As a non-TD I don’t pretend to know the rule. Is the concept of “as if the limited player didn’t exist” part of the rule or part of a guideline?
I ask because I always thought there was a rule that only one prize per player involved in a tie goes into the pot to split. Does having a portion of a prize float down to the next player in line override that concept? I would have thought the two players would split the $400 leftover and the $250 second prize for a total of $650 between them. Then the third prize of $150 becomes part of the pool for the next score group.
This concept is inconsistent with “as if the limited player didn’t exist” but consistent with “one prize per player”.
“As if the limited player didn’t exist” has its obvious limitations in that the poor guy he beat in round 5, who may have finished 4-1, doesn’t get any benefit from the players mythical non-existence. His loss doesn’t go away.
There is a simple method of addressing limited prizes for unrated.
The problem with them is because there are under sections and you don't want people winning prizes in those sections when they are not supposed to be in them. You can eliminate the issue by moving to single section tournaments with class prizes (and unrated prizes) and do more aggressively accelerated pairings. :exclamation:
Normal acceleration is by fourths (in round one the top 1/4 plays 2nd 1/4, 3rd 1/4 plays bottom 1/4, and in round two top half losers play bottom half winners). This cuts the expected number of perfect scores in half (1 per 128 in a 6-round event). If you accelerate by 16ths instead of 4ths then that further cuts the number of perfect scores by a quarter (1 per 512 in a 6-round event). The National Open (621 players this year) could have a single section with the likelihood of draws giving a legitimate shot at no perfect scores. Also, weak unrateds would probably end up playing at least one non-futile game since not only would the number of 2-0 players be dropped to 20 (out of 621), but the number of 0-2 players would also be dropped to about 20 with four rounds yet to be played. :wink:
That said, limited prizes for provisional players would still be an issue. :smiling_imp: Some organizers may not want to FIDE-rate an entire tournament but would be willing to rate just the top sections of a multi-section tournament. :cry: Also there exists a possibly teeny tiny chance that some players would not like a single section format because the final round would often see players in the running for the prizes in one class getting paired against significantly higher-rated players that are not in the running for prizes, with some prizes being decided by default when one of those players opts to withdraw without notice and suspicion of collusion being almost automatically placed (by some) on any higher rated player that fails to win. :open_mouth: :imp: But at least we wouldn't have to worry about limited prizes for unrateds. :exclamation: :question: :exclamation: :unamused:
Why does this statement have anything to do with it? If the 2nd place player is paid the advertised amount for a second place prize, then how is the second place player harmed?
I will repeat again, that you have just stated the hidden assumption in the rule - an assumption which has no validity - that we assume the unrated player who does well is somehow cheating, and therefore players have been harmed and deserve recompense. But just because a player is unrated and does doesn’t mean that he’s sandbagging. 37 years ago, my first tournament after becoming an expert (a 100 point rating jump), I happened to get an event where every opening was something I understood, and every game was tactical (when I was a very tactical player.) The result was I scored 4.5 out of 5, defeated two 2400’s back-to-back, and finished first ahead of GM Bisguier on TB. Was I sandbagging, or did I just happen to have a tournament where things went right?
Let’s stop assuming the worst when there isn’t evidence to support it. And if there is evidence, let’s bring an ethics complaint instead of paying people above what they should have won.
The house, the organizer. He limited the player as a favor to the players in the field to encourage the limited player to participate in a higher section where he/she might be less limited or unlimited. Why should the second place player be paid more as a result of that?
Not to defend oddball prize funds too much, but imagine the same prize fund but with Unrated Prize $100, ineligible for anything else (which was suggested above), but without a 4th prize. You would end up with $100-$375-$375 4.0’s split 3rd prize, pretty much the same that you have with the OP (if done correctly—sorry, $400 each for 2 and 3 is just plain wrong). Then imagine a prize fund with $100 unrated prize (again, not eligible for anything else), contingent on scoring 4.5 or more—if no one wins that add a 4th prize of $100. What the prize fund in the OP has is (in effect) an unrated prize contingent on scoring enough to earn an overall place. No $100 to top unrated, which might go to a 0.5-4.5 (doesn’t look good). No $100 top unrated but only if xxx or more unrated play (not so great for the unrateds if xxx-1 play). Just $100 to an unrated if you score enough.
There are probably 101 BETTER ways that the prize fund could have been defined. (I’m including allowing payout-limited players as part of the prize fund definition here, obviously)
The rules currently say the money the payout-limited player can’t have has to be paid out, but not how. So what we need is guidance.
One way or another, someone’s going to get money that he or she would not have gotten if some other player wasn’t payout-limited.
So the choices are either to raise the amounts of some of the announced prizes, or to create additional prizes that weren’t part of the announced prizes, or some combination of both.
The money should probably stay in the same category. In the specific example it should go to other place finishers as opposed to being used for class prizes or some other type of prize, like an upset prize. But if a payout-limited player qualifies for a class prize higher than his payout limit, then the money should probably stay in that set of class prizes, not be diverted into place prizes or prizes for some other class.
Unless the rules are changed at some point, organizers who permit payout-limited entrants should probably publish the rules they intend to follow for handling the redistribution of those prizes.
Once again, how does CCA do its distributions, since it is one of the few organizers to place prize limits on players in its events?
If we are going to ignore 32C6 point of prioritizing giving the extra money from the limited prize winner to the next place prize winner per the rule, then I would be satisfied, either as an organizer or a player, with distributing this extra money in a proportional manner among all of the other prize winners. If there are 8 other place and class prizes, then each would get an additional $400/8 = $50. This would take care of complaints that the organizer might pocket prize money. The prize winners would not object to additional cash. It would fit under the based on guidelines.
What limited prize winners object to is discovering after the event that they are prize limited. Having relied on their official monthly ratings published by the USCF to enter a tournament in advance, they should not be surprised at prize giving to find that the TD/organizer is using his most recent rating when determining prizes. This limit method is harmful to entrants who are up and coming players, play frequently, and thought their official monthly rating meant something. Planning involving getting hotel rooms, preparation for the event, are all shot to h-e-l-l when an organizer has some fine print designed to deny players a full prize. These are not sandbaggers but avid players who are moving up rapidly and using their prize money to fund their continued play. They play several weekends in a row when they know they are hot and all of their training makes them ready for competition. Putting up prize limits discourages tournament play. Instead of moving up step by step, they must wait for their rating to catch up or engage in real sandbagging to dump rating points before a bigger event they are training for.
Under the listed (by OP) scenario what could be done is Player A wins $100, Player B & Player C each win $375 [1/2 of the 2nd ($400) & 3rd ($250) split between those two players], and then the next ten players tied with the same score each win $50 [$100 fourth place + $400 excess from first place divided by the 10 players]. This would fulfill the requirement of paying the remaining $400 from first place [since Player A is restricted] to other players, and not give more than 1 prize per person [I count the added $400 as another prize, so it can not go to Players B & C].
This pays $1350 for the $1000 prize fund. I am guessing you meant B and C to get $200 each (1/2 of $250 2nd plus $150 3rd) and thus have $100 - $250 - $150 - $100 - $50 - $50 - $50 - $50 - $50 - $50 - $50 - $50.
Looking at the last World Open on-line info it said next place(s) not next place.
Tom Doan already said (after your post) that Bob Messenger’s explanation of CCA handling matches his first response, which is also the way I’ve done it at the National Open.
Yes, that’s right. The balance of any limited prize goes to the next player(s) in line, but no player can win more than he/she would if the player with the limit were excluded from the prize calculation.
If the prize fund had prizes of $500 -250 -150 - 100, that means the limited player gets only $100, 2nd and 3rd prize winners become the tied 1st and 2nd place winners ($375 each). The 4th place becomes the 3rd place winner ($150), the player who would have been in 5th place with no prize now becomes the 4th prize winner ($100), a surprise windfall. Does any of the money going to a U**** prize winner? Under the rule 32C6, it appears that one cannot distribute any to a class prize winner, only to a place prize. This totals $1100 for the place prizes, including the limited player who gets $100. If the organizer only guaranteed $1000, doesn’t he just clip $20 from each of the place prizes to make the prizes, after the adjusting for the limit, $80 - [355 - 355] - 130 - 80?
I’m not sure which distribution you were looking at.
Using logic from CCA or the National Open you would have ($100 limit):
$500 - $250 - $150 - $100 → $100 - $500 - $250 - $150 with no “windfall” to fifth.
or ($150 limit)
→ $150 - $500 - $250 - $100
or ($200 limit)
→ $200 - $500 - $200 - $100
or ($300 limit)
→ $300 - $450 - $150 - $100
or ($75 limit)
→ $75 - $500 - $250 - $150 - $25 (fifth does get a windfall here)
All of us would probably like to know, but he is cleverly watching the show (put on by the rest of us), and will probably give us his solution only when this thread quiets down a bit.
If the tournament in question was CCA, I’m sure it was very clearly stated in pre-event publicity which rating list would be used for pairings and prizes.
What was the problem, by the way? Was the player listed with a rating when he should have been unrated, or vice versa?
Another way to make the distribution is to take the $400 left over from the limited prize and split it evenly across the $250 - 150 -100 prizes by adding $133.33 to each. That would make the prizes $100 - 383.33 - 283.33 - 233.34 (somebody should get the penny, but I always round up to the nearest dollar when I give out prizes). No extra prizes are created. The total prize fund remains $1000.
