Wow, really? So you and Ken are both saying it’s okay to say “Cash based on entries” in publicity and then decide some time during the event, like midway, that an Under prize will be Under/Unrated as long as you decide that the first time you post/announce it at the event. So you are in effect saying this type of combo Unrated prize is not a major variation that needs to be in advance publicity? If that’s what’s being said, I’ll have to agree to disagree and be very disappointed with verdict. Triumph will be ecstatic. He loves when he’s right and people tell him so. I’ll have to hear it from the Rules Committee to make me believe it.
I still see a contradiction there too. He says “Such prizes must be advertised specifically”. Then he and you say no it’s ok if the prizes were advertised as undetermined then you don’t have to advertise such prize specifically?
Did you even consider my major variation argument?
I can’t understand how Messrs. Mulford and Ballou can possibly be wrong. If the organizer announces “Prizes based on entries”, then he’s under no obligation to offer any specific prizes at all. Granted a master would be upset if the only prizes were 1st U2000, 2nd U2000, and 3rd U2000, but I can’t see that he’d have any recourse.
Alex Relyea
Of course “prizes based on entries” will only fly for a low entry fee event anyway. No one will pay a large EF in the face of such ambiguity.
I can understand how you would say that, because you and Ballou and I think Mulford (because I think I met him and listened in while he explained ADMs at the USOpen) are a few of the responders I respect most on this forum.
I’m a nobody Local TD. I guess if I’m wrong that this is a major variation and violates
28D. Players without USCF ratings. Players without official USCF ratings are eligible only for place (or top non-class) prizes and prizes for unrated players unless alternate procedures are used to assign ratings (28E), such as the following recommendations:
U.S. Chess Federation (2014-06-10). United States Chess Federation’s Official Rules of Chess, Sixth Edition (Kindle Locations 2414-2416). Diversified Publishing. Kindle Edition.
unless included in publicity then I’ll have to admit I’m wrong. But I’m not convinced yet and probably won’t be unless someone makes the rulebook clearer. By the way, unless I misunderstood, I think Tim Just agreed with me in my facebook TD group.
With four chess players in the family, I pay an awful lot of money for playing chess. Call me cheap, but as a very low rated player I don’t like to feel like even my $5 entry fee is routinely a donation because at any event where prizes are undetermined, I can lose all chance of a small part of small prize because of unrated players’ being lumped in with the bottom under prize. I don’t like that. I think it has the potential to discourage low rated players from playing rated chess at all if it happens enough. If it’s not a violation of 28D (and I think it is), it should be.
I don’t think anyone has endorsed what Triumph did. It is legal to have a prize for under xxx/unrated. You cannot have a prize for under xxx and give it to an undated. Under xxx/undated is a legal practice, not dare, but in my view dubious for the reasons given above. And because it will discourage attendance from low rated players as you mention. Better to add an undated prize, even if only the EF back. Combined under/undated prizes are legal but stupid. You may quote me.
I get the feeling that Sherman thinks that the place/class prizes were in the advance publicity with unspecified dollar amounts, while Alex, Ken, etc. think that there weren’t even any place/class prizes in the advance publicity.
Thus Sherman would feel that you can’t change a U1800 $? prize in the advance publicity to a U1800/unr $x prize and Alex/Ken would feel that if no prize was ever specified in the advance publicity then creating a brand new U1800/unr $x prize would be fine.
OP says he advertised based on entries and posted an under prize which he gave to the undated.
Reread Ken’s first post. He explicitly says Triumph broke the rules. He posted a under prize and gave it to an undated. The aggrieved parties are entitled to the prize. If they ask for it and triumph doesn’t give it to them he should lose an appeal.
No. I know what the publicity said and I understand it to say the same as Alex, Ken, etc. – “Prizes: Cash based on entries.” or undetermined. I understand the other points made here as well if the others who came in after Ken are explaining what he meant correctly. Maybe they are. It just boggles my mind that not following 28D wouldn’t be a major variation that needs to be in publicity and this undetermined prize statement is somehow being looked at as a do-whatever-you-want. It’s legal because of this prizes undetermined CYB statement? I don’t see how that way of advertising prizes means you don’t have to follow a basic Swiss System rule about how unrateds are treated with regard to prizes. 28D says they are only eligible for place prizes, right? I don’t see how we get around that without advertising a variation.
Now that I’ve got most of the TDs in my state convinced that it’s how I see it, it’s disappointing to take a step backward. I’d really like to hear it from the Rules Committee. In the meantime, I guess I’ll be calling every organizer or TD whose event we consider playing in and asking them what their plans are with regard to this to help me decide whether to spend time, effort, and money to support their event. “Hello there, are you planning to do a stupid but legal thing with unrated prize eligibility that may make me sorry I came? Because if you are, tell me now please, so I can stay home or run my own event that doesn’t shaft the under players.”
The more I think about how Triumph phrased his post, he may have been trying to get you to address only a slightly different issue than what I’ve been questioning him about. He thinks his only mistake is naming the prize “U1800” and giving it to an unrated player. Obviously, it should have been named “U1800/Unrated” if the unrateds were going to be eligible for it.
My issue is if he wants to have any combined under/unrated prize, doesn’t he have to pre-announce that in publicity if there is any. And if he doesn’t, then he’s in violation of 28D not just naming a prize wrong because not following 28D is a major variation that could keep players from entering his tournament.
I wouldn’t think that is necessary. Including an Uxxx/Unrated prize when you have advertised “Prizes based on entries” looks like a minor variation to me. Making an unrated eligible for an Uxxx prize would be a major variation.
I wouldn’t think that is necessary. Including an Uxxx/Unrated prize when you have advertised “Prizes based on entries” looks like a minor variation to me. Making an unrated eligible for an Uxxx prize would be a major variation.[/quote
I would tend to agree. However, if you are structuring a tournament that expects to draw a number of fairly low rated players, it is, while legal, a very poor practice to make unrateds eligible. That will, once the lower rateds realize that is your inclination, impact turnout in your events. And it will make them hate you enough that when they do get stronger they will still avoid your events. It’s a foolish choice. The unrateds will be perfectly happy to have a nominal prize. Or if you want to get creative, say unrateds get $x for this score, $y for that score.
I couldn’t agree with Mr. Mulford more. BTW, when I organize a “prizes based on entries” event, I never do that. If I had sufficient unrateds, I might offer an unrated prize.
Alex Relyea
I agree, but OP used the fact that there was only one unrated as a justification for giving him the prize. If he feels it’s important for the unrated to have a shot at a prize, my suggestion is better than making them eligible for an under prize. An alternative is to make it the U-2000 prize they are eligible for. Unrateds should never be eligible for a prize above U-1600 under any circumstances.
An interesting alternative would be to have an unrated prize equal to the sum of all the unrateds’ entry fees.
$5 entry fee, one unrated, he gets his money back. Three unrateds, the highest unrated gets $15. No unrateds, the $0 total is divided equally among the 0 unrateds.
The organizer makes no money off the unrateds, but performs a service by bringing new players into chess.
Bill Smythe
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.
I respectfully disagree with those saying it’s not a major variation to make any unrateds eligible for any prize other than place prizes in the Open and special Unrated prizes. By the definition of major variation above, it is a major variation. This TD/Organizer doesn’t have to wonder if players will be deterred from entering. I’m telling him my family is deterred from playing in our club events because of his so-called “legal but stupid” decision. It’s not legal if it’s a major variation. I think I’ve proven that in this case, for this club’s events, it is a major variation. A family is not playing because of it. Therefore, it is not legal to not include it in publicity at least from that event forward.
First, please note that this post discusses only whether it is allowable by rule to award a combined class/unrated prize in a tournament where a prize fund is advertised as “Prizes based on entries”. This post makes no comment on whether such a practice is desirable, either in the general case or in any specific subset of circumstances.
The key word in Rule 26B, for the purposes of this discussion, is “reasonably”. The intent of Rule 26B is to protect players from any whim or caprice on the part of an organizer.
“Prizes based on entries” is a common tool used by organizers of small events. In the general case, the organizer uses this to allow for a more equitable prize distribution when he is unsure of the number or range of strength of potential players. By advertising this, the organizer is making it clear that he will announce the actual prize fund on site.
Combining a class and unrated prize (or creating a section with same) is also a common tool used by organizers. Certainly, when I started playing, a D/E/Unr section (or class prize) was a very common feature in tournaments. For reasons given upthread, it’s probably no longer advisable to give such prizes, but an organizer who chooses to do so is certainly not in violation of any US Chess rule of which I am aware.
The problem with Mr. Anderson’s prize distribution at the event in question, as detailed by a number of posters, is that he advertised eligibility for a certain prize (by announcing it on site), and then later changed that eligibility. That was too late for players to elect not to play. His intent was good, but his application violated US Chess rules.
In the quoted post above, Ms. Herman is extrapolating Rule 26B to make any combined class/unrated prize illegal if not advertised in advance. Her justification for this appears to be that, since she and her family are deterred from entering such an event, this fulfills the “reasonable” expectation that Rule 26B is expected to provide.
As discussed above, both the language of the pre-tournament announcement and the use of combined class/unrated prizes are common in US Chess events. As such, I fail to see how any organizer using both - and subsequently adhering to the prizes initially announced on site - could possibly be in violation of US Chess rules.
The problem with your argument is that U1800/Unrated is a prize for unrated players. That it also makes players U1800 eligible does not change that.
Not quite QED. You ignored the word “reasonably”. Anything and everything might deter some random players with an agenda.
Ms. Herman’s contention that the organizer doesn’t have to wonder if combining the unrated prize with the under prize would deter attendance because she is telling him it would is an interesting one. Is the application of the “reasonable” standard global in nature or specific? If it wouldn’t bother players in most parts of the country but it would bother players in one part, does the clause apply? Now I happen to think Ms. Herman’s view that combined prizes would deter her attendance to be be totally reasonable and one which other low rated players would likely take as well. But the rule isn’t terribly relevant in the context of a tournament where prizes are announced in the advance publicity; you have to specify when you announce the prizes. So the question of whether it’s a variant could never come up in that context. It can only come up in a “prizes based on entries” setting.
While it is certainly true that the fact that Ms. Herman’s family would be determined does not automatically trigger the “reasonable” criteria because one can argue they are an anomaly, the more pertinent point in this case is that this was a “prizes undetermined” tournament. If the advance advertising says the prices won’t be announced until the tournament has started, by definition a subsequent announcement of what those prizes are wouldn’t have deterred anyone from attending. It would be too late. Ms. Herman’s reasoning would inherently make “prizes based on entries” illegal, a result we would likely find neither desirable nor acceptable. Entering a tournament under that prize condition inherently accepts whatever decision the TD makes for prizes, even if one would never have gotten away with advertising such a structure.
For example, suppose one expert shows up along with 20 players rated under 1200. It would be legal to post a first prize of $15 and under 1200 prizes of 50-30-20-10. You’d never advertise such a structure. The expert has no recourse. Now change the facts slightly and add a B player. The same prize structure given above is still legal. Don’t expect to ever see any B players at your events, though!