Clarification of TD certification experience requirements
In the TD certification rules, exactly one of the following actions will be taken for the definition of each of subcategory N3, N4, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, and D2. (Different actions may be taken for each definition.)
Action 1: Insert the following sentence in the definition: “There is no minimum number of players the section must contain in order to meet this definition.”
Action 2: Insert an explicit requirement of a minimum number of players for the section in question: “one section (of at least ___ entrants)”.
Additionally, for the definitions of subcategory A1 and A2, exactly one of the following actions will be taken.
Action 1: Insert the following sentence in the definition: “There is no minimum prize fund required for the section to meet this definition.”
Action 2: Insert an explicit requirement of a minimum prize fund for the section.
I think it means that while the main tournament categories (N/A/B/C/D) in Chapter 7 have number of entrants and prize fund requirements (for category A,) the part specifying sections (A1/A2 etc.) don’t have number of section entrants / prize funds specified.
So, for example, does a Category C tournament with 60 entrants, but a section of only 6 entrants, qualify a floor TD for a C1 credit for supervising that section?
(If that wasn’t the intent of the ‘proposal’ or the type of question it was designed to answer, then I’m confused too…)
I was afraid of that. I really struggled with the wording for the ADM. However, LaughingVulcan has it exactly right.
I’m trying to be careful what I say right now because there is an appeal currently under consideration by the TDCC. Someone has claimed an “experience credit” for one of these subcategories. The claim was denied because of the number of players in the section (even though the whole tournament easily met the category definition).
My goal is to get an explicit statement one way or the other inserted in the definition. For example, “subcategory B1: one section (of at least 63 players) of a category B tournament …”. (I’ve intentionally chosen a silly number for this example.)
The wording is more complicated because the intent may be different for different subcategories. For example, since a category D tournament is the smallest Swiss, perhaps there is no minimum player count for a section to qualify as D1 or D2. On the other hand, there may be a minimum count for a section to qualify as B1 or B2. In particular, perhaps there is no minimum player count for an N3 or N4 section, although we did change the definition of N1 last year to be based on the tournament’s average attendance over the five previous years.
(Subcategories A1 and A2 are “special” because category A tournaments have both a player count and prize fund in the definition. The second part of the ADM tries to clarify whether there are also prize fund requirements for subcategories A1 and A2.)
Believe me, I would greatly appreciate suggestions for making the wording clearer!
This wording is not the intention of the TDCC. A 63 player section of any event (even a category B tournament) is not in and of itself a category B tournament, nor should it be. The intent is that if a section of any event is 100 + players, and the TD did the floor work, only then does it count as a B1 tournament.
Example: The State Of Confusion Open meets all the requirements for a Category B tournament with 102 players (etc.); however, each of the two sections has only 51 players each. The tournament floor chief gets a B1 experience credit. The section floor chief only gets a category C1 credit due to the 51 player count.
I will have more to say on the subject of the appeals process in one of my first reinstated TD Corners (Phil Smith plans to post it on the USCF site!).
I am afraid the only way for you to get your ADM across is to actually reword each and every section according to your view point. That is actually easier than you think. Since the sections you are looking at are all worded the same, just create the first one then copy-paste them while changing a few words/numbers to fit the needs of the other sub categories. Anyhow, that is how I did it when I edited those TD rules.
OK, I understand this. Then my recommendation is to eliminate the “one section of a category tournament” language except in the definitions of subcategories N3 and N4. The definitions of categories A, C, and D include the language “Swiss system tournament or tournament section”. (Oddly, the definition of category B does not, but I assume that is an oversight.)
Clarification of TD certification experience requirements
The following changes are made to the TD certification rules. (Section numbers refer to the “Tournament Director Certifications” document dated January, 2009. This document is currently available at http://main.uschess.org/docs/forms/TDCertificationRules.doc.)
Section 26: Replace the first sentence of the definition of “Category A” with the following: “A Category A event is a USCF-rated Swiss tournament or tournament section, except Category I or N, that regularly draws more than 300 entrants and awards $5,000+ in prizes.”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory A1” with the following: “Subcategory A1 is a Category A event where the TD is limited to solving problems and making rulings on the floor only (floor TD).”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory A2” with the following: “Subcategory A2 is a Category A event where the TD is limited to the duties of pairings in a backroom capacity using a pairing program (backroom TD).”
Section 27: Replace the first sentence of the definition of “Category B” with the following: “A Category B event is a USCF-rated Swiss tournament or tournament section (except Category I, N, or A) drawing 100 or more entrants.”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory B1” with the following: “Subcategory B1 is a Category B event where the TD is limited to solving problems and making rulings on the floor only (floor TD).”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory B2” with the following: “Subcategory B2 is a Category B event where the TD is limited to the duties of pairings in a backroom capacity using a pairing program (backroom TD).”
Section 28: Replace the first sentence of the definition of “Category C” with the following: “A Category C event is a USCF-rated Swiss tournament or tournament section, except Category I or N, drawing 50 to 99 entrants.”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory C1” with the following: “Subcategory C1 is a Category C event where the TD is limited to solving problems and making rulings on the floor only (floor TD).”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory C2” with the following: “Subcategory C2 is a Category C event where the TD is limited to the duties of pairings in a backroom capacity using a pairing program (backroom TD).”
Section 29: Replace the first sentence of the definition of “Category D” with the following: “A Category D event is a USCF-rated Swiss tournament or tournament section, except Category I or N, drawing fewer than 50 entrants.”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory D1” with the following: “Subcategory D1 is a Category D event where the TD is limited to solving problems and making rulings on the floor only (floor TD).”
Replace the definition of “Subcategory D2” with the following: “Subcategory D2 is a Category D event where the TD is limited to the duties of pairings in a backroom capacity using a pairing program (backroom TD).”
Well, I appreciate the language that Ken has entered. It is a step in the right direction. The current wording of the TD requirements for taking TD exams is woefully inadequate and is subject to interpretation. IMO, there is no virtue in guessing the correct interpretation of the requirements and it should not be based upon who reads the request for an exam.
The TDCC has a responsibility to its members to provide a non-arbitrary set of requirements for this organization’s TDs. Doesn’t it? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t have the time to parse words, seek clarification, receive incorrect interpretation, resubmit, and repeat-as-necessary. People lead extremely busy lives and I would appreciate clear language for all.
You shouldn’t have to play tiddlywinks over something as basic as written requirements to take a TD exam.
Sorry to quibble, but nearly any experience requirement is an arbitrary standard, what you are arguing for appears to be consistency and specificity, as well as adequacy.
I think a case could be made that some of the TD experience requirements are inadequate for the certification level which is being sought, but that’s probably not the direction you’re trying to go with this ADM.
A second issue is that the USCF’s TD experience records are less than complete and do not have enough information to completely verify someone’s claimed TD experience. (For example, we don’t know the size of the total prize fund for most events. much less the prize fund for individual sections of events.)
TDs have always been advised to maintain an independent record of their directing activity in anticipation of applying for a higher level of certification.
Some imprecision is always going to be present in reviewing that record.
Further, when you direct an event or section of an event get something in writing verifying the job you did before you leave. It might be required later to fill in the gaps that can’t be proved in any other way. It is a lot easier for you to walk away with verification than to try and get it later.
No, Mike, that is not what I am talking about. It is not the record I am referring to. I agree that the directing record is the responsibility of the applicant.
Fair comment. On the other hand, I am not trying to change certification requirements with this ADM. I am only trying to simplify language that, frankly, I could not interpret in the same way as the TDCC members do.
I absolutely understand Tim Just’s explanation of the TDCC’s intent with the various subcategories. However, I also believe that the current wording does not actually say what the TDCC intended.
Ken, please tell me how the USCF office is supposed to know what specific duties you had at the tournaments listed in your TD experience history.
What we currently collect is:
Who the chief TD was.
Who the assistant chief TD (if any) was.
Who the chief of each section was.
Who the assistant chief (if any) of each section was.
What other TDs worked at the tournaments.
The first two of these categories and the last one were added in 2005. Before that, the only information we received was the two section-level fields.
I suspect that many chief TDs don’t bother to list every TD who was in the 5th category. Of 11,155 rated events since 1/1/2008, only 306 have any ‘other TDs’ listed.
Except at large tournaments (the typical tournament has 32 players in it), most TDs do a little bit of everything during the tournament.
