I’ve not read over everything in detail about this ADM yet, but I think Ken’s direction is correct. The language in the current rules is very ambiguous.
Terry V. I think it says that a Local TD needs 10 Cat Cs that, cumulatively added, have 400 players. But then, it could mean that on needs only 5 Cat Cs and the additional 5 may be from any category, including D.
I have to read it again, as I’m operating on memory right now.
One thing that I wish would be done is to remove the parenthetical substitutions from the paragraph. It all seems to run together, and is very difficult to read. The substitutions could be placed in a separate paragraph.
I suspect the reason the rules got as complicated as they are is because they started out simple, ie, N tournaments of type X, and then people started asking for tweaks in the rules for candidates with situations that ALMOST MET the X category condition but had other mitigating ‘experience’ factors in them.
I predict that any simplification (if that’s what this winds up as) will soon be re-complicated all over again, for the same reasons as before.
Mike, you might not see it, but I’m wearing a “Hello, my name is” tag on which I’ve written “The Messenger,” and I have both hands up high in the air. Please don’t shoot!
I’m not proposing new forms of credit. The bits about “floor TD” and “backroom TD” and “limited to making rulings and solving problems” and “duties of pairings” are already in the existing rules. And I too have wondered how these would be tracked and verified.
All I’m trying to do in this ADM is to make explicit the minimum size requirements in the subcategory definitions.
Yes, 5 category C and at least 5 additional tournaments tht add up to at least 400 players. Ten category C tournaments would by definition have to add up to at least 500 players (minimum 50 per category C).
Here is the text from the January, 2009, version of the certification rules document. “STD” in this case refers to “Senior Tournament Director” (I hope 
)
Ken, would it surprise you to learn that of those 5 additional tournaments that NONE of them can be Category D? In fact, someone else I know who wants to take the Senior TD Test was told, “you cannot substituted [sic] Category D tournaments for Category C tournaments.”
I deduce that the 400 minimum presumes that you have 8 Category C tournaments (the minimum, Mike Nolan) and have fulfilled two requirements in section 4. c - g to get the final two Category C tournament experience credits.
It would surprise me. I remember the old rule of “5 Category C plus at least five others to bring the total up to at least 400.” Using the new “pick one from column A, two from column B” of the January, 2009, document, I would have said the following:
Item 1: chief TD of three Category C tournaments.
Item 2: choose (a) and (b) for two Category C tournaments.
Item 3: Chief TD of three Swiss tournaments (there is no size requirement in item 3, so Category D tournaments should be acceptable.
Item 4: choose (a) and (b) for two additional Swiss tournaments. Add more tournaments to item 4 if the total is not at least 400.
Now, I will say that the text “counts as 10 Category C tournament credits” next to “STD Experience Option 1” could be misread as requiring ten Category C tournament credits.
I don’t know when that request for the Senior TD exam was made. I do know that Phil Smith recently took over handling TD certification requests. I’d certainly understand the possibility of “process learning pains,” but I would also hope there would be a straightforward way of correcting such issues.
Ken, the test request was sent just a few weeks ago.
Would you consider amending your ADM to include unambiguous wording that corrects this situation you just demonstrated.
Please keep in mind what is stated under General Qualifications, 5. Requirement Credit…A section of a tournament is equivalent to a stand-alone tournament…
I’d prefer to introduce another ADM, but I’m not sure why. If there’s a simple “change ‘this’ to ‘that’” edit that would make the meaning clearer, I could be persuaded to add it to my ADM. (Maybe the solution is to remove “counts as 10 Category C tournament credits” from the heading.)
On the other hand, perhaps the case you’re describing is indeed a “process learning pain” that can be solved easily by the TDCC offering some guidance?
Um, well … I’m glad to keep that in mind, but I’m not entirely sure what I’m supposed to do with it. I think that’s supposed to explain why it is only possible to obtain one experience credit even if one were section chief TD for multiple sections (but not the chief TD of the whole tournament), for example.
As I read the requirements, I get the following:
Needs 5 Cat Cs as Chief TD. Can use two C1s or C2s to sub for 2 of the 5 required) to satisfy 30 a.
Find five more Swiss-System tournaments (any category, including D), to satisfy 30 b.
So, get:
3 Cat Cs
2 Cat C1 (or C2)
5 more tournaments of any size, but must be Swiss-System
TOTAL 10 tournaments
These 10 tournaments must add up to at least 400 players, and all must have been at least 4 rounds.
Also interesting is Rule 12. which gives an EVENT ASSISTANT (a.k.a. Chief Asst., NOT just a floor assistant) credit for that tournament. Based on 1 Assistant for every 50 players, but doesn’t mention how much credit is given. Is it for one whole event, or does the Assistant and/or Chief each get one-half credit, and how is that defined (1/2 of the total entries, or 1/2 of a tournament?)
The Delegate will almost certainly refer this type of ADM to the TDCC.
I believe tournament participation, with the exception of scholastics and big events, is lower than when the numerical requirements were written. It seems to me that they should be reviewed and modified so that it becomes possible to meet the requirements in a more reasonable time frame. That would encourage more TDs to move to the next level and we would have better trained TDs.
I agree that participation is down…at least in our immediate area. While a review and modification of the requirements might help to remedy the problem, I wonder if it would have been better to base certification levels on something other than player participation.
Such as what?
The experience requirements are basically there to help ensure that the TD has ‘been there and done that’. The test then confirms that the TD also has a certain level of theoretical knowledge (or knows how to find it in the rule book, or how to read between the lines of the rule book.)
It is true that player-based experience requirements aren’t perfect. I know of one individual who directed dozens of events, but failed the Senior exam repeatedly, which, having talked to some of the players in those events, actually didn’t surprise me.
But what would you replace them with?
Passing a comprehensive test that is administered in a controlled environment by the USCF. For those that pass, give them the privilege of directing larger tournaments. Eliminate the player-based experience requirements since they are difficult to achieve. Qualified TDs aren’t getting the opportunities they need in order to move up to higher levels for any number of reasons they cannot control.
That said (and slightly off-topic), I think the emphasis should be based on the needs of the local/regional chess communites rather than the personal aspirations of individual directors. If local/regional chess activities can support those TDs with higher certification levels then all should be well. Create a demand first.
I suggest that an hour long clinic be structured by the TD committee to be given by a Senior TD or higher that covers those things learned by “being there and doing that”. And credit given for those Club and Local TDs who attend one or more of these clinics, which could be offered at the one or more two day events in my state or close by events which I and others might attend.
I like that idea. I think that “on-the-job-traning” has its place, but so many times in the rush of things, true learning is forced to take a backseat to the demands of the job. So much more could be accomplished in a quiet setting. You also have the benefit of teaching to a larger group instead of those specifically picked to assist.
Not necessarily.
If I define ‘adult’ tournament as one in which there were 3 or more players who were age 19
or older in any one section, there were 5258 such events in 2008, close to the number in 1999 (5353), the year before dual rating started. In 2005, 2006 and 2007 the number of adult events was between 4850 and 5000…
The way dual rating was handled in 2000 through 2004 makes it difficult to tabulate the number of events held in those years.
It’s also worth noting that of those 5258 adult events held last year, over 90% were small enough that a Club TD could have served as the chief TD, which is nearly identical to the number of ‘small’ events in 1999.
The number of scholastic events is up, 2938 in 2008 compared to 1807 in 1999. Interestingly enough, about 25% of the scholastic events in both 1999 and 2008 were large enough to require a TD certified above the Club TD level.
Any stats on the # of players particpating in 1991 vs 2008 per event? I do believe that has declined significantly. It certainly has in my area.
We don’t have complete data from 1991. In 1992 there were 5678 adult events. Adult USCF membership peaked in the 33,000 range in around 1996, in that year there were 6578 adult
events.