The limitations on one’s certification level apply only to the Chief TD of the tournament, not to the section chiefs, floor chiefs, etc.
Personally, I think serving as the floor chief for such an event should be considered AT LEAST the equivalent of a working a C event, but to consider it more than a C event is contrary to the goal of simplifying the experience requirements, isn’t it?
Moreover, someone who serves as the floor chief of 10 such events may not have had to make even one pairing decision or one division of prize monies and thus may have no demonstrated experience in those areas.
As someone who took the senior exam closed book (in 1987), it was very challenging, and I think the exam has been toughened since then. As I recall, I passed by one point, in part because I argued successfully that one of the questions was improperly written.
The Las Vegas Chess Festival/National Open workshop is a paid entry event and covers pairings, rules, problem solving, scholastics, tournament procedures, TD certification, and much more.
The Free U. S. Open TD workshop is mainly a problem solving workshop and shared experience seminar. This workshop has existed for many, many, many years.
The schedule has not been released by the USCF office for the US Open TD workshop; however, it typically is in the mid to late afternoon following the TDCC business workshop on the Wednesday in the middle of the tournament.
If that is the real TDCC interpretation, then why not eliminate #3 and make #1 say 6 C tournaments, since there is no other substitution in #3? That is just not logical to say they must be C tournaments by the way the whole complicated thing was written.
If you refer back to a post Ken Sloan wrote a few weeks back, he describes the mindset TDCC has regarding what the Local TD exam tests for, what the Senior exam tests for, etc.
Basically I think it boils down to this:
Local TDs need to be able to find a rule in the rulebook and apply it as written.
Senior TDs need to be able to find multiple rules and decide which of them to use and how to blend multiple (possibly somewhat conflicting) rules to fit a specific situation.
ANTDs and NTDs need to be able to figure out what to do when the rules don’t (or shouldn’t) apply.
I don’t know if Cheryle has even started putting the workshop schedule together yet, that’s usually done as part of putting together the Delegates Call.
Work on that will start in earnest next week, as the deadline for filing ADMs is next Monday, June 1st.
Another inconsistency (I think): It seems to me the exclusion of category I tournaments (tournaments submitted to both FIDE and USCF for rating) in the definition of other categories is a source of inconsistency. For example, the definition of category A explicitly excludes category I tournaments. However, the examples include the World Open, which is FIDE rated.
Tim, I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. Does that mean the “except category I” text in the definitions of categories A, B, C, and D in sections 26 through 29 of the January, 2009, version of the TD certification rules document is now obsolete? Should it be removed?
The TDCC no longer oversees the process of FA or IA certification. That implication will be considered if/when the certification rules are revised. The certification rules are the “How To” guides that happen to also cover the USCF’s role in FA and IA certification. So, the references to Category I and other related FA and IA material get included in the current rules.
OK, I think I didn’t write my question clearly. Let me take a specific example. The 78th Massachusetts Open drew 264 players. Based on the number of players, it would qualify as a category B tournament. Now, suppose the open section of the tournament were submitted to FIDE for rating. Would the 78th Massachusetts Open then be a category B tournament?
Here are the definitions from the TD certification rules document.
“Category B: Category B is a USCF-rated Swiss tournament (except categories I, N, or A) drawing 100 or more entrants.” “Category I: A tournament held in the United States that will be submitted to both FIDE and USCF for rating.”
I believe that a strict reading of these definitions leads to the conclusion that the 78th Massachusetts Open would not qualify as a Category B tournament.
I think Tim’s point is that since TDCC is no longer involved in FIDE certification issues (and by extension a particular level of USCF TD certification is no longer needed to apply for the FA or IA title), the ‘I’ category is no longer needed, so the event you cite would be a ‘B’ event as far as qualification for higher TD certification levels is concerned.
Even in the old days you could double dip on an event like this one; i.e., you could get both FIDE and USCF TD credit within the limits set by both organizations.
Thanks, Mike!