The general rule for the awarding of cash prizes is no more than 1 prize per person. The exception to this is special prizes. If there is a junior prize in a tournament and a 10 year old wins the tournament, then they get first prize and the junior prize. The same goes for upset and brilliancy prizes. But what about a special prize that is rating based?
Next weekend [May 3-4] there is a FIDE rated tournament being run [it is also a USCF event]. This tournament has prizes [see TLA in CL] advertised based on ratings. You have place prizes and you have [U2000, U1800, etc.] class prizes. Now in addition to these prizes there are 2 more prizes that have since been added [an annomous donation] to the prizes. These are prizes only for players with a FIDE rating [FIDE U2200 & FIDE U2050], which means that not all of the participants will be eligible to win. Can a player win both a USCF rating based and a FIDE rating based prize? Is there any USCF policy on such an issue?
I do realize that since this was a donation that the donor may have given specific instructions for these prizes. Let us assume that there are no specific instructions. Is this a situation where 1 person can win 2 prizes?
First of all, since these additional prizes were not included in the TLA, there is really no argument for a “USCF rule” determining how they should be awarded. (Whether the prize fund recommendations in the Rulebook would be determinative if they had been in the TLA is a different question, which we need not reach.) It’s entirely a matter of tournament policy.
Now, if the question is what the organizers should do, my own feeling is that these new prizes should be treated as separate from the advertised prize fund, like best game or brilliancy prizes. But that’s a personal preference, not a regulation. You can make a perfectly good argument either way. The only thing I would suggest is that the organizers decide this before the first round and tell the players.
It sounds impractical, in this case, to implement a “limit one prize per player” policy.
Don’t forget that, even in “standard” cases, there can be prize spillover. For example, if there are prizes for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and class A, it could easily happen that two players tie for 3rd, only one of whom is an A player. And then 3rd and A would be combined and split between the two players. In effect, part of the A prize is going to a non-A player.
I doubt if it is the wish of the (anonymous?) donor that parts of the FIDE prizes might go to non-FIDE players. Accordingly, “limit one prize per player” just won’t work. It would work for the “regular” prizes separately, and for the FIDE prizes separately, but not for both combined, as far as I can see.
Example, please? It seems to me that if the A player gets MORE than the A prize, then he receives all of the A prize. If he gets LESS than the A prize, then he doesn’t enter the pool, and he receives all of the A prize.
Can you show an example where 2 players tie for 3rd and the siingle A player does not receive the full A prize?
What I meant by “part of the A prize is going to a non-A player” was that a non-A player might win more money than he would if the A prize did not exist.
Examples are easy:
1st: $200
2nd: $150
3rd: $100
A: $80
Scores:
4.5 (Master)
4.0 (Master)
3.5 (Expert)
3.5 (Class A)
(all other scores 3.0 or lower)
In this example, the Expert and A player each win $90, whereas without the A prize each would win only $50. The Expert is $40 richer because of the A prize.
Without the “limit one prize per player” rule, it could be argued that the A player should get the full $80, in addition to half of 3rd ($50) for a total of $130.
Similarly, in the case which began this thread, some non-FIDE players might end up richer because of the FIDE prizes. If it was the donor’s intention that the “extra” FIDE prizes should enrich the FIDE players only, then the “limit one prize per player” rule is incompatible with the donor’s intention. So it would be better not to apply such a rule to the combined (general and FIDE) prizes. Just apply it to the general prizes, and to the FIDE prizes, separately.
It’s perfectly reasonable to say that part of the A prize is gong to a non-A player. The A player is winning half the A prize plus half of second place, as is the Expert.
I suppose you could say instead that the A player is winning the entire A prize plus 10% of second place, and that the Expert is winning 90% of second place. But why bother? The first way is simpler.
You can debate this point endlessly with other curmudgeonly professors if you wish. My main point was that a “limit one prize per player” prize is not appropriate in the case originally cited (general and FIDE prizes). If you’d care to contribute to that point, please feel free.