Unrateds and Under Prizes

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Can you give an Unrated an Under prize?

I did this in a monthly, week night, club tournament.

My reasons were:

  1. The Swiss Sys software told me to. Not verbally, but through the final standings chart. :wink:
  2. I couldn’t find language strong enough in 33F for me to overrule Swiss Sys.

After the tournament was over, I tried to learn if this was the right decision or if I had made a mistake.

I learned I had control over whether or not Swiss Sys would give the unrated players prizes. Using 1 as the minimum range keeps unrateds from getting the under prize, and using 0 as the minimum range allows unrateds to receive the under prize.

So, I realized I did make a mistake. I had unknowingly set Swiss Sys for a prize that should have been called U1800/Unrated. I had called it U1800.

Clearly, Swiss Sys allows Unrateds to receive Under prizes, and while 33F does not recommend this kind of prize, it does not forbid it.

I thought my situation would qualify as one of the times where an exception was not only allowable but the best course of action:

  1. The Unrated scored 1 full point better than the next eligible player.
  2. This was not the Unrated’s 1st tournament. He had a USCF live rating of ~1300 from 2 games.
  3. He had a club rating ~1300.
  4. His performance rating from the event was Under 1800.
  5. He was the only Unrated in a small club event where offering an Unrated prize was not realistic.
  6. It was not “a prize of value.”

However, I was told this violated rule 28D.

So, did I follow the spirit of 33F :smiley: or did I break 28D :blush: ?

2

The problem is if you advertised the prize as U1800. You can give the prize to an unrated, but it would need to be advertised as U1800/Unrated.

I don’t think it is good to look for exceptions based on the entries or results in the event. You should set the policy before the event starts and then keep it. Otherwise you’ll be having players asking for exceptions in all your future events. If you think he deserved something, you could always add a prize (probably a small trophy would be appropriate) as that would not effect the other players’ prizes. Adding prizes is the one thing that players never complain about.

The next eligible player(s) would be within their rights to file a complaint and receive the winnings that they are due.

3

No, you can not. Such prizes must be advertised specifically as (for instance) “top under 1200 or unrated, $20”.

You violated the rules.

What is a “USCF live” rating? Yes, I know you’re going to tell me that it is the player’s most recent rating from the MSA page. Normally, that rating is not valid for section eligibility or prizes. Some tournaments will explicitly state “most recent rating used if otherwise unrated.” Again, if you are going to do that, you must provide notice in advance.

As it is a small club and the prizes are not of great consequence, it is unlikely you will have complaints, so this is a case of “live and learn.”

4

If you had used 28D3 or 28D5 you would have been fine. It would have involved pairing the player as a 1300 as well (and making the player ineligible for an unrated prize).

5

Some tournaments in the Chicago area have announced (in pre-event publicity) that current monthly ratings or live ratings, whichever is higher, will be used for section eligibility, pairing, and prize purposes.

Bill Smythe

6

I agree with most of this answer, but I disagree with Ken’s statement that “if you’re going to do that, you must provide notice in advance” (in order to use the most recent rating from MSA if a player is otherwise unrated). As I see it, a director can use rule 28D to assign a rating to an unrated player whether or not the use of this rule has been advertised in advance. It’s a rule, not a variation. Here is the text of the rule, along with 28D3 which is relevant in this case:

I think the latest rating shown on MSA qualifies as being a “printout” rating for the purposes of rule 28D3. Notice, though, that the rating has to be based on at least four games, while in Triumph’s event the unrated player’s MSA rating was based on only two games, so it shouldn’t have been used for prize purposes. Also, the rating should have been assigned at the start of the tournament, not at the end when prizes were being paid.

7

The problem with using 28D5 (Assignments based on nonrated activity) is the statement in the rule that “Directors may assign ratings (28E), but they should not be under 2200 if this would make the player eligible for a class prize.”

8

The only way SwissSys told you to do this is if you incorrectly defined the U1800 eligible range as from 0-1799. The correct definition is 1-1799, and would have yielded correct results.

This comment supplements Ken Ballou’s analysis, with which I agree in full.

9

The prizes were advertised: “Prizes: Cash based on entries.”

Since it is a monthly tournament (1 round per night), late entries happen often. So, I try to get the prizes posted after the 2nd round to avoid my bias in setting the Under prizes based on the final results yet still include late entries.

Thanks for your response!

10

It did not look like I could have assigned this player a rating since his playing level was so low and he only had 2 USCF games.

11

It sounds to me like you are saying, “Yes, Unrateds can receive Under prizes, as long as it is advertised in advance.”

My problem is that neither 28D or 33F mention this pre-advertised exception.

It makes me wonder, “Can any and every USCF rule be violated by using this pre-advertisement exception?”

12

Yep.

13

No, please kindly read LITERALLY AND EXACTLY WHAT I WRITE.

You may not award an “under prize” to an unrated player unless the prize description includes the words “or unrated”.

If the prize is described as “Top U1800, $20”, then an unrated player is NOT eligible for this prize. If the prize is described as “Top U1800 or unrated, $20”, then an unrated player IS eligible for this prize.

“Top under 1800” means both the player has a rating and that rating is numerically less than 1800. An unrated player is exactly that: unrated. An unrated player does not have a rating. Many players (and some directors, regrettably) believe that an unrated player has a rating of zero. This is incorrect.

Each under prize for which unrated players are eligible must be so labeled. If you have under prizes for U1800, U1600, and U1400, and you want unrated players to be eligible for all of them, you must write “top U1800 or unrated, $20; top U1600 or unrated, $15; top U1400 or unrated, $10”. A common abbreviation is “/unr”, such as: “U1400/unr, $10”. However, if you were to write “U1800, $20; U1600, $15; U1400/unr, $10”, you would then be stating that an unrated player is eligible to win the $10 U1400/unrated prize, but not the U1600 or U1800 prize.

Even if your pre-tournament publicity states “Prizes: cash based on entries” (essentially saying the prize fund is undetermined and will be specified later), when you set your under prizes, you must explicitly state as above exactly for which prizes unrated are eligible.

14

And, unfortunately, that’s a fairly common practice. It’s exactly backwards, if you ask me. Sometimes I think “D-E-unrated” has become a single hyphenated word in the vocabulary of some chess organizers.

If unrateds are to be eligible for some class prizes but not others, IMHO you should make them eligible for the higher classes instead of the lower ones. For example “U1800/unr, $20; U1600, $15; U1400, $10”.

When unrateds are eligible for the lower class prizes (especially U1200/unr or U1000/unr), it’s a pretty good bet that these prizes will be won by an unrated, so that in effect you are not awarding an U1200 or U1000 prize at all.

Don’t forget, “unrated” doesn’t mean “unskilled” or “weak”. It means “unmeasured”. You have no idea where they belong in the spectrum.

Bill Smythe

15

This requirement for precision and completeness bears noting. I played once in a Goichberg event with many sections. I played in an under section, I think U-2000. In this tournament every under section had a provision that unrated players could only win a certain amount and that the remainder would go to the next player in line. Except they accidently failed to put that provision in the ad for my section. Predictably, an unrated player of roughly master strength dominated my section (giving up a GM draw to me in the last round). Since it hadn’t been so advertised Goichberg had to give him the 1st place money, and the players who finished tied for second did not get the extra they would have been entitled to if the error hadn’t occurred. It wasn’t completely fair, and I did complain to Bill about it (rather vociferously), but he correctly noted that he shouldn’t have to take a loss paying out more than he actually advertised. He graciously gave me a coupon for a future event, which I have not had the opportunity to redeem yet. He didn’t have to do even that. What he did have to do was honor what he advertised, which he did. If he had attempted not to pay out the full amount to the unrated player, the player would have had a valid grievance. Stuff happens.

16

Well, not exactly.

It still has to be chess. You would certainly not be allowed to post a variation that rooks are allowed to move diagonally.

Bill Smythe

17

These days, it is especially important to note the meaning of “unmeasured in this particular rating system.” Quite some years ago, “unrated” may have generally meant “weak” or “unskilled.” In those days, rated over the board USCF tournament play was more or less the only effective route to improvement. These days, that simply isn’t true, much to the consternation of those who might accuse such individuals of violating some sort of nonexistent “loyalty oath.” “No idea” is exactly the right assessment to presume of the unmeasured player’s skill.

18

You should note that you are not violating rules by clearly and explicitly labeling those prizes for which unrated players are eligible. You are complying with the rules.

19

You do seem to be saying here, Ken, that it’s not necessary to include in publicity that you’re combining under and unrated prizes. Are you? I was with you all the way until this last statement. It seems to contradict an earlier statement:

When there is publicity, I believe this kind of prize combination is required to be in it. If the club event is so small as not to have any written or online publicity, then I can accept announcement before the first round being enough, maybe . Section 33 of the book is notes and recommendations not rules and mandates. Section 28 is the Swiss System pairings and procedures. Since Section 33 says it’s not rules that makes Section 28 seem more like rules to be followed to me. If an organizer or TD chooses to stray from the 28D rule on unrateds and follow some notes or recommendations (which actually recommend not combining class and unrated prizes) or interpreted “spirit of 33F,” then that to me is clearly a variation from Swiss System rules (23D). These kinds of variations are discussed in the 33 notes/recommendations section so that when planning an event, organizers may decide whether there is anything they’re planning that needs to be included in publicity. Combining class (similar to an under) prize eligibility with an unrated eligibility is most definitely a variation from Swiss System rules and one that is being recommended against.

Then the question becomes is the variation major enough to be required to be in publicity. If the fact that the recommendations in 33F are against it isn’t enough to convince the organizer that it’s major enough to include in publicity (that would be enough for most), then how about members of the club expressing dissatisfaction with the practice and the TD’s refusal to accept guidance from multiple more experienced, higher certified colleagues? At least one player is complaining and she represents a family of paid supporting members. See 26A below. This practice is at least in part what’s deterring us from entering our club’s events. We’re currently driving to the next city to play on club nights (where we’re also members). But the City Championship is coming soon and I’d really like to see some resolution to this issue and agreement from the organizer or at least inclusion in the publicity if they’re going to vary the treatment of unrateds for prizes.

26. VARIATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS 26A. Notification. Any variations from these published standards, including variations discussed in this rulebook, should be posted and/ or announced at the tournament prior to their use, preferably before the first round. 26B. Major variations. A variation sufficiently major that it might reasonably be expected to deter some players from entering should be mentioned in any Chess Life announcement and all other detailed pre-tournament publicity and posted and/ or announced at the tournament.

U.S. Chess Federation (2014-06-10). United States Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess, Sixth Edition (Kindle Location 2309). Diversified Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I really don’t see the big deal about an unrated player not having under prize eligibility in an extremely affordable and small club event for maybe 5 weeks. One would pay a measly $10 and get 4-5 long regular rated games for his money. That’s a lot for your money these days even if full prize eligibility isn’t attained until the following month. Let the unrated play for free his first month as a solution if the organizer feels like it’s not right to charge him $10 with little chance of a prize. It’s just not right for an unrated play to come in and take the Under 1800 prize from faithful club players in my humble opinion and the rules seem to back that opinion up.

What’s worse is when your local highest certified TD sets a bad example by ignoring the rule also. You get a whole duck row of new club TDs doing it too.

The problem is organizers don’t want to put this variation in publicity because they know it may keep some lower rated players from playing. Not likely in club events because the low rated are just kind of used to being “passed” (not what I’m thinking) over.

20

What Ken is saying is that if you are announcing your prize structure in advance advertising you must follow what you advertised; you can’t decide later that unrateds are eligible for under prizes if you advertised simple Under xxxx prize.

If you advertised “per entries” (i.e. undetermined), that’s OK, but once you post the prizes the same situation exists.

I see no contradiction between Ken’s statements you quoted. The second quote does not make “per entries” illegal.