t matter whether it is center to center or edge to corresponding edge on the next table - 9 feet is 9 feet). We put two boards per 6 foot, though I like to put 1 game for a few of the top boards in the open section, Invariably hotels almost always run out of 6 foot tables and we have to double up two of the classroom. We always instruct hotels to start at the top section and work their way down. Sometimes they don’t have to start using classroom tables until the skittles room, which obviously is ideal from our perspective. When we are forced to compromise standards due to more than expected entries (a good problem to have), we will implement some measure of the following steps: (the first thing I always do is give up my luxury of 1 board per table for the top boards). After that, my plan (in rough order of implementation) is: 1) on 8 foot tables (if the hotel runs out of 6 foot). we put three games - this almost always occurs in the bottom section and MOSTLY with kids and is not a huge problem 2) put 5 games per two 6 foot tables (same observation of bottom section), 3) look at either getting more space from the hotel (sometimes difficult or expensive) and/or re-purposing rooms i.e. give up TD office (possibly move into the bookstore) and in extreme circumstances give up a skittles room for a round or two (you can almost always get it back when withdraws and byes occur). 4) Add tables to “deadspace” (usually there is not much, if any deadspace, because we plan to use almost all usable space to begin with, but sometimes you can add some tables to aisles or other areas that while not ideal doesn’t create a hazard) 5) Usually it is not possible to go to 8 1/2 feet, because the hotel setup has already occurred by the time we realize it is break glass in case of emergency and we have used all of the above methods.
When you get REALLY desperate (and I have never personally had to do this), you have people wait to start their games and hope a few games in the bottom section end in scholar’s mates.
It does seem that if you have enough experience running short of space that you have devised all these ways of coping with the problem, then CCA may be cutting the space they book a bit too close…I fervently hope that neither you nor I ever get REALLY desperate and have to resort to your last idea.
This year’s Chicago Class had a record setting turnout and the skittles room was lost for one round (would not have been necessary if it had only matched the previous record).
This year’s Chicago Open had a record setting turnout and lost one of the ballrooms one afternoon and evening (hotel issue). The skittles room was lost for the evening round and during the afternoon the quicker games in the shorter schedule were put on the longer-schedule boards that had already finished in the main hall (which turned out to be a much, much quieter transition than I initially thought it would be).
