Two New High Tech Systems for TDs

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Moderator Mode: Off

In light of recent discussions regarding the rating system and the running of tournaments and their sections I have come up with a couple of concepts that the USCF ought to consider having created:

  1. Live Rating System:

This would be where the computer used in the tournament operation would be logged in and have internet access to a USCF website. When a game is completed and the result stored in the software, that software would communicate the result to the USCF website and computer immediately. The USCF computer would then calculate the new rating immediately.

Of course the software would communicate to the USCF that this is a tournament with a specific number of rounds, as is currently known by the software when setting up the tournament. The USCF computer would then perform all other calculations once the tournament is ended. This way, the multiple sweep and bonus point system would still function and the ratings would be accurate and up to date.

  1. USCF Tournament Administration On-Line Program:

This would be where the USCF would have a pairing and tournament administrative program available to TDs or Affiliates on-line. The USCF could sell subscriptions for this option.

This way, the TD would be able to access this program on-line and perform all tournament activities using the USCF software. When registering players, the MSA database would be used instead of the downloaded Golden Database. As in the concept above, the games would be rated as they finished, with the final rating calculated at the tournament end. I can also envision a bulk loading of registrations similar to the bulk memberships currently available.

Both of the above things would solve a lot of problems that have been presented. The games and sections would be rated as they finish, so the chronology of their rating will be accurate without need for any extra rules.

Yes, the two preeminent software producers would need to change their programs to work with the USCF one for this instant reporting. And there still would be a place for them, especially in light of the fact that not all tournaments might be held where there is internet access. However, with the prevalence of WiFi and mobile hotspots, I really don’t see less internet access but more in the future.

The USCF would be able to recoup the expense of having the thing programmed and maintained by charging a subscription rate to Affiliates. I envision something like $50 every 2 years or something. This subscription would give the TD access to the server interface where the tournament would be run.

Yes this is futuristic, but it certainly seems to be doable in the relatively near future if the USCF decides on it.

2

One thing to also address is new players that do not yet have a USCF ID.

3

Well, in my point #2 if it were a new player that did not have a USCF ID, and even if it was a player with an ID whose membership had expired, the USCF software would have a pop-up window asking if the TD wanted to register this new player as a new member of the USCF, or renew the existing membership that had expired. If the answer is yes, another window would pop up where the player would register and pay for their membership.

4

The USCF doesn’t rate OTB games one at a time, and it is doubtful that doing so would improve the accuracy of the ratings system.

Would we round up or down after each game?

What would happen to bonus points?

Sometimes I think FIDE has a better system, using someone’s latest published rating as their pre-event rating for all games when computing their next published rating. (That would, for example, eliminate concerns about whether section 1 is rated before section 2 or vice-versa.)

The idea of using an online service for pairing has been discussed in several past threads. The disadvantages probably still outweigh the advantages.

5

Frankly, I don’t see the point. I have found that most players don’t stick around until the end of the tournament anyway, so they wouldn’t benefit. As it is, I attempt to submit all my events for rating before leaving the site. If I can’t do this, “live ratings” wouldn’t work anyway. My tournaments are usually rated within two hours. I don’t see the point to save two hours.

Alex Relyea

6

Maybe they’re rushing home to see if the tournament is rated and posted before they get home. :slight_smile:

Side Note: We’ve actually had complaints sent to the USCF office by someone who got home from their latest tournament and the event wasn’t posted yet, mere hours after the event ended. (And I predicted this would happen in 2004 when the online submission process was demonstrated to the Delegates.)

7

The administrative software would know and communicate to the USCF software that this is a tournament and how many rounds it will last. The current software does pre-define the tournament with number of rounds, so this would be nothing more than a communication to the USCF rating software.

The USCF software would give a single pass rating after each finished game or round. Once the tournament ended for that player, the USCF software would know this and would then calculate the multi-pass method it is accustomed to and also be able to add bonus points if called for.

Alex, you’re right of course. My point is that their rating would be on the USCF site immediately after the round finished. This would give immediate feedback during the tournament.

Sure, there is no need to save a couple of hours at the end of the tournament for rating. However, this system would eliminate any errors from the game results being entered in a chronologically wrong order from the play.

And it would be cool to be able to go to your MSA page right away to see the results.

Look, this is nothing more than a concept for future and futuristic rating and tournament administrative systems.

Also, if we would have the tournament administrative program in the cloud rather than on a computer, the TD could use any device with a browser to administrate the tournament.

8

I’m still not sure it would work OR be useful.

Supposes someone is rated 1400 at the start of the event.

That player loses his first game against a 1600 player, so his rating goes down
to about 1390.

Now, he wins his second game against a 1420 player. So, what’s his new rating? Do we recompute it using 1390 or 1400?

If the event is 3 rounds or longer (so bonus points can apply), at what point do we start adding in bonus points?

9

And what prizes does that 1400 qualify for? Some rule about that would now need to be developed.

10

I’ve had four round tournaments where a player ended up playing five rounds. Once I had an unrated getting a forfeit win in his fourth round, which would have left him with only three rated games and no official rating. Using the first four rounds for prize purposes and adding an extra round for that unrated and another player gave him an official rating. Cross-round pairings will often result in one player playing more games than there are rounds. Fixed board team events often have players sitting out one or more rounds and thus not playing the full schedule.

Adding membership checking and requirements to software before it can be used to pair would often end up delaying the start of an event, possibly for more than an hour before finding out that the advance registered non-member is not showing up (or discovering the player always planned on showing up a half hour after the start of the round but well within the allowed hour and you’ve delayed the pairings by 45 or more minutes so that you could have only current members paired). Right now it is VERY common to start a tournament and then track down any lapsed memberships.

The membership updates to MSA are quick but I have sometimes found a small delay (and a 10 minute delay at the start of an event can seem huge).

You may find yourself with new memberships that need to be entered. Depending on the payment method you may find yourself having to spend an extra 20 minutes taking care of everything before they are done.

House players do not have to be members.

Unless this new software allows pairing players that are not members, a number of delays and restrictions may occur and may be perceived as unforgiveable.

An internet problem could stop a tournament cold.

A website problem (or D-O-S issue/attack) could stop every tournament across the country cold.

Now you have a list of some issues to address in the design.

11

It would also have to allow changes to pairings that are valid but not desirable for external reasons. For example, changing a pairing of siblings in the first round of a scholastic tournament.

And even in these cellular wifi days, there are places that aren’t net-accessible.

Yesterday I had Christmas dinner at a friend’s house that, although it is in a major metropolitan area, did not support my cell phone.

12

When pairing programs first came out many TDs would also make sure that cards were available as a back-up. Nowadays many TDs (including some ANTDs and by now probably some NTDs) don’t actually have any experience pairing with cards.

With the current potential internet issues, I’d guess that TDs using this system would not want to try it without a non-internet-based pairing program available. Depending on the charge, it may make more sense for the active TDs to continue using a non-internet pairing program (I’m doing 22 weekend events and 6 club events in 2012, all but three of which had me handling the computer work). The pairing programs are also usable for non-USCF-rated events (such as 5 of the weekend events and one club event I did this year), so an internet option may want to address that as well.

As a historical aside, a dedicated back room person with a dedicated runner to the scoring table was often (at least in my case) able to finish the pairings as soon after the end of a round as a TD using a pairing program could (although the TD with the pairing program could have also been on the floor to address questions and issues and only switch to doing pairings once the section was over). The printing of the board-by-board pairings might take about the same amount of time.
The tie-break calculations, alphabetical pairings, cross-table updates and reduced staff needs are what actually caused the pairing programs to become virtually a necessity to run an event (I know that if I didn’t have WinTD to use then I wouldn’t want to be the sole TD of a 230-player two-section HS event like the one I did on 11/17).

So far the bonuses attributed to the use of an internet-based program don’t seem to have that level of improvement, so acceptance will take longer unless more benefits can be added.

13

A classic example of the old maxim that just because something is possible, that doesn’t make it desirable.

14

I’ll slightly disagree and say that it would be desirable for some people (maybe a start-up club that was hesitant to invest in a pairing program for $90). It would need to be desirable to a lot of people before it would be accepted. If I was to use an internet option the cost would have to be under $2 per tournament, and probably under $0.50 per tournament, before it would make financial sense for me to use it instead of WinTD. Seeing the site of some events, the additional cost of constant internet access (especially for a hotel site) might be way more than the cost of WinTD.

15

Isn’t how to adapt shutters into pairing card holders required on the NTD test?? :smiley: :smiley: :laughing:

16

Moderator Mode: Off

These are concepts, ideas. You know, they do need to be developed.

Really there is no reason for the limitations you fellows cite here. Extra games can be added the same as they currently are with SwissSys and WinTD. And yes, it can also allow people to play before their memberships are paid and all that jazz. And yes, this subscription tournament administrative program on the internet can also run unrated tournaments and keep club lists the same as SwissSys and WinTD currently do. Sure, there is a need for backups. But there currently is with the software programs. The benefit would be that any device or operating system that can open a browser window would be able to be used to run a tournament.

In fact, this would be the same as having Thad Suits put SwissSys on the internet as a subscription service with all the benefits of the current SwissSys program and a few more. For instance, there would be no need to download membership databases as the program would simply go directly to MSA as it currently does with the database in the program.

I know you guys are really coming up with “reasons” why this won’t work, but then and again progress isn’t always readily accepted.

There certainly are and will be benefits for this option. Sure, it should not be mandated that all TDs must use it, but it sure would be a nice alternative to the current tournament administrative programs and systems.

17

Although it was somewhat common, I never did that. I didn’t like the risk involved with making it possible for any player (or kindergartener) to take a pairing card and thus unilaterally pull a player from the event.

Another thing I never did was Todd Barre’s spectacular color-coded manually maintained wall charts (different colors for wins, draws and losses to make it easier to understand how you were doing).

People did say that my laying out of the pairing cards looked like the dealing of a Mississippi riverboat gambler.
Doing a seven round scholastic tournament with multiple hundreds of players and multiple sections did require dedicating a TD to just maintaining the pairing cards, marking the results on them as each game finished, and doing partial pairings as each score group finished just so it would be down to just a handful of boards to pair when the last game was done.
Besides a TD dedicately solely to pairing you had to add a team of a half-dozen or so mothers before the start of the event creating the initial cards (and putting little round variously-colored stickers with additional codes to differentiate the teams), and two people near the end of each round to help write down the board-by-board pairings.
In many ways a small section was harder to manually pair than a larger one, and my most difficult may have been a 50-player K-3 section in 1985 (state K-8 championship organized in Peoria by Lou Betts with the first ever state K-3 section) with 25 of the 50 players from one school (most of them in the lower half in strength). I paired all seven rounds with reasonable pairings and didn’t pair anyone on that team against a teammate more than twice in those seven rounds. That was probably better than even pairing programs can do since they would most likely give some of those players three or four teammates as opponents.

P.S. Sometimes when talking about the future it gives a little perspective to return for a moment to the past.

18

There are indeed some “lost arts” now that most TDs don’t use pairing cards.

For example, whenever I paired two players from different score groups (e.g. lowest 2-1 vs highest 1.5) I would write a down-arrow on the former’s card, and an up-arrow on the latter’s, next to the round number to remind myself in future rounds that each of these players has been paired outside his score group.

That would allow me, for example, to avoid pairing the same player up (or down) in two consecutive rounds.

It was of little practical use, however. Usually, when players were paired outside their score group, the pairing vindicated itself (i.e. the higher-rated lower-scoring player would defeat the lower-rated higher-scoring opponent) so it was not necessary to avoid pairing the same player(s) out of their score group again.

Still, it was nice to know.

Bill Smythe

19

I didn’t think that I said it wouldn’t work. I did provide a number of issues to be addressed. You’ve started addressing them.

I kind of thought that it would be better to mention issues during the design phase than to go forward blindly and wait until the work has already been done before discovering that changes are needed (and at a time when it will be much harder to incorporate them).

I also mentioned the financial aspect concerning how much some people might be willing to pay and what other costs might be involved. It rarely makes sense to build something that never returns anywhere close to the amount spent to build it (barring, of course, other organizational reasons for doing so - the forums and the original MSA being a couple of examples - there is no revenue to match the expense, but the promotional possibilities trump costs in their case and that might also be true with your suggestion).

My 12/8, 11/17, 11/10 and 9/22 tournaments did not have an available robust internet connection (also true of all of my club events). I do not have a cellphone that is internet capable, nor a data plan for one, so that would be an additional expense (and I generally have a half dozen events each year where the only good cellphone coverage is found by leaving the building the tournament is in). On top of that I have had WinTD for a long time and even incorporating any update charges I have spent what amortises out to under $1 per tournament.
On the other hand, if an organization does only occasional events (1 or 2 per year) and has a good internet connection then it might be a viable option even at $5-$10 per event.
The possible need for an on-site pairing program backup would reduce the attractiveness of paying for an on-line program.

20

If USCF wants to come up with an online alternative to other pairing softwares currently available, I have no objection.

But, at least for today, the cloud isn’t as reliable or omnipresent as many people (especially wireless carriers) would have you think. I’ve been in plenty of places which offered wi-fi that either didn’t work at all, or was so painfully slow, it might as well not have. I’ve been in plenty of places where in theory I should have had a signal with my wireless device, but didn’t. I’ve been in plenty of places where there simply is no signal, period.

Although I wouldn’t be as proficient as some others at pairing tournaments by hand, I peridocially practice and always carry some blank index cards as a back up, just in case. Anyone wanting to go with a cloud-based pairing solution will need a backup plan too, and I’m sure they’ll use it a lot more often than I’ve had to use mine. Each will need to decide for themselves whether having to use two different systems (primary and backup) is worth the expense and trouble of keeping up with both.

It doesn’t hurt to look ahead, and maybe someday everything will in fact move to the cloud, but today is not that day.