Unrated Prize Lmits

Running Chess Tournaments
1

I’ve been participating in an email discussion regarding the distribution of prizes where one of the prizewinners is subject to a limited prize (usually because he/she is unrated).

For the following “hypothetical tournament,” I’m curious to see if there is a “consensus” on how the prizes would be correctly distributed.

                 6-SS, UNDER "X" SECTION:
                1st - $1,440   2nd - $720    3rd - $400    4th - $240  

                (No unrated may win over $600)

Scenario # 1

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 6-0

  2. Almost As Good (Rated Under “X”) 5-1

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  5. Also Ran (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  6. Don’t Forget Me (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  7. Don’t Forget Me (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  8. Don’t Forget Me (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  9. Don’t Forget Me (D) (Unrated) 4-2

Scenario # 2:

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 6-0

  2. Almost As Good (Unrated) 5-1

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  5. Also Ran (C) (Unrated) 4½-½

  6. Don’t Forget Me (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  7. Don’t Forget Me (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  8. Don’t Forget Me (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  9. Don’t Forget Me (D) (Unrated) 4-2

Scenario # 3

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 6-0

  2. Almost As Good (Unrated) 5-1

  3. Oh So Close (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  4. Don’t Forget Me (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  5. Don’t Forget Me (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  6. Don’t Forget Me (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  7. Don’t Forget Me (D) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  8. Don’t Forget Me (E) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  9. Don’t Forget Me (F) (Unrated) 4-2

FWIW, the SwisSys prize calculation function correctly deducts the prize from the restricted (Unrated) player, but it then holds onto the prize for itself, instead of redistributing the remaining amount.

2

Here’s how I’d divide the prizes:

Scenario #1:

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 6-0 $600

  2. Almost As Good (Rated Under “X”) 5-1 $1440

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $253.34

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $253.34

  5. Also Ran (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $253.34

Scenario #2:

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 6-0 $600

  2. Almost As Good (Unrated) 5-1 $600

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $533.34

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $533.34

  5. Also Ran (C) (Unrated) 4½-½ $533.34

Scenario #3:

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 6-0 $600

  2. Almost As Good (Unrated) 5-1 $600

  3. Oh So Close (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $1440

  4. Don’t Forget Me (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2 $26.67

  5. Don’t Forget Me (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2 $26.67

  6. Don’t Forget Me (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2 $26.67

  7. Don’t Forget Me (D) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2 $26.67

  8. Don’t Forget Me (E) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2 $26.67

  9. Don’t Forget Me (F) (Unrated) 4-2 $26.67

Let me guess: “Almost As Good” thinks he’s entitled to $1,560 in Scenario #1, i.e. more than the announced first prize.

If this is a CCA tournament, I think the TLA usually says “balance goes to next player(s) in line”, suggesting that the difference between the 1st prize and the unrated prize limit can go to more than one player and doesn’t necessarily go entirely to the player who finishes second.

3

I came close to Bob. In the third, I have 3rd place getting $1360 (1st+2nd+3rd-$1200) and 4-9 getting $40 each (4th place).

4

I like your answer better. The top three players shouldn’t get more than $2,560 between the three of them, regardless of how many of them are unrated. I was thinking that the highest rated player would be promoted to 1st place and win that prize, but that only works if there’s enough money in the prize pool.

Edit: I meant that I was thinking that the highest-scoring rated player would be promoted to 1st place.

5

Huh. I operated from a different assumption: That each unrated player would receive his due place prize, up to his limit, and the rest of the money from that prize would be evenly distributed among the remaining place prizes. Thus:

Scenario 1
UP - $600 ($840 left in prize, so $280 added to each remaining place prize)
AAG - $1,000 ($720 + $280)
ARA - $400 (one-third of [$400 + $280] + [$240 + $280] )
ARB - $400
ARC - $400

Scenario 2
UP - $600 ($840 left in prize, so $280 added to each remaining place prize)
AAG - $600 ($400 left in prize, so $200 added to each remaining place prize)
ARA - $533.34 (one-third of [$400 + $280 + $200] + [$240 + $280 + $200] )
ARB - $533.34
ARC - $533.34

Scenario 3
UP - $600 ($840 left in prize, so $280 added to each remaining place prize)
AAG - $600 ($400 left in prize, so $200 added to each remaining place prize)
OSC - $880 ($400 + $280 + $200)
DFMA thru DFMF - $120 (one-sixth of $240 + $280 + $200)

I was unable to find any guidance in the rulebook, so if an organizer is going to set an unrated prize limit, he’s pretty much obliged to announce what he’s going to do with the leftover money, isn’t he? If the announced rule is, “Balance goes to next player(s) in line,” then AAG would get $1,560 in scenario 1, wouldn’t he? I find nothing in the rules that says he can’t receive more than the announced first prize – if it’s been announced that the balance devolves onto him. But the result of that decision is, IMO, a good argument for spreading the balance out among all the remaining place prizes, rather than just giving it all to the next guy.

Afterthought: The balance could also be proportionally distributed among the remaining place prizes, which would be fairer but would make the math more time-consuming and error-prone.

6

This would have been my answer (unless there was a different specific method announced in advance of the tournament).

7

It seems to me that any of these prize divisions would be allowable under the new USCF rule 32C6.

However, consider this scenario:

Scenario # 4

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 5½-½

  2. Just As Good (Rated Under “X”) 5½-½

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  5. Also Ran (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½

  6. Don’t Forget Me (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  7. Don’t Forget Me (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  8. Don’t Forget Me (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4-2

  9. Don’t Forget Me (D) (Unrated) 4-2

If Unknown Powerhouse were rated under “X”, UP and JAG would each get $1,080. Since UP is unrated his prize is limited to $600, so there is an additional $480 to be awarded to some other player or players. According to rule 32C6 the prize should be awarded within the point group in which the limit was awarded, which means that the entire $480 should go to JAG, giving him a prize of $1,560, which is more than the 1st prize.

I don’t think JAG should be allowed to win more money than he could have won if the unrated player weren’t in the tournament. My preferred distribution would be:

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 5½-½ $600

  2. Just As Good (Rated Under “X”) 5½-½ $1,440

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $253.34

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $253.34

  5. Also Ran (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $253.34

The distribution required by rule 32C6 is:

  1. Unknown Powerhouse (Unrated) 5½-½ $600

  2. Just As Good (Rated Under “X”) 5½-½ $1,560

  3. Also Ran (A) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $213.34

  4. Also Ran (B) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $213.34

  5. Also Ran (C) (Rated Under “X”) 4½-½ $213.34

I would amend rule 32C6 to add:

Any money left unawarded in a point group should be awarded in the next lower point group.

No player can win more money than he or she would have won if the unrated player(s) were not included in the prize distribution.

8

I disagree with the idea of dividing the balance among the remaining place prizes, either evenly or proportionally. In my opinion the prize should go to the next player(s) in line. In Steve Immitt’s Scenario #1, “Almost As Good” would presumably have won the section if “Unknown Powerhouse” hasn’t entered it. “Almost As Good” should get the full first prize of $1,440 - but no more than that.

9

But that’s just an arbitrary, made-up limitation unless and until your amendment is adopted. Then again, my decision to distribute the balance among multiple place prizes is also arbitrary and made-up. :slight_smile:

Under the new 32C6, all extra prize money distributions are being distributed within the (1) event, (2) section and (3) prize group in all of our proposed solutions – and in none of them is it being distributed within the (4) point group, because there’s no other player in the point group. So 32C6 offers us no real guidance in these scenarios either.

10

I agree, and I think that’s a problem. The prize distribution rules should be clear and unambiguous, so that every TD will distribute prizes the same way (unless a different distribution rule is announced in advance). Otherwise a TD could be accused of favoritism, distributing the prizes in a way that gives more money to players that he likes.

11

That’s way too simplistic a way of looking at things. Following the same argument, the third place finisher “should” have been second, the 4th “should” have been 3rd, etc.

If all the “extra” money ends up going to the second place finisher, what does this do for the lower finishers?

Splitting the extra money equally among the lower prizes would be adding too much to the lowest prizes, but having the money all lumped into the second place prize would go too far the other way. Proportional to the amount of the prize seems “just right” to me.

:slight_smile: Maybe the money should be split among the top finishers that lost a point having to play against the unrated player – they’re the players who were really “injured”.

12

There is still 32B1 limiting a player to at most one cash prize (an entire prize, two halves of prizes, three thirds, etc.). That can be used to argue that you can’t get more than the first place prize. On the other hand, it can also be argued that the $1440 first place prize was augmented and $1560 is is still only one prize. Since the augmentation is taking place during the prize division, that argument can be argued against (old curse - may you have interesting prize calculations).

13

I think the distribution outlined by KeithAmman is the clearest and fairest way pay out the prizes. This would be what the other players would expect and calculate while waiting for their prize. The money should be divided evenly among the rest of the eligible place prize winners. More players leave happy and are likely to come back to an organizer’s event.

What I do not particularly like is how the CCA often distributes U-X000 prizes in its class sections and opens. After looking at the World Open U2400 section it appears that, after the about 25% necessary reduction of all prizes, the 1st U2300 prize was carried upward among the place prizes giving a bunch of 2300+ players more money than they deserved to get. That meant that the rest to the 2200s that tied for the 2nd U2300 prize got a much lower amount than they deserved. This likely occurred in other class sections.

This also happened at the Pittsburgh Open. A 2200+ tied with two GMs for first place. Had he shared in only the place prizes, he would have received around $850 , an amount that exceeded the 1st U2300 prize of $600. What was done was to add this prize to 1st and 2d prizes, which allowed the GMs to get an extra $100+. The third and fourth prizes were now diviied up giving some 2300s more money than they thought they were going to get. The two 2200s who tied for the remaining U2300 received only about $150 rather than the $450 they should have gotten if the 1st and 2nd U2300 prizes were combined and split. With a prize distribution system that penalizes players in the lower half of class sections, or funnels class prize money upward to GMs at the expense of class prize winners, I must wonder why any class player from E to Master plays in these large events. I don’t believe this method of distributing prizes conforms to the Rulebook and is certainly unfair to players who spend hundreds, even thousands, to attend these events.

14

I think simplicity is a virtue in this case. Philosophical arguments aside, it’s easier and less error-prone to pay the extra money to the next player(s) in line than to divide it proportionally among the remaining prizes. On the other hand, giving the entire amount to a single player, giving him more money than the initial first prize, would be taking simplicity too far. IMO my proposed amendment would strike the right balance between simplicity and fairness.

15

When I was learning to direct tournaments, a TD/organizer explained that prizes should be distributed to maximize the number of prize winners and the size of the prizes for lower rated players. Since lower rated players make up the bulk of a tournament entry, a prize distribution should be set up which gives the lower rated a fair shot at prizes. They also should get the maximum amount to which they are eligible. If the class prize is more than the place prize they get the class prize. If the place prize or ties for the place prizes give the class player more, he shares in the place prizes. The class prize(s) are then given to the remaining very happy class players. The operative “rule” is to make sure to take care that the class players do not feel they were cheated. If that happens, your future tournaments will have smaller entries. BTW, he always rounded up to give players more. For example, a prize of $133.33 would become $134 or $135. He felt that handing out pennies was almost insulting.

I have seen organizers pocket extra money when their based on entries numbers are exceeded rather than figure out ways to increase the number of prizes. When an organizer pays out more, the players are usually amazed and find ways to come back to that organizer’s tournament. When an organizer continually cuts his prizes or distributes them in an odd way, he shouldn’t be surprised when fewer players come back.

16

The prizes in the World Open 2400 section were distributed correctly according to the USCF rulebook.

In the World Open U2400 section the projected prizes prizes were: $18,000-9000-5000-2500-1300-1000-900-800-600-500, Top U2300 2000-1000. Because of the relatively low turnout this year approximately 77% of each prize was paid.

Ostrovskiy and Perez (each rated over 2300) scored 7.5 and split the top two prizes, winning $10,410.50 each. Adamson (2388), Adu (2382) and Dominguez (2280) each scored 7. Dominiguez was eligible for both the 1st U2300 prize and a share of 3rd-5th, but could only win one prize. If he had been awarded the 1st U2300 prize he’d have won $1,542.30 ($2,000 before the prize reduction) and Adamson and Adu would each have won $2,891.80 ($3,750 before the reduction). Instead, following USCF rule 32B3, the players with 7 points were put into a prize pool, with each player contributing one prize to the pool and the money being divided evenly among the players in the pool. Adamson and Adu brought in the 3rd and 4th prizes, totalling $7,500 before the reduction, and Dominguez brought in the 1st U2300 prize, $2,000 before the reduction. The total of $9,500 was split three ways and reduced for the based on, resulting in each player getting $2,442.

Apparently what you think should have happened was that Adamson, Adu, and Dominguez should have split the 3rd-5th prizes, winning $2,262.03 each, and the 1st U2300 prize should have gone to other players rated under 2300 who scored fewer points than Dominguez did. IMO that would be less fair than the actual prize distribution, and it would also be contrary to rule 32B3.

Players have often asked me in similar situations how players rated over U2300 (Adamson and Dominguez in this case) can win part of a U2300 prize. My answer is that the players rated over U2300 didn’t win part of the U2300 prize, they won a bigger-than-one-third share of the place prizes. The player rated under 2300 (Dominguez in this case) won the U2300 prize plus a less-than-one-third share of the place prizes.

Rule 32B3 does appear to be a source of confusion to some people, but I think it’s the fairest way to divide the prize money and the rule should not be changed.

17

How would you have paid the prizes in your examples, so that it would agree with the rules?

18

A place prize is looked on as higher than a class prize. Yes, the three players should have shared the 3rd through 5th prize. $2260 is greater than the $1500 1st U2300 prize. By rule, the 2200 is to be awarded the more “valuable” of the prizes. By bringing this class prize up, you are allowing non-class players to win more money than they were entitled to. This meant that the multiple 2200s who were left shared only the piddling small 2nd U2300 prize rather than splitting the 1st and 2nd u2300. This cost each of them around $300 in prize money, the equivalent of the advance entry fee. I see no reason for these players to feel that they were done anything but dirt by this distribution. This variation of the rule is heavily biased against the players in the lower half of a class category.

If the interpretation of the rule hurts lower rated players as badly as it does here, it won’t surprise me to see even fewer players at next year’s World Open or in other CCA events. Why spend so much money and fight so hard and then see the prize money that you earned funneled upward?

19

Rule 32B3 actually benefits the class player who has a great tournament, because it rewards him by being in a tie for the large place prizes. Even if some of the money also goes to players rated over 2300, the players Under 2300 who are having a great tournament also get more money that way. It’s also true that the class players who have more points will thereby win more money than the class players who have fewer points:

32B3. Ties for more than one prize. If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied players unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner. For examples see 32B5, Offering a choice of prizes.

Also note that this is not a variation, it’s the USCF Rule.

20

Only if the prizes are for the same amount of money. In this case the 1st U2300 prize was $1,542.30 ($2000 before the reduction) and the 5th prize was $1002.49 ($1300 before the reduction) so Dominguez brought $1,542.30 into the prize pool instead of $1002.49.

Apparently what’s confusing you, and other players who have complained about this, is the fact that an “under” prize in this section was higher than a place prize. Rule 33B warns that this can cause “distribution problems” but doesn’t prohibit it. “Generally, place prizes should be higher than class prizes, both to reward the relative excellence of the chess played and to avoid distribution problems. In major tournaments, the top prizes for classes or rating-based lower sections are often higher than the lower place prizes …”

You’re comparing the $2260 that Dominguez would have won after your proposed prize division with the $1500 he would have won if he had been given just the 1st U2300 prize. That’s not correct. The question is how much money he should bring into the prize pool before the three-way split. Adamson and Adu brought in the 3rd prize ($3855.74) and 4th prize ($1927.87), leaving Dominguez to bring in either the 5th prize ($1002.49) or the 1st U2300 prize ($1542.30). The rule is that he should bring in the higher amount of money, not that he should bring in the place prize regardless of how small it is.

Not true. Adamson and Adu would have won more money if Dominguez had been awarded just the 1st U2300 prize that he was entitled to.

It didn’t cost them anything, because they weren’t entitled to that money. Dominguez, rated under 2300, scored more points than they did.