Directors Experience Requirements / non-USCF tournaments

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Have been thinking about this on and off for a few years with scholastic players. Everyone that has organizer or have performed as a director with a scholastic tournament understand there are a few scholastic players that are not really ready to play over-the-board chess. Directors at a scholastic tournament should be working with the coaches before the start of the tournament, most directors and coaches do interact with each other before the tournament weeks or months before the day of the tournament.

Mike Nolan has pointed out there are over 4,000 USCF members at the rating floor of 100. There are a number of members with ratings very close to the bottom floor. It is almost a given, most of these players that are so close to the rating floor will not renewal there USCF membership. The players that are at the rating floor of 100 have very little reason to accept the idea to renewal there USCF membership.

If the USCF is going to change the rating system with players that start out at a rating of 100 as being UNR. Mike Nolan did point out there is talk to make the players that start out with a rating of 400 or below as being UNR. Maybe these players are not ready to play over-the-board tournaments, as a rating of 100 very much says it all they are not.

During the era I started out with over-the-board tournaments, young first time scholastic players got there first tournament experience with non-rated tournaments. After it was found out if the player does enjoy over-the-board tournaments, then the player was more accepted to play in a rated tournament. Have been thinking for a number of years directors have been packing the scholastic tournaments just to get the requirements just to become a candidate for the next level of certification. As there are a number of organizers and directors that have opted out of the non-rated first time scholastic tournaments to weed out the players that really do not want to play chess.

What if the experience requirements are changed so that the director(s) do not get the entrants count with anyone under the USCF rating of say 500 USCF rating? If the director has a total of say 60 entries, then the post tournament results have 45 players under the rating of 500 with 15 entrants having a post rating above 500: the director only gets the entrants requirements of only 15 players not 60. This could help to take care of the huge number of players at these low ratings.

True, if the director does not get any credit with players under a USCF rating of 500, directors could start to change their tournaments away from players under the rating of 500. Not to over look these players at these low ratings, the USCF could support non-rated tournaments. The members have to be USCF members, but the players do not get a rating change or a rating if they only play in a non-rated tournament. The USCF should also have a non-rated USCF membership. The member does not get all the membership rights as the other memberships. It could help out to keep the players away from the USCF rating floor of 100; it could gain some new USCF members as some parents are more willing to try out a non-rated scholastic tournament more then a rated USCF tournament. True, the director should get some type of experience requirements with the non-rated tournaments, what that is up to the powers to be.

2

I would argue that directing inexperience and unskilled players is a different skill set than directing higher rated players.

It could also be argued that directing young players (say, under 8 ) is a much different skill set than directing adults.

I know more than a few directors who would be totally inappropriate as directors for a large scholastic tournament.

If anything, this suggests that there should be MORE requirements for directing these types of players in order to advance to higher levels of certification rather than restrictions on counting such players as part of the experience requirement.

3

I would argue that for the most part TDs could care less about the numbers. You may get the 1 or 2 instances where a TD will offer to help direct to increase his numbers but I think you ignoring the root cause of the larger number of kids that play before they are ready. I would say the root cause falls to the organizers who wish to make a profit. The other reason is coaches who wish to give the kids the tournament experience too soon. And at the same time the large number of trophys given out encourage the kids to play irregardless of their skills. In fact the ratings for these kids is probably pretty meaningless, especially when you give every kindergardener a participation trophy.

4

Maybe, we should have a separate rating system for scholastic play. In some ways, scholastic tournament play isn’t about the quality of play, it is about participation. Some good players develop from this environment and go on to play in national tournaments and in adult rated play.

And I would say, if it appears that scholastic organizers are in it to make money, you should probably be checking on who they are making money for. In our local area, we run most of our scholastic tournaments for $12 - $15. I am just basing this off my experience, but I would guess that other than paying USCF TD’s, all “profit” is being put back into local chess clubs who are sponsoring the tournaments. This is probably fair because the tournaments are hosting anywhere from 20-25 schools and there are probably 4-7 local tournaments being put on. The volunteers from the hosting school usually like to make a small profit from running the tournaments and putting on the concession stand.

5

There is a difference with directing inexperienced and unskilled scholastic players than directing experienced and skilled adult players. Out of the two, it is much simpler to get inexperienced and unskilled scholastic players to get the experience requirements. There have been a number of people concerned with the low ratings, as you pointed out Mike the idea to change the rating rules with new players at the rating of 100 to be UNR.

When I first started out with over-the-board tournaments it was almost impossible to have players under the rating of 1000 during the early 1980’s. Now the USCF is concerned about having over 4,000 members at the rating of 100. With the shift towards scholastic tournaments during the 1990’s, there have been a number of players join the USCF without a clue what an over-the-board tournament is all about.

During the spring of 2006, I did have an un-rated scholastic tournament with forty-eight (48 ) scholastic players. Everyone was new; everyone just wanted to get a taste of what a chess tournament was like. Out of there forty-eight players, not a single one has ever came to play in any rated USCF tournament. I never expected they would, as everyone just wanted to enjoy themselves. But, if I had it rated it would have give me one more tournament with forty-eight (48 ) entrants, I already have more than enough tournaments to wave off needing to take the test for recertification in 2009. Now, there are a number of directors needing that type of tournament just to become a candidate for the next level or needing to wave off the test. If I did have it rated, or someone other then myself with the same level of certification did have it rated. I could see the director upset, as it is two (2) players short of being the norm requirement of a Category C tournament for the senior director experience requirements. Maybe a director in that case would just grab two kids just to toss them into the tournament to make it a Category C.

My point is that directors have a stake in the tournaments just to get the experience requirements. Scholastic tournaments have become a mode just to pack in the numbers needed for the experience requirements. With the non-rated tournament if I just pulled two more players to make it a Category C tournament, is not equal to the experience requirements of a Category C tournament with adults.

There are a number of USCF members that would say that someone under the rating of 500 should not be playing in an over-the-board rated tournament in the first place. I accept that, as the players are really not ready to play over-the-board tournaments. If these players are not ready to play over-the-board tournaments, why do we reward the directors with experience requirements?

I’m not going to say the directors should walk away from scholastic players with very low USCF ratings. My point is this, scholastic rated tournament should not be the place to weed out the players that want to play chess and the ones that just want to test the waters. There are a number of parents that would love to have their child play in tournaments, some just to see and test out the waters. The place just to weed out these could be over-the-board players and the ones that want to test out the waters are the un-rated tournaments.

The only reason why tournament directors do not want a non-rated tournament, as the director does not get any experience requirements. Maybe the place to weed out the low rated players that do not rejoin the USCF would be to support non-rated scholastic tournaments. The non-rated scholastic tournament will have a record within the MSA. The director will gets some type of experience requirements. There will be a need to get some type of non-rated USCF membership. But, it will help to remove the very poor USCF ratings and could gain more long term USCF members in the long run.

6

We have a problem of ridiculously low ratings (and ridiculously weak players) such that we’re discussing what to do with ratings that threaten to become negative. Years ago this was indeed considered only a hypothetical possibility. Douglas thinks this absurd situation comes from the incentives for TDs.

I’m not familiar with current TD requirements; I directed locally but it was 30+ years ago. So maybe I’m proposing old ideas …

What about having two types of TD Certification: scholastic and adult. Since the skillsets are different, the exams could be different too. Scholastic certification would have little or nothing to do with rated players. It’s just about getting people to play chess.

Adult certification would be what it has always been and involve rated chess only.

Some parts of the certification would be common to both. Crossover requirements would involve the “missing piece”. An adult TD seeking scholastic certification would have to show he can handle kids and beginners. A scholastic TD seeking adult certification would need a deep understanding of the rules of chess, what is / is not a draw, filing rating reports … whatever is particular to tournaments of more advanced players.

After this is set up, if the scholastic players still need a rating system of their own, the experts (the scholastic organizers and directors) can discuss it.

7

I suspect there would be considerable opposition to segregating scholastic players into their own rating system, and I’m not sure it’s necessary, since they’re for the most part a separate pool of players.

What reasons are there for having a separate system?

Maybe Tim Just or someone from the scholastic community will comment about TD certification issues, personally I think the system we have may already be more complicated than necessary.

Besides, having a local (or higher) TD card is no guarantee of competence as a director or even of comprehension of the USCF rulebook. What reasons are there to think separate ‘adult’ vs ‘scholastic’ certification would change that?

8

While adult certification is no guarantee of a comprehensive knowledge of the rulebook (the exam is still open-book isn’t it) or of right rulings when it counts, I think it’s fair to say that the exam is suggestive of what we expect directors to know. Otherwise why have the exam?

As for separate rating systems, I think that unrated play makes the most sense for mostly a separate pool of beginners, which is what the scholastic pool is. If the organizers want a separate rating system, they would have to contribute to the associated costs.

If the organizers in the field tell us that the “big-time” rating matters and promise not to complain when those ratings are negative, then it would make sense for them to rate their events in the main rating system.

9

I’m not sure if there should be adult certified tournament directors or scholastic tournament directors. What could be a simple way to take care of the problem is the tournament must have a tournament average to get the experience requirements.

At this time I can get fifty JTP players to make a Category C tournament just to get the first of five Category C tournaments to become a senior tournament director, then to get fifty adults to make a Category C tournament.

Say for example someone is a club tournament director with a school affiliate with just twenty-five chessboards. It should not be that hard to get fifty students, it does not matter if they understand the rules or not you are just looking for a grand total of fifty students. Just register them as non-USCF members, and then run a JTP tournament. Just to become a candidate senior tournament director you need five Category C tournaments with ten Swiss tournaments, with a total of 400 entries.

With the fast speed of non-educated over-the-board players, and if the fifty players are K-3, the chess clock is not needed. In all, if the players play at blitz speed you could be able to get forty rounds in one day. With round one it would be tournament one round one, with round five, it could be tournament two round one. Each four rounds could be one independent tournament. So in one day with fifty players at K-3, you could have ten Category C tournaments. You cannot get away with this with adults, but you can get away with it with inexperience children.

The point is this; just in one day a club tournament director could have the experience to become a candidate local tournament director and the experience to become a candidate senior tournament director. True, the candidate must pass an open book test, but does this person really have the experience to advance to this level?

I’m pointing out a very extreme abuse, but it could happen because the director did use the inexperience of the scholastic players as a goal for advancement.

Maybe there is a need to have reform, as reform is always needed if the current system can be used with clear abuse of the system. Maybe with part of the reform, the experience requirements must have a tournament average, have an accepted amount of established over-the-board players within the tournament, the tournament director must have been a certified tournament director for a number of years before advancement is granted.

10

Douglas are they beating down the doors in your neck of the woods to be tournament directors? Even if someone was to do what you said and was truely inept the word would get out not to hire such and such a person because they weren’t capable. And if that person tried to organize his or her own events and they were bungled badly eventually people would stop going to them.

I’m pointing out a very extreme exaggeration.

11

I’m not sure who originated this thought. I hadn’t heard any complaints about the system, although my experience with other than scholastics is primarily club and small tournaments. In our neck of the woods, most adult players aren’t too concerned about ratings, at least for any purpose other than giving an idea of relative playing strength.

Anyway, I write this to say, I don’t think scholastic chess is clammoring for change or for a separate rating system. I suggested that possibility as a potential solution to the problem that was presented.

I do think that their are probably much more important issues the USCF can deal with.

12

I thought I did – or did you? (see below)

What about this thread: uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1748

The ratings committee is trying to figure out what to do about ratings that may become negative. What was previously a joke of the category of “according to quantum theory, all my atoms might suddenly jump together and put me on the inside of the bank vault where all the money is” has come uncomfortably close to reality.

I’d want their views on this.

Sorry I didn’t see your suggestion but then you’re entitled to the credit. It seems the problems are showing up more on the adult side, so maybe that’s where the pressure for change is more evident. At any rate, that’s where my playing and directing experience is, even though it includes junior events.

Is this the standard response from you, for anything you don’t want changed?

13

I have been told that there were players with negative ratings in the past, but I think they were always rounded up at least zero if not something above that.

We actually have a few inactive players in the database with ratings lower than 100, I think the lowest of these is 4. That’s on my 'correct these data anomalies some day" list. If any of these players return to rated chess, their pre-event rating would be rounded up to 100 in accordance with current procedures.

14

Wayne:

We both can find fifty JTP chess players, run twenty rounds and send in five Category C tournaments in one day. That would make us both candidate senior tournament directors. Than take the senior directors test, pass and become senior tournament directors. That will be an insult to anyone that has really had to perform that endeavor.

Do not see the person that wants to become a senior tournament director in that fashion was looking to use the title to find employment. In my judgment, in my neck of the woods as you call it, directors are paid a flat rate without regard to the level of certification. If I or you perform the tournaments in question, than we pass the test, it only cheapens the title of senior tournament director not increase the value of the title. The only way to increase the value of the titles of local or senior is to make the rules not to make the requirements not so cheap to earn.

15

Do you see a lot of people doing this or is this a make-believe what-if problem?

16

You should study my MSA history, as you would be just as shocked as I was when Larry Pond informed me that I was a candidate senior tournament director. Just called Larry Pond to confirm about my waiver from not needing to take the local tournament directors test, then he informed me why not take the senior tournament directors test, still in shock thinking about it after all these years. I really do not feel those training scholastic tournaments with a bunch of friends really gave me the qualifications to become a senior tournament director. If the USCF accepts to reform the requirements, then I would not be a candidate senior tournament director, or have the qualifications to become a senior tournament director.

17

Who was it who said “I spent most of my life worrying about things that never happened.”

IF it really is a problem that folks are trying to work around the intent of the rules (and I haven’t heard here that it is a problem, only how to try doing it), a simpler approach would be to add a requirement to obtain the endorsement of another director who is already at the level being applied for, or higher. Actually, I’m a little surprised this isn’t already a requirement.

Sure, you could still get collusion, but it would be a lot easier and straight forward than imposing minimum rating requirements of participants, etc. Actually, in the scholastic realm, I think there’s an argument for giving at least limited experience credit for non-rated events (as long as all other rules are followed as usual), you still have a lot of problem solving to deal with. But I’m not proposing that as a change.

No matter what you do, someone will find a way around the system if they really want to. In the long run, the marketplace will weed out unqualified directors.

18

I think it was Mark Twain.

19

I do support the idea of minimum rating requirements, not on the players but the average rating of the tournament. The USCF does have mean rating of 1800 with a Category R tournament, why not a mean rating with the other categories. Maybe it is time to have a category(s) with scholastic players, with accepted experience requirements.

Any director can confirm there are clear differences between adult based tournaments and scholastic based tournaments. As the categories stand, they do not make any difference at all between the two. The advancement in certification does not say anything other then needing the number of entries needed to make the required norms.

With the certification to a higher level, I do support the need to get requirements with a higher average rating that is not common at the scholastic level. Maybe the requirements of a Category C tournament must have a mean average rating of 1400 or better.

There is one clear test to weed out the weak directors before they have the right to be a candidate to the next level of certification. If you have two players with a mean rating of 150, than have two players with a mean rating of 2000, both have to play each other but have the same rule question. Are the players with the mean rating of 150 going to appeal the decision if your answer is wrong, then the players with a mean rating of 2000? Directors can almost break every single cardinal rule dealing with the rules of chess when the players are so inexperience in the first place. What makes sure the director understands the rules is being in a tournament when the players understand the rules as good as the director.

That experience of understanding the rules, understanding the positive and negative outcome of every single rule, every single problem that could happen, only happens if and only if the director wants to be over informed. If I was only going to be a director of scholastic only tournaments, would there be a real need to understand the rules just as well as if I had to settle a dispute between two masters. If I have two scholastic players, and they do not understand how to mate with a king and queen verses king, would they really understand the rules as good as master verses master?

If a director just performs scholastic only tournaments, the market does not weed out the directors at the same level as a tournament with higher mean rating tournaments with more of a adult base.

20

I have a better idea.

Let’s let anyone that wants to be a TD be one.

Douglas insists that we make it tougher for people to get higher TD certification for adult tournaments. Why?

Most adult players know what is what and really don’t need a lot of direction in a tournament.

Yes, disputes need to be handled. Yes, accurate pairings need to happen.

Adults are easier to direct than little kids. I’ve done both, so I do know of what I speak.

Maybe we should consider making it EASIER for people to get higher certification levels…please note that my tongue is placed distinctly in my cheek.