The way the rule is worded leaves it unclear how to distribute the prizes. CCA has interpreted one way, many other organizers would interpret it another. I have seen only CCA operate this way in distributing prizes. It has created its own variation on the rule. The Rulebook gives no on point example of how to distribute the class prizes or UX000 in the situation as occurs at the World Open to give guidance. CCA is doing what it wants with the rule, but that doesn’t make the interpretation correct or equitable to the players. What is bad is that others look at what CCA does and thinks that is the correct way when it is debatable at best.
Dominguez should not be bringing up any U2300 prize into the place prize pool. He and the 2300s should have shared only 3rd through 5th place. The sharing of these three prizes would have given D. more than the $1500 1st U2300 prize. The 2300’s get whatever share of the place prizes they are entitled too, but no more. The U2300 class prizes then should be split among the eligible U2300. The goal is always to max out the number of and size of the prizes for all, not just some, of the class players.
Why are there U2300, U2100, U1900, etc. class prizes in these tournaments? Certainly these prizes exist to draw more players in from the lower rating part of the class. It incentivizes them to play. They know their that chances, if the rating system works, of winning a class prize ahead of those at the top of the rating class is slim. As an organizer, you have to give these players at least some hope that they can win a big prize. Under the prize distribution system that is presently being used, the lower rating class players are being disadvantaged even though they often make up more than 50% of the entrants in each of the classes in this style of tournament. It is obvious that CCA has tried to draw in these players by creating U2100, U1900, U1700, etc. sections in other tournaments rather than go by straight 200 point rating categories.
I am sorry, but you are simply incorrect. Bob Messenger’s explanation of how the prizes should be allocated is flawless. This is not some CCA variant; it is how the Official Rules of Chess, 5th Edition, specify the prizes should be allocated. Any organizer who would come up with a different allocation would be wrong, plain and simple.
I agree. Bob explained this very thoroughly and in much better detail than I would have. Quite simply: he’s right. The top U2300 brings up the U2300 prize (the highest prize he would be entitled to) into the pool. He’s an under 2300 player, so it’s not only fair, it’s REQUIRED under the rules.
It also seems to me that it’s the FAIREST way to distribute the prizes (and that’s WHY it’s the rule). It results in the best U2300 player getting more money. The second of the U2300 players doesn’t deserve a share of the top U2300 prize because he’s NOT THE TOP U2300 player!
But even if you disagree with me on the “fairness” issue, it’s a rule – Period. No leeway. Any other distribution is against the rules.
Can you specify anyone else who would really do this?
If you paid these players the prizes based on splitting (3rd prize ($3855.74) + 4th prize ($1927.87) + 5th prize ($1002.49))/3 instead of (3rd prize ($3855.74) + 4th prize ($1927.87) + Under 2300 ($1,542.30 ))/3, and any of those three players appealed your distribution method to the USCF Rules Committee, you would lose the appeal, and you would still have to pay each of those three players the additional amount which you instead donated to the Under 2300 players who tied for 2nd Under 2300.
Have you distributed the prizes in these types of ties in the tournaments you’ve directed, in the way you’ve described above? If so, has anyone complained about this method?
I have been in the following situations as a tournament player.
Incident 1
I tied for 2nd place with two masters in a state championship many years ago. The prizes were 1st $600 2nd 400 3rd 200 U2200 $100. Final standings were:
Master A 5-1
Master B 4.5-1.5
Master C 4.5-1.5
1900 4.5-1.5
Expert 4-2
Other Experts and A’s scored 3.5 or less. It was a brutal hard fought tournament.
I thought at the time that the prizes would be Master A $600 Master B, Master C, and I would each split the 2nd , 3rd and U2200 prizes and each get $233.33. This would be in accordance with Rule 32 and appears to be the way the World Open prizes are distributed. Instead, we each got $200 and the Expert received $100. When I asked the NTD who ran the tournament why we the tied players did not get more, I was told that the USCF interpreted prize distributions that way at national tournaments. That I was getting the bigger of two prizes; my $200 place prize was larger than the U2200 prize and that it was the more valuable. He said that it was optimal for more players to receive prizes than less. And that it was not fair for two masters to share in an expert prize. Therefore, by rule I was not to get any more than $200. I let it go because it was an interpretation by an NTD. It may or not be relevant, but the NTD was good friends with the expert.
Are you sure it was an U2200 prize and not an Expert prize? I’ve always used Under prizes because of situations like this, but in the east they typically used class prizes.
Incident 2
A friend of mine who was a TD asked me if I would come to his event at his local fire hall. He felt that having a master there would add cachet to the tournament and draw some local players to test themselves against me. It worked and he had a good turnout. Going into the last round the following players were on top:
Master 3
1890 2.5
1850 2.5
1830 2.5
I drew with the 1890. The other two A’s had drawn with each other in the previous round and were paired down with the next score group. Each of them won.
Final score
Master 3.5
1850 3.5
1830 3.5
1890 3
The prizes were 1st $120 2nd $60 U1900 $60. The TD at first wanted to give each of us who tied for 1st place only $60 and give the 1890 rated player the U1900 prize of $60. Another TD/player who was present said he could not do that. The Rulebook required that 1st , 2nd , and the U1900 had to be combined to maximize the payout for the 1830 and 1850 players. Each of us would now get $80. As I had a vested interest in the outcome, I sat back and watched to see what the TD would do. When he started to pay us $80 a big argument ensued. The 1890 and a number of his friends accused the TD of being biased and cheating players out of prize money. They said that the master should not be sharing class prize money. It got pretty ugly for the TD. Later I found out that the 1890 was a volunteer firefighter. He complained about the incident to his chief who subsequently refused to allow the chess club to hold events at the fire hall and would not let them to have their club nights there as well.
I am more than a little interested in how class players feel that the prize rules are implemented based on experience. The Rulebook has no examples that are on point in how to deal with UX000 prize. I believe that Rule 32 should be made more clear with hard cases examined rather than the simple ones that are given. There has been some discussion on this topic in other threads. There was even one concerning whether computer programs figure out the prizes correctly. Which leads to a question: Are TD’s relying on the computer programs to determine prizes or are they determining prizes by hand?
Tom, the tournament was back in the 1970’s. It was one of the first times that I saw an U2200 prize rather than an Expert prize. I guess they wanted to experiment with having UX000 prizes. I do not know when these became more popular than regular class designations.
Let’s look at this from Dominguez’s point of view. The prizes are:
3rd = $3856
4th = $1928
5th = $1003
U2300 = $1542
If you were the U2300 player, would you rather have 5th or U2300 added to the 3rd place tie prizes? To add the 5th place prize rather than U2300 would give less money to the top U2300 player. He finished ahead of all of the other U2300 players but some think a smaller prize should be used anyway. The other U2300 players are not entitled to the bigger U2300 prize because they had less points than Dominguez. The 5th place prize would now by part of the prizes for those with a half point less. To do it as suggested above would give those tied for 2nd U2300 bigger prizes at Dominguez’s expense. Had the top U2300 prize not been bigger than 5th place I would have agreed with the above quoted statement.
There are three players tied for first and three prizes being offered. Two of the tied players are eligible for the under prize. Therefore, all the cash prizes are summed and divided equally among the tied winners, and each of those three players should get $80. Maximization of payout doesn’t even enter into it.
I think in both those instances the TDs got mixed up between the distribution of cash prizes and the distribution of non-cash prizes – in the latter case, for example, a place trophy winner can’t also receive a class trophy. Also, the NTD’s interpretation of prize maximization in incident 1 seems incorrect. The masters become eligible to share the U2200 prize when a 1900 player ties with them – unless the 1900 would win more money by receiving the U2200 prize alone than by sharing with the masters. Since this isn’t the case, all the cash prizes are summed and divided.
In Mr. Magar’s scenario 1, several things should be considered. First, the tournament was over thirty years ago. Rules have changed since then, and this one certainly may have, or been codified at all. Weren’t the first rule books a good deal thinner than the current one? Second, it was likely the NTD’s first (or one of his first) experience(s) with under prizes instead of class prizes. He may have messed up. I have yet to meet a perfect NTD. At one tournament I directed back when I was a local TD, they had under prizes but the organizer treated them as class prizes. He said “That’s the way we do things around here.” I was too inexperienced to argue further, and FWIW, none of the players complained. Third, the TD may have been biased. As little as we like to admit it, we all know it happens.
In scenario 2, it seems clear that the TD did distribute the prizes correctly (according to the fifth edition of the rule book) and players got mad. This happens as well, as we all know, and one rule that all players know is that “higher rated gets due color”. Admittedly the intersection between what is known and the facts is not the empty set, but it shows that you shouldn’t rely on players’ half remembered interpretations of the rules to make rulings by. It’s an unfortunate consequence that, as a result of the TD following the rules, the group lost a site, but a TD can’t be biased in favor of the deep pockets, otherwise Rex Sinquefield would be U.S. Champion. I don’t even think he wants that.
Looking at the 1977 edition of the rulebook, they don’t discuss under prizes under distribution, just class prizes. The most likely scenario is that the td just treated the under prize as his experience had been with class prizes. Later rulebooks clarified the correct distribution.
I have acquired all five editions of the Rulebook, plus the Harkness Bluebook and the Official Chess Rulebook.
The Bluebook has but one paragraph on prizes and it concerns ties for place prizes. The Official Chess Rulebook has no mention of how to distribute prizes. Somehow that important tidbit was omitted, I guess they assumed one had access to the Bluebook.
The first edition of the Official Rules of Chess with a USCF section was copyrighted in 1975, but was the 1974 edition of the rules as interpreted at the time. The section on prizes was brief. This section was reprinted without change in the second edition which came out in 1978. There are two interesting sections on prize distribution and ties:
“(3) Tied winners of of place prizes, or tied winners (in the same class) of class prizes, should be awarded all of the cash prizes involved, summed and divided equally, but no more than one cash prize (in order of amount) should go into the division for each winner.”
"(4) If winners of class prizes tie with winners of place prizes, all the cash prizes involved should be summed and divided equally among the tied winners, but no more than one cash prize (in order of amount) should go into the division for each winner.’
The examples accompanying the sections at the bottom of the page dealt with two and three digit place and class prizes and had nothing concerning U-X000 prizes. What is interesting is the bracketed phrase “(in order of amount)” It seems to imply that one can put both place and class prizes together and include a class prize which is higher than a place prize for the purposes of division. This important phrase was omitted in the 3rd edition (1987) and in subsequent editions of the Rulebook. I think that this phrase adds clarity to the prize distribution rule. Why it was dropped from the 3rd and later editions is a mystery which perhaps some older TDs might clear up.
The 3rd edition of the Rulebook as well as the 4th and 5th editions use the same simple prize distribution examples. Once again, there is no mention of UX000 prizes. All of the example use two and three digit cash prizes as examples for how to distribute prizes.
The advent of the UX000 prizes and the emergence of big money class tournaments with mini-class prizes embedded require IMO a new look at the rules on prizes and how they should be distributed. If class tournaments had only place prizes there would be no problem. However, what was a simple section of the rules becomes less clear when so much money is at stake for so many more players. I believe that the players in the World Open should have split just the three place prizes rather than funnel the class prize upward. Each player would receive a substantial prize, the class player receiving more than he would have had he been allotted only the U2300 prize. This would give the other class players a hope of making a big prize, too, as then they would be the U2300 prize winners while their successful colleague would be receiving a place prize. It is clear that big class tournament organizers want to draw as many players as possible to a tournament by offering the split half class prizes to give them a shot at a prize. The rule as written and interpreted today is decidedly disadvantageous to players in the lower half of a class. Organizers seem to have noticed this as they have offered different class splits in other tournaments to keep the bottom half class players coming to their events. I think that this rule on prize distribution for these large events need to change. I am well aware that some of the TD’s don’t care about class prizes or lower rated players getting a prize. However, if I were a big time organizer, and I had my “customers” thinking that they had no chance at all for a prize, I would be a little concerned that they might vote with their dollars and stop coming to the event. After all, the casinos in Atlantic City aren’t that far away.
Well aren’t we under the 5th edition? So whatever the rules were in past editions don’t matter for events today since the delegates have adopted different rules - some time ago?
And becides - ins’t the example that the class prize IS being pooled with the place prizes - and this is what you are objecting to? So are you saying since it has been in the rules this way since 1974, and all of the directors are responding with a yes we do it this way, that everyone else is wrong?
Or just that you think since prizes have been done this way for a long time and are consistently distributed this way that players are now going to stop playing is chess tournaments so they can go to the casino?
If you look at p192-194 in the fifth edition you will find that under prizes are discussed, as well as stating that the example would be different with class prizes (and what that difference would be. P188 also starts the mention of under prizes.
In the bygone days before the more recent rulebook editions you could see a number of strange prize awards. One was that a high-scoring class player might get a share of the place prizes that turned out to be less than what lower-scoring players in the class received from the class prizes. Another was a class player bringing in the class prize to the overall distribution and getting less than would have been received if the player has scored a half-point less and thus taken only the class prize due to missing out on the big overall tie. Then there were TDs who would distribute first place to the top score group and second place to the next score group, etc. regardless of how many players were in each score group.
It made for some “lovely” discussions, and later rulebooks eliminated the practices that led to such discussions.
The rulebook instead now lists prizes “in order of value”. In the second edition, what would happen if the third place prize was the same as the U2300 prize? It’s not stated. Now the rulebook states that the place prize has a higher “value”, so that would be included, and the U2300 prize would drop. This is important to lower scoring players under 2300.
