# A Scholastic Chess Format **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [May 8, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736 "2013-05-08T13:19:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 1:19pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/1 "2013-05-08T13:19:53Z")
As chess ability most often has less to do with age or grade of a student, but rather their aptitude and attitude, I have been encouraging a shift from traditional grade based structures to one based on USCF ratings. From say, K, 1st-2nd, 3rd-5th, etc, to a structure of K-3 U400, K-12 U600, K-12 U900, and K-12 Open. This allows us to use JTP for the new K-3 players, who ordinarily would play in UNR sections, which I am encouraging the discontinuance of, as it is important to have a yardstick to gauge a players improvement. This allows a player to achieve some success at a level which reflects his/her abilities, before the ratings improvement would “push” them up. In regard to team trophies, there has been much appeal to the idea of the “overall” concept. That is to simply take up to the top 4 players “overall” regardless of section played, combine their scores, thus determining te overall team winners. I do realize there are some inequities such as a HS team cannot cannot compete in the K-3 section, but a strong HS performance can, and sometimes does, overcome this disadvantage. The main emphasis, though, is on the growth of the individual player. Secondly, such an approach allows an elementary team to slot all of their players in ability appropriate sections so that that as an individual they have a greater chance at success. These successes then tend to fuel a passion necessary for not only with sticking with the game, but towards the work necessary for improvement. And as necessary, towards fueling a parent’s interest in taking them to chess events, as their young stars are “on the rise”. Thoughts please– Rob Jones Chess Coach, TD, and Organizer ---
**Author:** ![CMerli](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c4cdca/32.png) [@CMerli](https://forum.uschess.org/u/CMerli)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/2 "2013-05-08T21:38:41Z")
My feelings are in some ways the exact opposite. It seems very artificial to award trophies to players simply because their rating is below some level. Imagine a marathon awarding prizes to people because they finish over 5 hours. At least with age you have something real to use to separate players. Players that are advanced in skill will often choose to play up to get better opponents. I have always been bothered that in adult events players are awarded prizes for being below some rating number since for one it leads to sandbagging. In chess we assume weaker players will not play in events unless they can win money. I think we should examine road races as a model. In those events thousands compete with no hope of winning. They pay their money collect their T-shirt, mark their time and leave happy. They enjoy the overall experience not the chance to win. I think if tournaments were a more overall experience with lower entry fees and prize money going to the top players they would still do well. ---
**Author:** ![relyea](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/relyea/32/190_2.png) [@relyea](https://forum.uschess.org/u/relyea)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2013, 10:53pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/3 "2013-05-08T22:53:43Z")
Of course the great thing about the USCF model is that for $40 Mr. Merli can set up an affiliate (or perhaps can use an existing one and save the $40) and test out his ideas and report back to us. Something that he ought to consider, though, is that there is a major difference between racing and chess. There is simply no equivalent in a chess tournament to running a five hour marathon. It is a poor substitute to expect a player to say that, over a five round tournament, he had a performance rating of 1363 which is his personal best. There are just too many variables, and it isn’t terribly meaningful to say that he got his personal best because he was blown off the board by an 1878 in round one, rather than a 1743. There are two main types of tournaments, those open to players of all ratings, regardless of age restrictions, and those open to players by class. In the former type of tournament, you can give all the money to the top players, but then you’ll generally lose entries from those who know that they don’t have a chance at the money. It’s just unrealistic for a player who has never had a performance rating of 1363 to expect to finish in the top n places of this kind of tournament, which is fine, but this kind of tournament has to have decent prizes to bring out the titled players, has to bring out titled players to get masters excited about playing, have masters to get experts excited about playing, etc. Since we don’t have any sponsorship to speak of, most of this money has to come from entry fees. Our hypothetical player knows that on the best day of his life he can expect to go 2-3 in this tournament, but if he goes 4-1 and doesn’t even win a prize? Not a good thing. In our latter case, suddenly our hypothetical player does have a chance of winning a place prize. It is like a group in our marathon was restricted to those who average 5 and a half hours. Our runner could just happen to win that, never mind what the runners in the group restricted to those who can run in an average 2 and a half hours do. Should he not get a prize for winning “his” marathon? People who play in lower sections do so because they like to think that they can win something. Another consideration is that the site can often determine the prize fund, and thus the entry fee. Going from a site that costs, say, $500 to a site that costs $10,000 means that you need to generate that much in extra entry fees, not counting prize fund. For a cheaper site you might be able to get away with a $300 prize fund, but for our more expensive site that’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get 206 players to pay $50 each for a $300 prize fund. Alex Relyea ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 3:09am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/4 "2013-05-09T03:09:03Z")
> [@relyea](#): > > Of course the great thing about the USCF model is that for $40 Mr. Merli can set up an affiliate (or perhaps can use an existing one and save the $40) and test out his ideas and report back to us. > > Something that he ought to consider, though, is that there is a major difference between racing and chess. There is simply no equivalent in a chess tournament to running a five hour marathon. It is a poor substitute to expect a player to say that, over a five round tournament, he had a performance rating of 1363 which is his personal best. There are just too many variables, and it isn’t terribly meaningful to say that he got his personal best because he was blown off the board by an 1878 in round one, rather than a 1743. > > There are two main types of tournaments, those open to players of all ratings, regardless of age restrictions, and those open to players by class. In the former type of tournament, you can give all the money to the top players, but then you’ll generally lose entries from those who know that they don’t have a chance at the money. It’s just unrealistic for a player who has never had a performance rating of 1363 to expect to finish in the top n places of this kind of tournament, which is fine, but this kind of tournament has to have decent prizes to bring out the titled players, has to bring out titled players to get masters excited about playing, have masters to get experts excited about playing, etc. Since we don’t have any sponsorship to speak of, most of this money has to come from entry fees. Our hypothetical player knows that on the best day of his life he can expect to go 2-3 in this tournament, but if he goes 4-1 and doesn’t even win a prize? Not a good thing. In our latter case, suddenly our hypothetical player does have a chance of winning a place prize. It is like a group in our marathon was restricted to those who average 5 and a half hours. Our runner could just happen to win that, never mind what the runners in the group restricted to those who can run in an average 2 and a half hours do. Should he not get a prize for winning “his” marathon? People who play in lower sections do so because they like to think that they can win something. > > Another consideration is that the site can often determine the prize fund, and thus the entry fee. Going from a site that costs, say, $500 to a site that costs $10,000 means that you need to generate that much in extra entry fees, not counting prize fund. For a cheaper site you might be able to get away with a $300 prize fund, but for our more expensive site that’s not going to happen. You’re not going to get 206 players to pay $50 each for a $300 prize fund. > > Alex Relyea Alex, you made many very good points. But one that has to be made, is that a huge percentage of the prize fund for the top players is quite often made up from the ef paid by players in the U sections. There are a lot of players whose interest wains if there is almost no chance of any type of prize. And with their absence, the prize fund for the top sections also are reduced. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_McAdams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e56c9b/32.png) [@Bob\_McAdams](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Bob_McAdams)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 8:01am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/5 "2013-05-09T08:01:41Z")
> [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > As chess ability most often has less to do with age or grade of a student, but rather their > aptitude and attitude, I have been encouraging a shift from traditional grade based structures to one based on USCF ratings. From say, K, 1st-2nd, 3rd-5th, etc, to a > structure of K-3 U400, K-12 U600, K-12 U900, and K-12 Open. Do you have enough knowledge of who is likely to show up at the tournaments to know that these boundaries are a good choice? Another option is to run quads, which divides the tournament into rating-based sections, except that the boundaries between sections are determined on the day of the tournament based on who actually comes. Bob ---
**Author:** ![LaughingVulcan](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/laughingvulcan/32/322_2.png) [@LaughingVulcan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/LaughingVulcan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 12:18pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/6 "2013-05-09T12:18:00Z")
Interesting concept, and I wish you the best of luck with it. (Not just luck, since much of what you propose makes sense.) I’ve run a few mixed scholastic-adults based on ratings break. I’ve offered a true Open along with Under 600 Scholastic. We also offered Under 1000-1400 Scholastic sections, at the same tournaments, but typically we couldn’t draw enough players. They seem to run OK, but we’ve only drawn 10-20% of peak attendance of the main scholastic events in town. There are several considerations for that. We did not offer a JTP section, and we did not offer team prizes (which I concluded meant we would not get the same kind of school support that the BNASC events have.) What I would prepare for, if the tournaments are to be any size at all, is to deal with parents who do not understand why their 10th Grader must play a 2nd Grade student. (And Vice-Versa.) You and I understand why and that it makes sense. Will a new chess parent? And, come to that, will the players themselves understand why your system is better? Or will that 2nd Grade student get discouraged that they always lose to the big kids and walk away from chess (or again especially vice versa.) It is hard enough for adults to emotionally accept that sometimes - all too easy when the game is done to think “I got beaten by that 2nd grader - or I beat that 2nd grader,” instead of “I beat [got beaten by] that player who is rated 400 points above me.” OTOH, it can be hard for an older student to newly come into the game on grade based because most of their contemporaries at the tournament have been playing for years now. Also, in parent relations, you will have to be prepared to explain why their K-3 child at the last event did not have to purchase a USCF membership but now does for this tournament as they jump over the rating hump. (And then see the player go down against those U600s or 900s and drop back into the JTP section again because his/her “true strength” really is 375.) The other thing I’d wonder about is the bounce of provisionally rated players through the sections causing havoc. (Well, in your prior tournaments I didn’t run your P6 score is 401. Can’t pair you into the JTP section even though you only just learned how the king moves and still move the knight 1x1. I’m sure this tournament you’ll go 0-5 and at the next one be much better.) Those aren’t reasons to not try… Just things I’d prepare for. ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/7 "2013-05-09T12:52:46Z")
> [@Bob McAdams](#): > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > As chess ability most often has less to do with age or grade of a student, but rather their > > aptitude and attitude, I have been encouraging a shift from traditional grade based structures to one based on USCF ratings. From say, K, 1st-2nd, 3rd-5th, etc, to a > > structure of K-3 U400, K-12 U600, K-12 U900, and K-12 Open. > > Do you have enough knowledge of who is likely to show up at the tournaments to know that these boundaries are a good choice? > > Another option is to run quads, which divides the tournament into rating-based sections, except that the boundaries between sections are determined on the day of the tournament based on who actually comes. > > Bob Bob, the quad option is interesting as it applies to scholastics. Certainly, it is the easiest and quickest form of tournament to run. Easy and quick, though, are not always the most equitable, depending on how the prizes are formatted. The particular scholastic organizer that I ran events for many years ago, awarded monthy trophies to whomever had the best quad results. Secondly, Bob, i do like offering players the choice to play in a rating limited or open section. That is, offer them the “cautious” choice, or the “go-for-it” choice against the “big-boys” (and girls, to be clear). Sections defined by ratings can be a good ladder for players to mark a path upward. ie, I have achieved goal A, now on to B. Whether we like it or not, we live in a somewhat “instant” success society. Too many parents, and their kids simply do not have the patience required to stick with gradually increasing, if that, in open sections. Success for too many is not defined by superior play, being more competitive, perhaps a ratings increase, but by whether or not they win a trophy. Sections that have 20+ players that only go 4-5 deep in trophies, make this a challenge. Rating based sections do somewhat address this issue. As many have addressed in previous threads, there are other issues for the coach and parent to address with the child as well. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:29pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/8 "2013-05-09T13:29:28Z")
> [@LaughingVulcan](#): > > Interesting concept, and I wish you the best of luck with it. (Not just luck, since much of what you propose makes sense.) I’ve run a few mixed scholastic-adults based on ratings break. > > I’ve offered a true Open along with Under 600 Scholastic. We also offered Under 1000-1400 Scholastic sections, at the same tournaments, but typically we couldn’t draw enough players. They seem to run OK, but we’ve only drawn 10-20% of peak attendance of the main scholastic events in town. > Rob Jones Response Belos > I have run this type of tournament primarily in smaller venues, but these venues are quickly filling up each > time we run this type of event. Some of the larger venues are starting to shift at least, somewhat to this > format as well. > Thoughts of LaughingVulcan > There are several considerations for that. We did not offer a JTP section, and we did not offer team prizes (which I concluded meant we would not get the same kind of school support that the BNASC events have.) > Offering JTP could easily add a few dozen to your event. There are always parents who “want to try it out” > before committing long term. In regard to teams, it is hard to know, at least in DFW, who sees your tournament publicity, and who will come. Coaches have a variety of reasons for selecting whatever tournament they choose. Sometimes they may favor yours if team trophies are available. Now, what you > can do, to both offer these trophies and keep costs down, is to offer “overall” team trophies. > Laughing Vulcan > What I would prepare for, if the tournaments are to be any size at all, is to deal with parents who do not understand why their 10th Grader must play a 2nd Grade student. (And Vice-Versa.) You and I understand why and that it makes sense. Will a new chess parent? > Rob Jones Response > This is certainly an issue with this type of format. And I have heard complaints from both the 2nd grade > mother about “why should my child have to play giants”, and from the 10th grader parent complaining about > “feeing awful about crushing a youngster” or “feeling worse about the youngster crushing them”. But the fact > is, quite often ability in chess has very little to do with what grade a child is in. > LaughingVulcan > And, come to that, will the players themselves understand why your system is better? Or will that 2nd Grade student get discouraged that they always lose to the big kids and walk away from chess (or again especially vice versa.) It is hard enough for adults to emotionally accept that sometimes - all too easy when the game is done to think “I got beaten by that 2nd grader - or I beat that 2nd grader,” instead of “I beat [got beaten by] that player who is rated 400 points above me.” OTOH, it can be hard for an older student to newly come into the game on grade based because most of their contemporaries at the tournament have been playing for years now. > Rob Jones Response > You are correct, sir. This can be an issue either way. I will state this though-I am in contact with many coaches in the design of sections. Several MS and HS coaches like the above concept better as it gives their > lesser and new players a real shot at some success than say a HS or MS open, or too frequently, combined > MS/HS Section. Many times there are simply not enough MS and HS players to adequately form separate > open sections for them anyhow. While trophies alone are great for the younger player, they tend to have > far less appeal, at least for local events, as they get older, and other activities present themselves. The > top drawing HS section we had at a rated local non-regional or state event last year, had 36 HS players. > I do believe that the two college scholarships awarded had something to do with this. > Laughing Vulcan > Also, in parent relations, you will have to be prepared to explain why their K-3 child at the last event did not have to purchase a USCF membership but now does for this tournament as they jump over the rating hump. (And then see the player go down against those U600s or 900s and drop back into the JTP section again because his/her “true strength” really is 375.) > > ``` > Rob Jones Response > > ``` > > As to the child “moving up” to another division and having to purchase a USCF membership if a K-3 Open > section is not offered, most parents are so thrilled by this improvement, that they do not have an issue with > purchasing a membership. For those who elect to play in a harder K-12 section, then they understand that > the purchase of a USCF membership accompanies this decision. Now,the latter does require care on the > part of the TD for section and pairing purposes. A. Most often, the players will elect to stay in the higher > sections they have improved to. B. A new player going 4.0 in a U400 section easily see his rating shoot to > U700+. His actual ability?? Most often not. The responsible thing for a TD to do in my opinion, is to place > the child at the next higher level, say the U600 section, rather than the U900 section. For this reason, at many > of the tournaments I direct, the phrase “players may be placed in sections at Chief TDs discretion”. For discretion sometimes is quite necessary. > Laughing Vulcan > The other thing I’d wonder about is the bounce of provisionally rated players through the sections causing havoc. (Well, in your prior tournaments I didn’t run your P6 score is 401. Can’t pair you into the JTP section even though you only just learned how the king moves and still move the knight 1x1. I’m sure this tournament you’ll go 0-5 and at the next one be much better.) > Rob Jones Response > seldom does a player who performs at a high level in a U400, utterly crash in say a U600 section. Now their > success may not be as great. But if a player has difficulty working through defeat and adversity, and such > is unacceptable to the parent, then a short chess career is probably in the offing anyhow. And I assure you of > this, i have seen very, very, very, few kids do well at all in u400 sections who possess only the bare skillset > as you have described. These players usually get mired around U200, and are the subject of the idea of automatic ratings increases until one reaches a rating of 150. Perhaps this idea is effective in helping kids stick > around?? I really have no idea. > > Those aren’t reasons to not try… Just things I’d prepare for. Thank you for your well-informed thoughts. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![ILfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71e660/32.png) [@ILfish](https://forum.uschess.org/u/ILfish)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/9 "2013-05-10T01:41:10Z")
The Renaissance Knights monthly Quest tournaments are rating based. The U600 & U1000 are scholastic only, while the U1400 and open section are open to adults as well as scholastic players. These are trophy only events and draw quite well as you can see from any of the events so far this year. Please note that there are no grade specific sections, just rating specific. So although the bottom 2 sections are scholastic only, they are in effect small class tournaments (with trophy only prizes) for scholastic aged players rated U1000. Larry S. Cohen ---
**Author:** ![William\_H\_Stokes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ce7236/32.png) [@William\_H\_Stokes](https://forum.uschess.org/u/William_H_Stokes)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 3:20am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/10 "2013-05-10T03:20:06Z")
New postby relyea on Wed May 08, 2013 4:53 pm #255246 Of course the great thing about the USCF model is that for $40 Mr. Merli can set up an affiliate (or perhaps can use an existing one and save the $40) and test out his ideas and report back to us. Something that he ought to consider, though, is that there is a major difference between racing and chess. There is simply no equivalent in a chess tournament to running a five hour marathon. I agree with the idea of putting theories to the test. I have never run a marathon of any sort but I have competed in a few marathon chess battles in tournaments. Whether I managed to reel in the point, save the position, or lose, the effort left me quite exhausted both physically and mentally. I imagine many tournament players have shared this experience with me. Many people run in marathons because there are many runners. There are even caps on how many participants can run in the races which adds to their prestige. I wish that chess would get to the state where major events like the World Open were capped because too many people were breaking down the door with entry fees. Perhaps the scholastic format should be based on team play. It seems to me that the World Amateur Team is an example of an event where people play for the love of competition and the game. ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 4:00am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/11 "2013-05-10T04:00:26Z")
> [@William H Stokes](#): > > New postby relyea on Wed May 08, 2013 4:53 pm #255246 > Of course the great thing about the USCF model is that for $40 Mr. Merli can set up an affiliate (or perhaps can use an existing one and save the $40) and test out his ideas and report back to us. > > Something that he ought to consider, though, is that there is a major difference between racing and chess. There is simply no equivalent in a chess tournament to running a five hour marathon. > > I agree with the idea of putting theories to the test. I have never run a marathon of any sort but I have competed in a few marathon chess battles in tournaments. Whether I managed to reel in the point, save the position, or lose, the effort left me quite exhausted both physically and mentally. I imagine many tournament players have shared this experience with me. Many people run in marathons because there are many runners. There are even caps on how many participants can run in the races which adds to their prestige. I wish that chess would get to the state where major events like the World Open were capped because too many people were breaking down the door with entry fees. Perhaps the scholastic format should be based on team play. It seems to me that the World Amateur Team is an example of an event where people play for the love of competition and the game. The scholastic team idea is interesting. The problem is that really, not that many schools show up at most local scholastics as an organized team. Most of the time, a hand full of kids from a particular school just so happen to come with little coordination from their school. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![eastside](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/eastside/32/3726_2.png) [@eastside](https://forum.uschess.org/u/eastside)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/12 "2013-05-10T18:32:36Z")
A few general observations… (1) People don’t just play for money, especially in local events. The conditions offered are pretty important too. Smaller tournaments with good conditions will do well, both financially and competitively, regardless of the prizes. An excellent example: [Progress With Chess](http://www.progresswithchess.org/) is an organization in northeast Ohio that has monthly four-round G/30 events. They’re in nice venues. Sets and boards are provided, as are highly competent and efficient tournament directors. Food is offered, either for sale separately or as part of the entry fee. There are two “adult” sections, an Open and a U1500, and at least one scholastic section with trophies and participation medals. The entry fee is $25. First prize in the Open is usually around $100. These tournaments routinely draw 35-50 players for the “adult” sections, and that number typically includes anywhere from 3 to 8 masters. The scholastic sections draw good fields as well. (2) In general, you do need to offer significant class prizes (or offer class sections with significant class prizes) if you are going to have participation from stronger players. However, this certainly doesn’t have to be the goal of every event - and in fact, it may well be that it shouldn’t be the goal of every event. (3) There is merit to both the “pure” open-tournament prize structure and any class-, rating- or age-based prize structure. Which one an organizer employs is dependent on some combination of market factors and personal goals for an event. (4) Chris Merli’s been around a long time. How long? He was executive director of the Missouri Chess Association around the time I first joined USCF. He has what I would consider a distinguished history as a chess player, director, fiduciary, organizer and coach. Even if one disagrees with the ideas he espouses (which, I should note, aren’t exactly new or radical), I would suggest that he deserves a little more respect than certain responses to him have demonstrated. ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/13 "2013-05-10T18:56:24Z")
> [@eastside](#): > > A few general observations… > > (1) People don’t just play for money, especially in local events. The conditions offered are pretty important too. Smaller tournaments with good conditions will do well, both financially and competitively, regardless of the prizes. > > An excellent example: [Progress With Chess](http://www.progresswithchess.org/) is an organization in northeast Ohio that has monthly four-round G/30 events. They’re in nice venues. Sets and boards are provided, as are highly competent and efficient tournament directors. Food is offered, either for sale separately or as part of the entry fee. There are two “adult” sections, an Open and a U1500, and at least one scholastic section with trophies and participation medals. The entry fee is $25. First prize in the Open is usually around $100. These tournaments routinely draw 35-50 players for the “adult” sections, and that number typically includes anywhere from 3 to 8 masters. The scholastic sections draw good fields as well. > > (2) In general, you do need to offer significant class prizes (or offer class sections with significant class prizes) if you are going to have participation from stronger players. However, this certainly doesn’t have to be the goal of every event - and in fact, it may well be that it shouldn’t be the goal of every event. > > (3) There is merit to both the “pure” open-tournament prize structure and any class-, rating- or age-based prize structure. Which one an organizer employs is dependent on some combination of market factors and personal goals for an event. > > (4) Chris Merli’s been around a long time. How long? He was executive director of the Missouri Chess Association around the time I first joined USCF. He has what I would consider a distinguished history as a chess player, director, fiduciary, organizer and coach. Even if one disagrees with the ideas he espouses (which, I should note, aren’t exactly new or radical), I would suggest that he deserves a little more respect than certain responses to him have demonstrated. 000 Boyd, I would say you hit a home run on every point. Esp the point if one wishes a good attendance of top players, then one generally needs to have a sufficient prize fund to attract. Most players do not play primarily to win the prize money. I say primarily, because most like extra cash from whatever source. But a point others have made, is not a rude point, or a dismissive point, whatsoever. If one prefers a tournament to be run whatever way, the easiest way to accomplish this is to pluck down $ 40 for an affiliate fee, become a TD, and run their own event. In fact, most of us highly encourage this. Who knows, perhaps the new guy in town may have great ideas that we can borrow as our own later. 😃😃 Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![kevin\_bachler](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/kevin_bachler/32/667_2.png) [@kevin\_bachler](https://forum.uschess.org/u/kevin_bachler)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/14 "2013-05-10T19:45:52Z")
> [@eastside](#): > > (4) Chris Merli’s been around a long time. How long? He was executive director of the Missouri Chess Association around the time I first joined USCF. Wow. That IS a long time. 🕶 ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 12:18pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/15 "2013-05-13T12:18:06Z")
> [@Bob McAdams](#): > > > [@DENTONCHESS](#): > > > > As chess ability most often has less to do with age or grade of a student, but rather their > > aptitude and attitude, I have been encouraging a shift from traditional grade based structures to one based on USCF ratings. From say, K, 1st-2nd, 3rd-5th, etc, to a > > structure of K-3 U400, K-12 U600, K-12 U900, and K-12 Open. > > Do you have enough knowledge of who is likely to show up at the tournaments to know that these boundaries are a good choice? > > Rob Jones Answer–we have in the DFW market, thousands of registered USCF > Scholastic players, hundreds of them playing on at least a somewhat regular basis. > I know most of those who play on a regular basis quite well. Besides, the issue > is really, though, will enough players participate qualify for each section to make > the event truly functional?? To date, the answer is most often, yes. > > Another option is to run quads, which divides the tournament into rating-based sections, except that the boundaries between sections are determined on the day of the tournament based on who actually comes. > > Rob Jones Answer: > Quads for scholastics tends to be problematic, as you really have no idea who will > show up, that is actually be there, even for a closed group tournament. Secondly, > trophies for one of 4 could get expensive. Also, the team concept becomes more > difficult. > > Bob Bob, have a great day, Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2013, 12:48pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/16 "2013-05-13T12:48:36Z")
> [@LaughingVulcan](#): > > Interesting concept, and I wish you the best of luck with it. (Not just luck, since much of what you propose makes sense.) I’ve run a few mixed scholastic-adults based on ratings break. > > I’ve offered a true Open along with Under 600 Scholastic. We also offered Under 1000-1400 Scholastic sections, at the same tournaments, but typically we couldn’t draw enough players. They seem to run OK, but we’ve only drawn 10-20% of peak attendance of the main scholastic events in town. > > Answer–Give it Time, there is traditional opposition to such ideas. In sports, the > size, speed, and maturity of the child increases with age and grade level. While, > of course, general maturity tends to increase with chess as well, quite often there is > not a parallel increase in the ability to play the game compared with other sports. > The chess ability of a K student more than a few times, is greater than that of a > 12th grader. And even more so, as the grade increases from K. What matters more > is at what level chess is introduced, and the individual passion of the player. But, for > the new parent, shock is the initial reaction of seeing their “little man” play “Goliath” > and we know how that story went for Goliath. > > There are several considerations for that. We did not offer a JTP section, and we did not offer team prizes (which I concluded meant we would not get the same kind of school support that the BNASC events have.) > > Answer–Not offering JTP sections means that there are dozens of kids who will > play UNR sections rather than being introduced to USCF. This tends to place > an unnecessary barrier to future progress on many, serving, really little purpose. > The assumption no teams will come even if trophies are offered is, I think, flawed, > for scholastic events. Good advertising, including on-line TLA, tends to bring more > teams and players. > > What I would prepare for, if the tournaments are to be any size at all, is to deal with parents who do not understand why their 10th Grader must play a 2nd Grade student. (And Vice-Versa.) You and I understand why and that it makes sense. Will a new chess parent? > > Answer–quite often not. And it does take a patient attitude of the parent to understand. Some parents are not patient, because it runs counter to everything they > have learned from other sports. Most, however, give it a try, and most quickly > understand the reality. > > And, come to that, will the players themselves understand why your system is better? Or will that 2nd Grade student get discouraged that they always lose to the big kids and walk away from chess (or again especially vice versa.) It is hard enough for adults to emotionally accept that sometimes - all too easy when the game is done to think “I got beaten by that 2nd grader - or I beat that 2nd grader,” instead of “I beat [got beaten by] that player who is rated 400 points above me.” OTOH, it can be hard for an older student to newly come into the game on grade based because most of their contemporaries at the tournament have been playing for years now. > > Answer: For the young, inexperienced, esp, losing is more difficult. Big kids for > psychological reasons have told me they hate “being bullies” and beating smaller > kids. Again, this perception can only be changed with time, and a willingness to > learn. Your second point is one of the key reasons many middle and high school > coaches love the format. In the traditional MS and HS open sections (historically > it is much harder to have enough players at local events to have U sections for > MS/HS only), their new players simply get wiped out. Not fun. Not good for > fueling the necessary passion to continue. With a K-12 ratings based concept > however, the kids a. can start at a more equitable level, and b. has a yardstick > from which to measure their growth, and thus fuel their passion. > > Also, in parent relations, you will have to be prepared to explain why their K-3 child at the last event did not have to purchase a USCF membership but now does for this tournament as they jump over the rating hump. (And then see the player go down against those U600s or 900s and drop back into the JTP section again because his/her “true strength” really is 375.) > > Answer: As to the first part, most parents do view this as a necessary expense, and > are quite proud to pay extra, as this represents a “promotion” for their young star. > As to the later, with careful td review of the player MSA history, such incidents > can be minimized. (for example, a kid with winning a U400 going 5-0 who jumps > his rating from 390 to 625 does not really belong in the U900 section, as in fact, > he has not demonstrated that his skills are comparative with those in that section) > TDs do have, and should use, the right to assign more proper ratings in such > incidences. > > The other thing I’d wonder about is the bounce of provisionally rated players through the sections causing havoc. (Well, in your prior tournaments I didn’t run your P6 score is 401. Can’t pair you into the JTP section even though you only just learned how the king moves and still move the knight 1x1. I’m sure this tournament you’ll go 0-5 and at the next one be much better.) > > Answer: See above answer. > > Those aren’t reasons to not try… Just things I’d prepare for. Thought: any format, if used long enough, will have naysayers for whatever reason. I am interested in these thoughts, so that i can improve what I am doing. But, what I am more interested in is this–who among those with complaints is willing to volunteer their time to make our events better?? Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![MHoffpauir](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/mhoffpauir/32/1878_2.png) [@MHoffpauir](https://forum.uschess.org/u/MHoffpauir)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 1:26am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/17 "2013-05-19T01:26:36Z")
We’ve been running events with this sort of format for many years in the Virginia Scholastic Chess Assn a common format we use is: K12-Open; K12U800; K5-Open; K5-U600. Not at all uncommon to have elementary schoolers playing in K12 Open because the kids (and, yes, sometimes their parents) want a bigger challenge. The only concerns I’ve seen with this format is when we endup combining a couple of sections, for example, combining the two Under sections because we didn’t get enough players … at these times we sometimes (but infrequently) will have a parent complaining, “I don’t want my 2nd grader playing against high-school age players.” In my experience, that perspective most often occurs with parents who are just as new to tournaments as the kids they bring with them. Mike Hoffpauir, NTD VA Scholastic Chess Assn Member, USCF Scholastics Council ---
**Author:** ![Smythe\_Dakota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ee59a6/32.png) [@Smythe\_Dakota](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Smythe_Dakota)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2013, 1:44am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/18 "2013-05-19T01:44:52Z")
> [@MHoffpauir](#): > > … The only concerns I’ve seen with this format is when we endup combining a couple of sections, for example, combining the two Under sections because we didn’t get enough players … What you might try in this situation is keeping the sections separate as long as possible, then combining them “only slightly” in the final rounds. For example, if the weaker of the two sections has only 4 players, you could run it as a round-robin for the first 3 rounds. Then, in any remaining rounds, pair the 4 against the lowest scorers in the upper section, and pair the rest of the upper section normally. Bill Smythe ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2013, 12:54pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/19 "2013-05-20T12:54:52Z")
> [@MHoffpauir](#): > > We’ve been running events with this sort of format for many years in the Virginia Scholastic Chess Assn a common format we use is: > K12-Open; K12U800; K5-Open; K5-U600. Not at all uncommon to have elementary schoolers playing in K12 Open because the kids (and, yes, sometimes their parents) want a bigger challenge. The only concerns I’ve seen with this format is when we endup combining a couple of sections, for example, combining the two Under sections because we didn’t get enough players … at these times we sometimes (but infrequently) will have a parent complaining, “I don’t want my 2nd grader playing against high-school age players.” In my experience, that perspective most often occurs with parents who are just as new to tournaments as the kids they bring with them. > > Mike Hoffpauir, NTD > VA Scholastic Chess Assn > Member, USCF Scholastics Council Exactly!! But, quickly most parents understand that just because Mary is in K and Johnny is a HS Senior, does not mean Johnny is a better chess player. And I have had upset parents of the HS kids because their children are humiliated at being defeated by those in primary grades. The age/grade approach works well with other physical sports–it falls short with chess. Rob Jones ---
**Author:** ![DENTONCHESS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19b73/32.png) [@DENTONCHESS](https://forum.uschess.org/u/DENTONCHESS)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2013, 12:53pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736/20 "2013-05-22T12:53:14Z")
> [@Smythe Dakota](#): > > > [@MHoffpauir](#): > > > > … The only concerns I’ve seen with this format is when we endup combining a couple of sections, for example, combining the two Under sections because we didn’t get enough players … > > What you might try in this situation is keeping the sections separate as long as possible, then combining them “only slightly” in the final rounds. > > For example, if the weaker of the two sections has only 4 players, you could run it as a round-robin for the first 3 rounds. Then, in any remaining rounds, pair the 4 against the lowest scorers in the upper section, and pair the rest of the upper section normally. > > Bill Smythe A very interesting proposal. Very interesting–requires some thought. Yet, another great idea from others I just might “rip off” for myself. Thank You, Rob Jones [Next page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/a-scholastic-chess-format/17736.md?page=2)