Certainly if you find additional issues after filling out the survey, you should report those as well, but it might mean having to fill out the whole form again.
we run double events all the time and people love them. Iām not sure how you are arriving at the conclusion that there are no double round robin or double swiss events. it might be that the current system is not respecting the coding. In any case, it is sort of exhausting to hear the continued anchoring to SwissSys and WinTDs capabilities. Just because they are limited does not mean you need to hamstring the whole organization
This appears to be an issue I reported a while back, the chief TD for the event cannot also be listed as a section chief or assistant. Iāve passed this alongāagain.
I didnāt say you couldnāt run them, what I said was that the software doesnāt currently support data reporting formats for them, ie, more than one result in an individual round field. Neither does the current TD/A system.
But you could have round 1 be for the first game and round 2 for the second game, etc.
Weāve already discussed adding a true RR-formatted layout so that the columns represent the opponents and not the round in which the game is played.
When player 1 plays player 4, we donāt know what round that game is in, Crenshaw-Berger tables have a preferred game order but not all events use them. Fortunately, the order in which the games were played is not relevant for US Chess. Iām not sure thatās always true for FIDE events because of restrictions on last-round results for norms. Also, FIDE has limits on the total playing time in a day and number of rounds in a day which make knowing the date the game was played relevant.
But I think the internal data structure would still record both the result and the opponent, which is consistent with our tournament records going back to 1991.
Having a similar format for double-swiss events may also be possible. I would suggest you add that as an enhancement request on the TD survey form.
But it would mean entering two result codes rather than the total score. (And provisions would be needed for recording played as well as non-played games, inconsistent results, etc, using all 12 results codes.)
Our players want the result for both matches to stay with them so we are already entering both scores independently (the odd round is leg 1 and even round is leg 2). It would just be nice to be able to code it. The documentation says there are codes for double RR and double Swiss. Itās a shame they arenāt respected.
The Draft 2C format was never officially released (the approval process got bogged down, as things like this often do, over disagreements about what fields to include), but pairing programs started using it and we had little choice but to accept it. We actively discouraged double-round results based on total score because it didnāt give us round-specific data on results, ratable vs non-ratable, etc. That interfered with ātotal winsā milestones and computing the total number of ratable games (for ratings fees computation.) It can also affect ratings, if a 1.0 score is WX or WU rather than WL.
There was also some discussion of using JSON or XML, but the same issue about what fields to include was extended to complaints about the verbosity of those formats.
That need not be the case with any future (probably API-based) uploading formats, but an option to support double-swiss or double-RR events needs to be in the specs for that enhancement, and the best way to get that to happen is for members and TDs to request that as a future feature. And my guess is the way it would be implemented is to convert it into the one-result-per-round format for data storage, possibly with a way to stitch the results back into a double RR or double-swiss format when displayed as a crosstable.
1 Like
Is there a way to know what the errors here (sett attachment)?
The files are files that I sent to US Chess months ago and accepted.
Is support for mobile browsers on the timeline?
I have to log back in every few hours if Iām sitting idle, I think thatās due to a stale authentication token. Try exiting the TD portal or the browser and coming back in again, that has fixed problems for me. We probably need to adjust the default token timeout time, we were keeping it short during pre-beta testing.
It could also be an uploading timeout on the beta server. Iāve uploaded very large events, like SuperNationals VIII, but that was before we opened up the beta test and we could be seeing system load issues. Part of what weāre hoping to learn from the beta test is how many resources (memory, cores, network bandwidth and disk space) to allocate on the production server. The more resources, the more it costs each month. I doubt weāre going to be a big enough client to justify an auto-scaling server, assuming Azure supports them, I know Amazon and Google do, but you pay a premium for that..
It works to access members and tournaments on my iPhone 12 Max in Safari, but Iām not sure you can log in to enter the TD portal, or that Iād want to use a phone to enter a tournament for rating.
A dedicated app is on the list for future enhancements but Iām not sure Iād want to enter a tournament for rating on an app, either, my old eyes and arthritic fat fingers might not be up to that task. These days a 15" laptop screen is almost too small. 
I havenāt tried it on an iPad yet.
Same problem. It says:
Error: An unexpected server error occurred.
I have tried logout and login again 2 times, same error.
Can they check the logs?
Iāve passed this on to Leago noting that it came from the forums. Iāve also suggested they should return an error code or at least a more explanatory/helpful message. Grammatically speaking, saying it is an āunexpected errorā seems redundant, is there such a thing as an āexpected errorā??
I just tried uploading 3 events, one failed (with even less of an error message than you got), the other two, including another copy of SuperNationals VIII, both uploaded.
Can you send me the 3 files (mnolan@uschess.org), I can see if theyāll upload for me and run them through my DBF file format validator.
I sent you the files
I got them. They donāt appear to have any obvious DBF errors, and they do upload on the old TD/A system.
But like you I get errors trying to upload them to Leago, so Iāll forward these files to Leago for further testing. What program created them, it looks like the program field has SSCH.1.0, which I donāt recognize.
Mike Nolan
SSCH.1.0 is my own program.
Ah, I loaded the THEXPORT file into Excel and Excel thinks the section count is a FP number (1.00000), I believe it should be an integer. The section number, total rounds, last player and total GP fields in the section header should also be integers, as should the section number and pair number in the detail file. I donāt know if it makes a difference if the rating is an integer or FP, TD/A doesnāt look at that field, I donāt know if Leago does. (The draft 2C format was created before FP ratings were saved in the DB.)
I passed these findings on to Leago. (I think the current PHP program that parses the upload files just quietly converts those fields to integers, I donāt know if the C# program Leago wrote does that.)
Another thing I noted is that you have data fields for 20 rounds but the number of rounds is only 5. This file, unlike the original TDEXPORT file format, has a variable number of results fields based on the round count in the section header. This may confuse the program that processes the upload files, or it may just ignore beyond round 5, which is what I think the current upload parsing program does.
Is there any old data from the old Dashboard page that shows under the new Leago pages? Such as information that you are a TD, that you are registered to vote, that you are Safe Play certified, and that you are connected to an Affiliate.
The member dashboard is not going away, and the main player tab on MSA doesnāt currently show any of that information, though the TD tab does at least show if you are currently certified, but not your SafeSport status. (We did show it at first, but keeping it up-to-date was problematical.)
Iām not sure what they plan to do with the āTournament Rating Reportsā link on the affiliate dashboard, which is currently the gateway to the TD/A interface. Iāve been assuming that would become the link to the Leago TD portal, but now Iām not sure if thatāll be the case, because you can currently get to it directly from the MUIR tournament or member pages. (This is part of re-thinking the integration between the various components of the US Chess data infrastructure.)
Right now the only people who need to log in on the Leago system are TDs, but there has been discussion of having custom profiles for members, which would be available after logging in. For example, it might pre-fill in some of the fields on the Ratings Calculator or pre-select certain search options or preferred ways of displaying data. Currently anyone (even an anonymous browser or a spider) can see a memberās milestones and norms, because the MSA system has no sign-in option. Some of that information might be moved behind a member login. And Leago might be able to show a player how close they came to earning a norm in an event. Currently this information is not available online.
Weāve discovered a blank table on the Leago testbed server (a copy of the current live server) that may have affected the populating of the member/TD database being used for the Beta test. This appears to be keeping at least one TD from getting to the TD portal on the Beta server, and there may be others similarly affected.
Iāve alerted senior US Chess and Leago staff to this issue, Iām sure a topic of discussion in the morning will be what we can do to remediate this.
Michael, did you say that Leago wonāt take tournaments that have already been submitted to the original USCF filing process on September 15? Otherwise, my September 13 tournament could be tested to see if it goes through the Leago filters. I figured out, apparently, where I can file an event of mine. In the beginning I did not know what Leagoās Event Page was for. It wasnāt titled to be anything specific.