…so probably at least 1 in 4 sections if we ignore scholastics (understanding the difficulty of sorting those out) have player-directors.
If I limit it to the 11,907 sections with more than 8 players in them the number of player-directors drops to 2583.
Trying to check assistant TDs, etc. would get kind of complicated and most likely if there are more than 2 TDs involved the number of player-directors would drop significantly.
Notwithstanding data issues if I look only at the non-match events that were classified as ‘A’ (non-scholastic) then in 26,232 sections there were 5027 player-directors, and the average event with a player-director had over 11 players in it.
So more like 1 in 5 but not a bad guess. The largest player-director section had 117 players in it. The TD only played in round 1 against a much lower rated player, so this could have been the TD filling in to prevent a bye.
In 19,227 non-match scholastic events (average size 9.5) there were only 63 player-directors.
Interesting how often when you look at data you come up with something relatively unexpected. Player-directors were kind of rare in Nebraska. Personally, I think I only directed one or two events that I also played in, I found it too distracting both for my TD duties and my chess play (which wasn’t that great in the first place.)
(I’ve alerted Tim Just to this latest round of posts, might make an interesting rules column.)
We do it routinely at the club but our rule is not to play if we have 50+ (and we have at least two TDs for anything more organized than a no prize low player weeknight event).
…I did an analysis at one point since I was trading off nights at the club with another TD and directing dropped our calculated performance about 50 rating points.
Chessnut.club does this as well as pairing, viewing past and current events and standings, etc…
1 Like
Don’t you have a club web site? I’m not sure why you are asking US Chess to host this.
I do. I have solutions for these problems, but I think each could be improved by USCF and, as I noted, tool support for the common tournament processes could improve my quality of tournament directing.
"The TD only played in round 1 against a much lower rated player, so this could have been the TD filling in to prevent a bye.
In 19,227 non-match scholastic events (average size 9.5) there were only 63 player-directors.
Interesting how often when you look at data you come up with something relatively unexpected. Player-directors were kind of rare in Nebraska. Personally, I think I only directed one or two events that I also played in, I found it too distracting both for my TD duties and my chess play (which wasn’t that great in the first place.)
(I’ve alerted Tim Just to this latest round of posts, might make an interesting rules column.)"
The column that was handed in a week ago, or so, was about playing directors. That was before Mike gave us his stats on playing TDs.
As you can see I still have not mastered including a quote in my replies using th[quote=“nolan, post:44, topic:55463, full:true”]
Notwithstanding data issues if I look only at the non-match events that were classified as ‘A’ (non-scholastic) then in 26,232 sections there were 5027 player-directors, and the average event with a player-director had over 11 players in it.
So more like 1 in 5 but not a bad guess. The largest player-director section had 117 players in it. The TD only played in round 1 against a much lower rated player, so this could have been the TD filling in to prevent a bye.
In 19,227 non-match scholastic events (average size 9.5) there were only 63 player-directors.
Interesting how often when you look at data you come up with something relatively unexpected. Player-directors were kind of rare in Nebraska. Personally, I think I only directed one or two events that I also played in, I found it too distracting both for my TD duties and my chess play (which wasn’t that great in the first place.)
(I’ve alerted Tim Just to this latest round of posts, might make an interesting rules column.)
[/quote]
About a week ago I handed my August column about this very topic. Using the new system for posting columns it is already out of my edit reach. I will see if I can find a way to include Mike’s stats in promoting the column.
How could it be improved by US Chess? Different tournaments have different needs.
The scholastic nationals have multiple sections with pairings shown three different ways: board by board, alpha by name and alpha by team (across sections). For a 20 player tournament, board by board probably suffices.
They have individual and team standings, where the tie breaks are only shown for the individuals the last few rounds (since they tend to be meaningless earlier than that). A “money” tournament would not show tie breaks basically ever.
The process of updating the online display could be reduced to as few clicks as possible, ideally one but realistically at least two.
WHICH online display? There are hundreds if not thousands of possibilities.
In context I was referring to pairings and standings. While there are possibilities, there are also fairly common ways to display both that have been around for some time and would be an improvement over my current USCF tool support.
I find this a fairly odd line of nitpicking a suggestion when USCF is undergoing a complete redesign of the related backend functionality, strongly implying that the current website is not the pinnacle of the support/functionality : dollars/effort curve.
First of all, you should forget about the idea that US Chess is going to give you a little piece of uschess.org real estate. It’s not happening and I hope you could understand why. OTOH, while your “idea” is considerably less than half-baked, I can’t imagine that there is anything in it that couldn’t be done on basically any web host.
- First things first. What is it you want your users to be able to do? They go to your club web site and they do what?
- What is it that you are currently doing that you find burdensome? Note that, regardless, you will have to create a pairing list and cross table/standings in some format that will need to be uploaded to your club web site.
I’m still not at all sure what you’re referring to. :sigh:
Since we aren’t mind readers, if you want change (either on the current system or the one coming next year), you need to supply sufficient details for someone to understand your request without having to wade through dozens of forum posts (especially if it’s something for the Leago team), make a use case for the change, ie, why it is better for users, and possibly a case for justifying any staff time or other costs involved.
Guys, let’s review what has happened in this thread.
- Savir comes in and says “what could USCF do for existing affiliates?”
- I say “hey, I’d like some things to help running tournaments, along these lines.”
- Y’all spend the next 50 posts telling me no, or that I haven’t provided a 100 page spec for my request, or that I haven’t given a cost:benefit analysis against any possible way USCF could spend any amount of money.
I fully expect that next you’ll start wondering why people don’t make suggestions for improvements and why affiliates aren’t renewing.
1 Like
You could join ~300 other clubs on Chess Nut 
I think we have some of the stuff you are looking for:
- Pairing
- Tournament Registration
- Public Club Page - it is pretty basic right now, but we are planning to make it more like shopify for chess clubs. We are going to remove Chess Nut branding and even let you bring your own domain.
- Tournament Standings views
- We will never tell you your idea is stupid or half baked (though we won’t necessarily build everything that is requested, we listen intently and truly care about our partner clubs)
Here are a few screenshots from the Alaska Arctic Chess Club on Chess Nut to give you a sense:
1 Like
And you still haven’t explained exactly what you want changed where, much less why it is worth doing.
– Nolan
– Also, BlackBerry and BlockBuster on the road to irrelevance
I explained what I wanted in post 23, further explained in post 25, motivation expounded upon in post 46, yet more explanation in post 49.
I do not believe your response is in good faith, particularly in response to a USCF request for suggestions.
1 Like
This is the result page from the US National HS. Obviously, it has more information than you need, but is this at least in the ballpark?
https://www.uschess.org/results/2024/hs/
I suspect that what you are looking for may already exist in unofficial “freeware”. There are many TD’s who do web sites for a living or who teach AP Comp Sci. One coach here did a very complicated program for managing team v team league matches because he wanted to do a non-trivial task in a new language. Another TD here in Illinois is using a google doc spreadsheet which has tabs for each round plus another for the result. I assume he saves the pairings, clicks on the A1 for the proper tab and does a Data—Get from File. Or maybe he wrote a macro to handle that. I’m not sure.