If a tournament offers a special prize, such as Best Junior, Best Girl, Best Senior, etc., is that prize considered to be a bonus prize or a class prize? In other words, if Erik Karklins won the World Open, would he win the first prize, and give the top senior prize to a lesser-scoring senior, or would he win first prize and also take the senior prize as a kind of special bonus, or promotional prize?
What about if the same thing happened in the Crossville Open (where the amount of the prizes, and the difference between first overall and first senior would presumably be much less)?
According to Rule 32B1, it's not so clear.
I think it depends on how it’s worded in the advertising. If it says “$200 bonus to top senior” then it should be a bonus. Otherwise, it should be a class prize.
Interesting question! I would interpret “class prize” narrowly, meaning “a prize based on (demonstrated) chess playing ability,” or, in other words, ratings. Age and gender are factors not based on chess playing ability, so I would lean toward interpreting these as bonus prizes. Put another way: if I work really, really hard at it, I stand a chance of improving my chess playing ability (class). There’s absolutely nothing I can do about my age, and (except for rather drastic means … cough) nothing about gender.
I agree with you, Alex. Rule 32B1 isn’t entirely clear about whether a prize for Top Senior is an exception to the rule that “no winner shall receive more than one cash award.” It says “Prizes such as biggest upset, best game, or brilliancy are standard exceptions to this rule” but doesn’t say whether an age-based prize is also an exception to the rule. However, rule 32B4 says “A player who is eligible for prizes of identical amounts, with one being a rating-based class prize an the other being a prize for juniors, seniors, etc., shall receive the rating-based class prize.”
The player should receive place prizes or class prizes, which are higher in category to the separate prizes based on age or gender. Usually, our club holds such tournaments with these separate prizes. It guarantees that we have as many prizes as possible to give out. Giving two prizes to the same person may create envy and other bad feelings toward that player and the tournament. However, it might arise sometime that our young players will win the place and class prizes and leave the gender and UAgeX prizes untaken. Then we may have to revise our policy and give out two trophies to the same person. Fortunately, the rule is flexible enough that we can do it either way. We do give out door prizes to boost attendance, so we already have the precedent of giving two prizes to the same player. The door prizes are announced before the last round pairings are posted.
Junior, Senior, and other such prizes have traditionally been considered to be special prizes and are awarded in addition to regular and class prizes. If the TLA states that a person can only win 1 prize, then that could be interpreted to mean only a class/place prize or a special prize. Do not forget that special prizes can’t be reduced due to a lack of entries. I do not know if there is a section in the rule book that mentions “bonus” prizes, and if they can be reduced.
Where is this stated in the rulebook? As I read the rules, a Top Senior cash prize would be reduced in the same proportion as all the other prizes, unless the TLA explicitly stated that the prize was guaranteed.
I don’t think the term “bonus prize” is used in the rulebook, but the concept is there in rule 32B1: “No winner shall receive more than one cash award. … Prizes such as biggest upset, best game, or brilliancy are standard exceptions from this rule.”
I’m pretty sure that Bill Goichberg believes that bonus prizes can be reduced based on entries. Look at the top two prizes in the Open Section at the 2012 World Open, for example. There was a $300 bonus prize for clear first place, or the winner of a playoff game between the top two on tiebreak. GMs Sokolov and Shabalov tied for first place, with Sokolov winning the playoff game. Sokolov won $12,926.50 and Shabalov won $12,673.50, a difference of $253. If Bill thought that bonus prizes couldn’t be reduced the difference would have been $300.
The standard exceptions use to also include age and gender [i.e. top Jr, Top Sr, Top female] prizes as well. That may have been changed in which case it should have been specifically stated that those prizes no longer were part of the standard exceptions. To the best of my knowledge those age & gender prizes are still considered to be part of the standard exceptions. Someone should check with Tim Just about that.
As for the “bonus prize” that is now offered that is apparently different. I believe Mr. Goichberg was the first to use such prizes. I do know of 1 tournament that offered prizes for the top players and also had a second prize fund for the players with the most wins. Those prizes were not exclusive and a player could win a prize from each prize fund if they did well enough. That possibility was clearly stated prior to the tournament.
Another example I know of where there was a bonus prize was a tournament called Minus Score, where there were regular place and class prizes. In addition to those prizes there was ‘minus money’ for players with a score of 0.5, 1.0, & 1.5 points out of 4 rounds of play. The TLA specifically stated that players winning a class prize were not eligible for the ‘minus money’.
The rule book may state general rules, but the USCF does allow variations so long as they are listed in the TLA.
Do not get confused with the rule of 1 prize per person as that is different. Many years ago as an A class player I tied with an Expert class player for second in a small tournament. The TD awarded the two of us the second place prize, the top Expert prize, and the top A class prize. I argued for 5 minutes that this was wrong, then gave up and took the extra money. Sometimes there is no way to win an argument with a TD and/or organizer even if you are right.
I’ve looked in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition rulebooks and I can’t find anything that says that age and gender prizes are standard exceptions. I don’t have the 1st edition. The 2nd edition (Appendix I, rule 2(a)(1)) says:
In the 5th edition, although it’s not explicitly stated that age and gender prizes aren’t standard exceptions to the “one prize per player” rule, it’s strongly implied:
Yes, I’d be interested in hearing what Tim Just, or other members of the rules committee, have to say about this. Ken Ballou said he thought a player could win both a Top Senior prize and a place prize, but he may have changed his mind in light of the rules that I’ve posted.
Don’t over think it. IMHO, you were right the first time. Besides, the Delegates will get to see some new wording to this set of rules (ala Steve) via some DMs.
Interesting. I think it would be good to clarify the rules, and if the new rule were that age- and gender-based prizes are exceptions to the “one prize per player” rule I’d be fine with that.
Getting back to the OP, based on a conversation I had with Bill Goichberg I believe that at the World Open, Top Senior prizes will not be treated as exceptions to the “one prize per player” rule.
IMHO, making long lists to clarify something like this is a fruitless errand. No matter how many items are on the list, something will get left off or something new and unexpected will appear on the scene and not fit in just right. The real solution to rules that express a concept is for the organizer to make sure the concept and intent is clear in the tournament publicity (ala your World Open example). That does not mean the list should not exist, just that it should only be a sampling of the applied concept via example, and not definitive.
Good point, Tim. In hindsight, the World Open TLA should have advertised the prizes as “Top Senior 65/over not winning another prize”, to eliminate the ambiguity.
On second thought, I think somewhere in the TLA, maybe near the list of prize restrictions, it should have said something like: “One prize per player, not including bonus prizes.” Otherwise, if the highest-scoring senior in a section finished in 10th place, with a $500 prize, and the Top Senior prize was $1000, the next senior in line might claim that the highest-scoring senior should win $500 and next-highest-scoring senior should win $1000. On the other hand, if the prize were advertised as “Top Senior 65/over not winning a higher prize”, a senior finishing in 10th place might claim that he’s entitled to win the $500 10th prize and the $1000 Top Senior prize.
Perhaps a good term for prizes that are not to be aggregated with other prizes is to refer to them as an “independent” prize. For example, a brilliancy prize would normally be an independent prize. “Bonus” doesn’t seem like the right word here. Independent indicates that the relativeness of other prizes has no effect. “Free” is another possibility, but I think has the potential for confusion.
Alternatively, something conveying that it cannot be “aggregated” or “mixed”. Mixable and non-mixable prizes for example.
So the prizes for mixed doubles teams would be non-mixable mixed doubles prizes?
“Bonus prize” is the term Bill Goichberg has been using in his CCA TLAs. I like it better than the alternatives that you’ve suggested. The prizes are a bonus in addition to whatever other prizes the player may win.
Clearly the best practice is to clearly state in the TLA and advertisements if there are restrictions on winning prizes. This could be only 1 prize can be won, or it could be that the special and/or bonus prizes are added prizes that are available to everyone (who qualifies) in addition to the regular prizes.
I will state that my past experience as a player and a TD is that the understanding was that Junior and Senior prizes were additional prizes.
