Nope. I didn’t ignore the word “reasonably.” I think my position as a low rated player is very reasonable. I’d like to see all low rated players start taking it and stop donating money to play rated chess so organizers can allow (in some cases) strong unrated players to have happy paydays at our expense. I’d like to see all players ask the organizer/TD in advance if they plan to practice this “stupid but [apparently] legal” (quoting Mulfish) practice and then not play if the persons setting the prizes will do this stupid offensive thing to their faithful club and local players.
I might also like to see words like “reasonable” and “should” taken out of the rules.
I do appreciate your posting the issue here on the forum and all the good responses. I learned something. I don’t like what I learned for the most part, but I do like to do things according to the rules and that means I have to have a clear understanding of all the rules. I need a complete review of the parts of the book that talk about prizes. Honestly, I don’t remember anything in there about advertising as prizes as “Based on entries,” and yet I do it all the time following a local ANTD’s and other’s examples. I didn’t quite understand what exactly that meant. It’s apparently a big “free to do whatever you want” card. You’re covered by the vagueness. You can forget the basic Swiss System 28D rule about unrateds not being eligible for under prizes as an organizer/TD or potential player. Don’t count on it. It’s like a variation of vagueness in the publicity that permits anything goes. License to offend any players you want at your own risk of their not playing in your events again.
It’s amazing I’ve been able to convince some other TD’s around here that it wasn’t within the rules. I convinced the ANTD at one time and he stopped doing it for a while, and then he decided again that he didn’t have to mess with 28D. I’m not sure I’m convinced it’s legal according to what the book actually says, but I am convinced a complaint about it would not hold up because of the interpretations (as those in this thread) of the people who make the decisions about complaints.
My conclusion is to be put off by this type of prize advertisement by certain people at least who I know to practice “legal but stupid” prize categories.
If the phrase is just “based on entries”, that does indeed sound like a free-for-all saying nothing.
But if you read the rulebook, you’ll see that a phrase like “$1000 in prizes based on 50 entries” has a much more restrictive meaning. It means, for example, that if the event draws 40 players, the organizer is on the hook for 80% (40 divided by 50) of the $1000 prize fund – and, for that matter, 80% of each prize individually.
It also means that at least 50% of the prize fund (and of each prize individually) must be paid, even if the actual turnout is less than 50% of the projection.
Meanwhile, I’d offer the opinion that low-rated players would be better off if, instead of playing for prize money, they played for the experience, and for the opportunity to become higher-rated players.
I can only speak for myself, but I assure you I’ve read the 5th edition once cover-to-cover and once nearly cover-to-cover. Then the 6th edition came out. So I’m due another cover-to-cover with the recent changes handy and maybe a pen I need 3 more Chief TD Cat C’s to test for Senior TD and I’m sure I’ll have my head in the book with questions before I request that test.
I understand that too. I recently helped plan my States’s Championships including the prizes to be advertised. We had based on player amounts in four sections and an overall based on players number plus an organizer commitment to payout 70% of entries at all State events. As State Treasurer and Chief Asst TD of the Cat B Open, I got to determine the prize amounts according the based on numbers. It was a great learning experience. Nobody has questioned what I did so far so I’m hoping I nailed it. Players seemed quite pleased with the prizes. I had a different way of handling unrateds where they got a special $10 discount and a special unrated prize for any section that had two or more unrateds playing and one of them scored at least 2 out of 5. A young man scored 3.5 in the U1300 section to win the prize, which was about 3 times his entry. I was able to fund that prize through an excess of 100% in another section. Sharing beyond the scope of this thread now
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Mr. Smythe, and I understand it is a common opinion amoung higher rated players. As a low rated player with a lot of experience as one of the most active players (and probably the most active TD) in my State, I don’t see how that plan makes me better off. It just makes me poorer and a little frustrated. I don’t actually play FOR the money. I rarely win money, but it’s nice not to have any chance of it wisked away by the presence of unrateds. I love unrateds and want them to play. I just see no harm in letting them play enough to establish a published rating before they take under prizes, and I think that is perfectly reasonable and supported by 28D (which the “stupid but legal” policy overrules according to most posting here). I do play for the experience. I play for the enjoyment of playing. I play to support chess and the organizers of chess. I play because I’m there anyway because my children play chess. I don’t expect to have much chance of becoming a much higher rated player having started at a much older age than most and not a lot of time devoted to study. I play to use my mind and keep it active. Playing unrated casual chess is good for experience and it doesn’t cost money. The belief that rated chess players have a chance to win a bit of their entry fee back is encouragement to play even if they’ll never be Champion of an event. Making unrated players eligible for the under/class prizes is a discouragement to play for the lower rated players. I don’t agree with this mindset that we’re supposed to just keep putting the $$ out there and be thankful for the lessons we get over the board. If I wanted lessons, I’d pay for lessons (as I do for my children) instead of donating to prize funds I have no shot at because of unrated prize treatment.
I have to wonder how Class A players feel about donating money to events full of masters but no B and below players and only place prizes. How long would they keep putting the money out for the experience and chance to become higher rated. I know, some would, may be a lot. Maybe that’s not a good example because Class A is much more serious about improving than much of Class E and below. I still think Class A likes a chance of winning a prize. That’s part of the the motivation to play tournaments for everybody. It’s unfortunate that Class C and below can be duped in to believing they have a chance only to see the only Under prize they had a chance at go to an Unrated time and time again because of “stupid but legal” designation. It just seems like usury of the unknowing to me. It does not promote chess in my opinion. It promotes quick paydays and possibly a sandbagging mentality.
As an A player I’ll take a stab at the last paragraph of Ms. Sherman’s post. However, I must add the caveat that the attitude of an experienced A player should not necessarily be expected to match the attitude of an experienced but very low rated player.
From my perspective, I play for entertainment. I like prizes as much as the next player and want to have a shot at them, of course. For a typical local event, the more I pay the more important it is to have a shot. If I’m paying $5, I don’t care so much. Actually, I don’t care in the slightest. Back when I had a spouse and kids my entertainment-prize opportunity ratio was different than it is now, of course. But even then, I’d have been thrilled to pay $5 and get to play all masters. I’d be less thrilled to pay $1000 for the privilege. I’m not the slightest bit interested in playing in a Millionaire Open. Too rich for my blood! I play in US Opens more as a social event/vacation.
Why would I like to play the masters? Partly the challenge, partly the thrill if I win or draw, partly the total non-risk of the situation, and partly the opportunity to learn a bit. Now I do not delude myself into thinking I’m going to improve significantly at this phase in my life, but I still like to learn a trick or two. The most exciting game I played in Phoenix was a loss to a master, but I got in my shots and was even winning at one point. The postmortem was as fun as the game (thank you Spencer Lower).
An up and coming lower rated player really ought to view the learning opportunities as Mr. Smythe suggests. An experienced player of any level may reasonably recognize, as I do, that they probably won’t improve a lot more. If that is their belief, their attitudes towards playing a lot of much higher players should not be expected to be the same as the relative newbie. Now of course Mr. Smythe and I are both using the word “should”, but I at least recognize that not everyone is going to have the same priorities and values as me, so I use the word “should” somewhat guardedly.
Hmm, if you base prizes on entries section by section, the players in the smaller sections may complain that all sections should have been cut by the same percentage. Or, if you base prizes on overall entries, the players in the larger sections may complain that each section should have been cut by the percentage in that section.
I think the next lesson you’re going to learn is, no good deed goes unpunished.
You are, of course, free to file a complaint with TDCC about Mr. Anderson. I believe you’ve correctly assessed the situation, however. If you really feel strongly about this, I suggest, like I have suggested to Micah Smith, that you make your way to Indianapolis next summer and either to get your delegate to make an ADM or become a delegate yourself. The Rules and or TDCC workshops could be invaluable.
I wish you the very best of luck when you attempt the Senior TD certification exam. I am, of course, unable to assist you with that exam, but I am able to give some general advice. When you take the exam, you will be well served by being able to understand what the rule book is actually stating rather than what you think it is stating.
You happily keep referring to “stupid but legal” to refer to prizes that are designated as for players “under a particular rating threshold or unrated” and claiming that this overrides rule 28D. For clarity, let’s have the text of rule 28D in front of us:
(Please kindly note that I have eliminated the text following the colon in the interest of brevity, as that text is actually rule 28D1. Rule 28D1 describes how to convert foreign ratings and does not apply to the present instance.)
Now, please note carefully the following sentence: A prize designated as for “under a particular rating threshold or unrated” IS a “prize for unrated players.” It says so explicitly.
Perhaps you are assuming the word “only” appears in the phrase “prizes for unrated players” in rule 28D (as in “prizes for only unrated players”). It does not. Once again, with feeling: Rule 28D does not disallow prizes designated as for “under a particular rating threshold or unrated.”
You have made your opinion concerning such prizes quite clear. That is fine; you are welcome to your opinion. Some organizers and players agree with your opinion; others do not. You are also absolutely entitled to choose the events in which you participate based on your opinion, and to organize your own events based on your opinion. That, too, is fine; it’s how the free market works. Organizers organize tournaments (presumably) with the goals of maximizing attendance and player satisfaction. Players vote with their wallets. If players do not like the organizer’s product, players will not enter, and the organizer will either adapt or fail.
However, one must be careful not to conflate one’s opinions with the actual rules.
Excellent additional posts, gentlemen. That last one, Ken, really helped me understand this from the other side (not colored by my personal opinion). You will find me difficult to convince but open to convincing when the time is taken to explicitly explain what I am missing. I think Ken did that.
I fully understand that we’re not to get assistance from other directors with exams and would never do that. Because of some personal experiences, I’m not sure others get that. I have been contacted for help by a Club TD testing for Local. I didn’t help. He failed. I have overheard another reinstated Club TD soliciting discussion of a test question with an ANTD. When they observed my ears perk up, they immediately hushed and parted. He managed to pass and move to Local.
This, IMO, is a clear violation of the Code of Ethics 5a. I’m sure the Ethics Committee would be happy to hear about this if it happens again. IMO our high standards of TD certification is what separates US Chess sanctioned chess from other chess.
Excellent work Ken and all TDs, including those of us in the higher echelons of the TD world, should take note. Sometimes it just takes spending a little extra time, exhibiting a little extra patience and spelling things out in plain English for someone to eventually grasp a concept or an understanding of a situation. I’ve personally been on the receiving end of many of these from many experienced TDs and I feel each time it happens I become a better TD. We all started out as an inexperienced TD at one stage in our lives and hopefully everyone understands it is a continual learning process, no matter how far up the ladder we get or how well we think we know the rules.
At a recent tournament, our club gave out an U600 trophy to an unrated player. The trophy was not noted in the original advertising. We added the trophy at the last minute because of the expectation of getting several players U600 to play in the tournament. They did not show, going to a soccer tournament instead. When the event was finished, the young TD who was directing asked me what we were going to do with the U600 trophy. I asked him what he thought we ought to do. He said the Rulebook says we can’t give it to an unrated. He was right, and a real stickler for following the Rulebook. But we still had a trophy left and one unrated player, a 70+ year old man playing in his first tournament. He thought for a bit and asked me what I would do if I was directing. Well, I said, there is no reason that it could not suddenly become an U600 and unrated trophy. He looked at the plate and said that the plate did not say that. I told him I was not going to schlep that trophy back home with me. There it sat, a pretty orange and gold trophy right next to the USCF Rulebook, 6th edition. My young protégé thought some more and said let’s forget about the rule and make the old guy happy. He awarded the U600 trophy to the elderly man who beamed and shook the kid’s hand at the award ceremony. The kid is going to become a good organizer some day. I expect we will see that older gentleman come back to our tournaments with his shiny new USCF rating.
Sure, why not? If there’s nobody to (properly) award the trophy to, might as well put it to good use in some other way. I can’t think of a better way than that.
By the way, did the elderly man end up with an under-600 post-event rating?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with awarding extra prizes. It is also OK for the organizer to keep a prize that no one qualifies for, as I am going to do with the unrated prize I am running today.
The event has not been rated yet. The older gentleman went 1-3, losing to three kids but beating an adult rated 1050+. After the tournament, I found out that the week before he had played in a Pittsburgh Chess League game receiving a provisional rating in the 1400s based on the one game he played, which we did not know about. The young TD said that the guy lost a couple of games because of mistakes in time pressure. He had a hard time getting adjusted to digital clocks and time delay. I only saw one game, the one versus the 1050+ player who stood better throughout but made a huge mistake in the ending. The old guy polished him off, banging the pieces down with glee. He was warned about banging pieces and the clock and told to behave himself! I expect he will be provisionally rated at about 1000 or a shade less after our tournament gets rated.
I had a case last weekend where a player did not say “adjust” and was pulling a piece of hair off the board, just barely brushing the side of a pawn while doing so. The opponent called touch move and I ruled that the touch could NOT be reasonably interpreted as the beginning of a move.
I’ve had other cases where a player picked up a piece that the opponent knocked over and the opponent wanted to call touch move.
I’ve stepped in at the last minute and been the chief of a tournament so large that I should not have been the chief, but after the scheduled chief TDs auto-accident the option was to run the tournament with an undercertified chief or to cancel it. If the phrase was “must not” then it would have been mandatory to cancel that scholastic state championship tournament. “Should not” requires the organizer to plan for appropriate staffing. “Must not” penalizes players by cancelling tournaments when rare and unanticipated events occur.
I would vote against a motion to remove words like “reasonably” and “should”.
I need 3 more Chief TD Cat C’s to test for Senior TD and I’m sure I’ll have my head in the book with questions before I request that test.
and a little frustrated. I don’t actually play FOR the money. I rarely win money, but it’s nice not to have any chance of it wisked away by the presence of unrateds. I love unrateds and want them to play. I just see no harm in letting them play enough to establish a published rating before they take under prizes, and I think that is perfectly reasonable and supported by 28D (which the “stupid but legal” policy overrules according to most posting here). I do play for the experience. I play for the enjoyment of playing. I play to support chess and the organizers of chess. I play because I’m there anyway because my children play chess. I don’t expect to have much chance of becoming a much higher rated player having started at a much older age than most and not a lot of time devoted to study. I play to use my mind and keep it active. Playing unrated casual chess is good for experience and it doesn’t cost money. The belief that rated chess players have a chance to win a bit of their entry fee back is encouragement to play even if they’ll never be Champion of an event. Making unrated players eligible for the under/class prizes is a discouragement to play for the lower rated players. I don’t agree with this mindset that we’re supposed to just keep putting the $$ out there and be thankful for the lessons we get over the board. If I wanted lessons, I’d pay for lessons (as I do for my children) instead of donating to prize funds I have no shot at because of unrated prize treatment.