I don’t know about “cannot”, but there are a few things that are FAR more likely in a quick event. Here’s one:
A player is claiming a draw by triple occurrence or the 50-move rule, but because it is a quick tournament, he is not keeping score.
Bill Smythe
When I first started playing chess and became a USCF member, you didn’t get an established rating until you had played something like 19 games. Since that time it has gone up. But as far back as the early 70’s, before I even saw a rulebook, I knew the difference between an established rating and a provisional one.
By the time I applied for my club TD card, I didn’t need to worry about having an established rating because I’d had one for so long by that time. Simply by reading Chess Life and pouring over the TLA section I knew the difference between established and provisional ratings. When the quick chess ratings came along, I knew they were different, too.
But I never looked to see if all this was even mentioned in the rulebook concerning the definitions of the various types of ratings. If you had to have an established rating to become a certain level of TD, you knew what an established rating was, or at least you should know. A rating wasn’t considered to be established until you had played a certain number of games OTB, and that didn’t include quick chess, since quick chess came along much later.
Given all this, I can see how some of the younger folks might have some confusion over this, since what I think has always been common knowledge has apparently never been explained in the rulebook. And this is what needs to be done.
Let’s just hope whatever gets in the rulebook on this issue is a lot clearer than anything LTDForsythe posts here! 
During my first chess tournament in 1980, a established rating or established over-the-board player only needed 20 games: on the 21st game, the person would have a established over-the-board rating. During this time the official rules of chess was on the 2nd edition rule book published in 1978. During that time everyone could understand what was a established over-the-board player.
The general idea for directors needing a quick established over-the-board rating with the classical over-the-board rating: would make the director needing to have G/30 up to G/60 be dual rated – so the director that does play in their tournament, and the players in the tournament will or get closer to having a established quick over-the-board rating. If the old guard only wants to keep and have only the classical established over-the-board rating, then their would be little gain for a director to even be a director of a quick tournament.
One of the major problem with a quick tournament at G/10 with a 4 round swiss, the total time for all the games the player would play would only be [4(10 x 2) = 80 minutes or 1 hour and 20 minutes], if the person needs a hour to drive and a hour to drive home. This would make the player have more time on the road then at the tournament. Even if a 4 round G/10 and a 4 round G/90 have the same prize fund most players would enjoy the G/90 tournament. As a G/90 would give time for the players to meet old friends and able to talk with other people during the tournament.
The federation wants as many over-the-board players too have a quick rating. One time the federation only asked for 10 games to gain a established over-the-board quick rating, when it only asked at that time 20 games to gain a established over-the-board classical rating. Even as the federation is talking of having a blitz rating, as blitz time controls are now the standard for rating. It will have a major effect of chess clubs that do have blitz tournaments. If the federation does make the tournament directors have a established classical over-the-board rating, and a established quick over-the-board rating, then if they do accept a blitz rating a established blitz over-the-board rating – then it will change chess clubs that do not have rated blitz or rated quick events.
Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
from the U.S. Open Delegates meeting and workshops.
from the U.S. Open Delegates meeting and workshops, as reported by Tim Just at: uschess.org/tds/tdcorneroct04.php
Has the TDCC, then, determined this to be the rule?
Tim, I ask only because you prefaced this column with the words,“your impressions were…”
It is the TDCC clarification of the current rule as it is applied now and was applied in the past.
Tim Just
Found a ‘local tournament director’ with a provisional rating. Looking at the new directors at the local level (October 2004 supplement), found a ‘local tournament director’ with a provisional classical rating – has a 1022/19 classical and unrated quick.
With over 500 local TD’s, I wouldn’t rule out clerical error, but here are several possible explanations:
The individual became a local TD before the requirement of having an established rating was in effect.
The individual became a local TD by taking the local exam closed book. There was a time when this was a way around the experience requirements, it isn’t clear if that’s still permitted.
The USCF Executive Director has the authority to grant club, local or senior TD status to any USCF member.
Did make a check on her record, she has had a tournament each and every year since 2000; with the first three digits on her membership being 127, would be the late 1990’s when the numbers were issued for new membership. As the question on number 1, being a non-requirement would have gone as far back as the 1970’s.
Even thought into the idea, that the director could have gone into her second term as a local tournament director. Her name was not posted in the active local tournament directors listing on the November 1, 2003 listing. The question on rule two is not clear, she could have taken the ‘closed book test’.
Can a person have a provisional rating, then take the ‘closed book’ local tournament directors test? It has been clear or needed to be explained, only the classical rating needed to be established. It has been stated: the need to be a established player all the way back into the 1970’s: how can the federation let a ‘closed book’ test be granted to a provisional player.
If it is with statement three, the “USCF Executive Director” can grant any title. Granting someone the title of local tournament director without having a established classical rating, does break the spirit of the rules.
Dealing with all the debates with Mr Garcia during the spring and summer: he was not a established classical rated player. He could not take the local tournament directors test, as he did not have a established classical rating. As she was promoted to local tournament director between the publishing of the August 2004 supplement, and the publishing of the October 2004 supplement. It becomes a issue of fairness, as Mr Garcia was not given the right and she was given this right.
Unless, if and only if Mike is right, that she did take a ‘closed book test’ and passed. If this is true, becomes a issue of fairness with a ‘closed book test’, as the person should have a established classical rating too take the ‘closed book test’.
Tournament Director Certification Rule 26f provides that the applicant may take the closed book test, and that the only experience requirement is that the applicant must have been the chief TD of one Category D (one drawing less than 50 entrants) tournament of at least 3 rounds.
This substitution is for tournament experience requirements, not for the rule that local TDs have an established rating as in Rule 2, for which I don’t see a substitution.
Well, I suppose, to be absurdly logical, a TD above club level should be required to have an established regular rating to direct regular-rated tournaments, and an established quick rating to direct quick-rated tournaments.
This leads to the possibility of a TD being certified at different levels for regular and quick.
Since some situations occur only (or more often) in regular tournaments, while others occur only (or more often) in quick events, I suppose this could even lead to two different versions of the certification exam, each emphasizing the skills necessary to direct a particular type of event.
Of course, all of this confusion will be further increased when a separate blitz rating system is created.
I’m sure Tim Just and the TDCC look forward to the day when they have to devise three times as many certification tests as they do now! If we keep this thread going long enough, we’ll all become Public Enemy Number One within the TDCC.
Bill Smythe
OR:
Bill Smythe
It could have been under this rule. The rule for taking the closed book test was for the substitution of three category D tournaments into one category D tournament. Terry, that is way to opened ended for substitutions – if taken at full face value. As the other experience requirement must be as a current member in good standing.
If someone is unrated in both classical and quick, then having no tournament history in their MSA: or never been a USCF member. The one category D tournament could have been performed as a ‘scholastic chess coach’, going to the nationals and pass the ‘closed book test’ – these substitutions are way too open.
The substitutions, should only be for the substitution for tournaments only. As a provisional player, the grounds of taking the ‘closed book test’ as the reason for her promotion are false.
The tournament director in question, did play in her last tournament on November 12, 2000. Her classical rating is 1022 with 19 games.
Well Bill, when that happens we can be roomies in the federation prison.