What value is there in having the ability to do a “standard” sort, if it isn’t what was used in the tournament? That would take the existing problem and make it worse, since now someone could use the “USCF sorting tool on the website” and get something saying that they should have been third instead of fourth.
I think that if people are that worried about it, they should ask the director BEFORE they leave the site. If it isn’t important enough to wait until the end of the tournament even if their game ended early, then it isn’t important enough for us to dramatically change how tournaments are reported.
It may be more a question of differing approaches than of someone “missing” something.
In my work, I spend a lot of time designing, building and/or testing UI implementations in both web and mobile applications. One of the design principles I have grown to love is the idea of keeping interfaces as uncomplicated as possible. This is, in part, because users will rebel if you make an interface too complicated.
If we add tiebreak display functionality to MSA, and the user is required to input specific tiebreak information to get the display right, that is (IMHO) a significant increase in complexity for the end user. Such an increase is probably not going to find widespread acceptance. I would argue that it does not justify the work/expense to implement.
Further, my experience tells me that, when you post tiebreaks, you don’t really reduce the number of questions you get - you just change the type of questions. YMMV, natch.
Skewing the discussion slightly, I have had questions about class tournaments where the winner of a section had a pre-event rating higher than what the class permitted. So far I’ve done fine explaining the difference be supplement ratings (used to assign people to classes) and pre-event ratings.
Having spent 10-15 minutes with an insistent parent (calm, reasonable, but insistent) explaining the specific tie-breaks and answering questions about a single trophy, I can confidently say that merely allowing the re-sorting of MSA by selectable tie-breaks would not keep questions from coming. For that matter, having TDs actually enter the post-tie-break player sequence and having that added to MSA would still not keep questions from coming.
Having a sortable MSA (well, probably a jump to a sorted display) would by a nice-to-have, but nothing I’d push for unless (a) everything major was already being taken care of or (b) it was very easy to write and implement.
Radio button: Standard tournament display (what we have now), Rulebook Standard Tie-break display
Not highly complex for the user.
In disclaimer/important information explanation (after giving a brief standard explanation) simply say "If you have questions about the tie-break order here versus the order used by the tournament director/organizer of your tournament, please contact the organizer. Can we even have a link to the affiliate’s contact information?
Now #1 - it’s not complex #2 - IF it generates more questions, it directs the questions to the person best able to answer them (NOT USCF) so it should save us work #3 - IF organizers don’t like the questions - they will become more likely to adopt standard tiebreaks (which I see as a good thing for consistency.) #4 - Seems to me that from the USER perspective USCF just provided more service and information.
Once again I ask - why does this seem so complicated to everyone, and why does it seem like a bad thing? What am I missing?
I guess I’m seeing this as another one of those things where WE as the INSIDERS are PERFECTLY FINE with the way it is, and have NO INCLINATION of making it easier, more interesting, etc. for NEW NOVICE customers. Why do we keep doing this and when will we learn NOT TO?
Do I think it’s important as an organizer? NOPE. If I were a dad, trying to figure out why my little daughter didn’t get a trophy today? Yeah, I’d think differently. And whether or not that SHOULD be important to people, it IS important to people.
Of course, this would all fit along nicely with the standard guide to tiebreaks that we already have online, readily available for any parent to find.
It has been my experience that people do not, in the main, read disclaimers. Exhibit A: the current MSA disclaimer, which clearly states that results are not in tiebreak order.
This is more likely to be a question of “when”, rather than “if”.
Most organizers do use standard tiebreaks. In fact, if you use a pairing program, you are quite likely to use its default settings to break ties. The default tiebreak settings of both WinTD and SwissSys are consistent with the USCF rules for tiebreak order. However, some organizers do choose to use different tiebreaks, or different order for existing tiebreaks.
As Jeff Wiewel notes, posting tiebreaks doesn’t generally reduce questions about tiebreaks. His observation is in line with my own experience on the matter.
There are two classes of users here: the user who submits information to MSA, and the user who reads information from MSA. Both are important to this procedure. A good design would make this new functionality less complicated for the first type of user, and more informative for the second type. I am skeptical that your well-intentioned suggestion would do either all that well.
I cannot speak for others. To my way of thinking, it’s complicated because it introduces more programming to MSA, requiring changes to both the database and the front end. It’s complicated because to show order via standard tiebreaks, either the TD has to manually enter a lot of numbers into a new sort field on the form, or MSA has to calculate standard tiebreaks on demand. The first option introduces many more opportunities for user error, and the second requires a lot of new programming functionality to be developed. It seems like a bad thing because it won’t reduce the number of questions you get about tiebreaks, and doesn’t really provide any statistical justification at all (which might actually reduce inquiries).
I would prefer an approach where a TD could upload a prize report from a pairing program, which would then be converted into HTML and linked from the crosstable. This approach reduces the complexity involved, because all of this could be prepared as part of the final tournament report generated by a pairing program, and uploaded to MSA without any further configuration needed. The prize report would show full tiebreaks, which would immediately give maximum information about the tiebreaks for that event to those who are curious. However, I’m not terribly sanguine about the amount of back-end work involved in implementing this idea. My rudimentary cost-benefit analysis says it’s not worth the effort.
I’m not much of an insider. Never did learn the secret handshake, or the clubhouse password.
You get these questions at scholastic tournaments all the time. Even when you post a final standings sort, complete with four levels of tiebreaks calculated out to the hundredths place, you still get questions. When directors get those questions, they answer them.
One major problem is that “standard rulebook order” does not exist. The rulebook specifies the first four tiebreaks that would normally be used. It does not specify the order for further tiebreaks - and if a final tiebreak of coin flip is used - how would the USCF be able to calculate that so that it is the same as happened at the tournament?
Another specific issue - the rated game results don’t necessarily correspond to the official game results for prizes.
Ok I’m still not seeing the issue here. Shouldn’t most tournament results be posted on the web in Tiebreak Order by their organizers somewhere on the web in this day and age? Example above. Now we don’t always go as far as posting the prizes but for the last umpteen years we have almost always posted the results in the tiebreak order that we used. (even if the tiebreaks aren’t shown)
I’ve said several times, sort in the standard rulebook order and to the extent that the person has questions, put in the disclaimer CONTACT THE ORGANIZER.
So we sort the first four and don’t care about the rest. The person sorts it, it either solves their question or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t they should CONTACT THE ORGANIZER.
Once again, why are we picking these nits and making this more complex?
And that’s a problem because…? Is it a POSSIBLE factor? Sure. Is it a LIKELY factor? Probably not. How often is someone who has been given a house player going to be winning a prize?
And if does it generate an incremental question? Probably not - there was either a question before (so that someone was looking at it) or it wasn’t - and if there IS a question we are directing them to - THE ORGANIZER - preferably with a link.
Look - there was another post in this thread that note that many organizers try to post crosstables (with tie-breaks) now. They do that because people want them and have asked for them. People want this information. Why as an organization are we ONCE AGAIN treating things as though its an insider group?? Just GIVE PEOPLE what they want!!
There was a thread a few months back called “It Doesn’t Have to Be This Hard”
It really doesn’t, guys.
The MSA was a big improvement over the prior situation. A huge improvement. Was it perfect? No. Did that stop us from doing it? No.
This seems much worse than what we have now. You sort the players into a possibly incorrect order, tell the players it is in standard rulebook order (though there actually isn’t any such complete ordering method) and then tell them that they should contact the organizer when your incorrect order isn’t how trophies were actually distributed. What problem have you solved for this additional work you are giving to the organizer?
There are many more issues than just a house player. What about results which have been marked incorrectly and used for prize distribution - but for rating purposes are later corrected? What about other games which are rated differently than they are scored for prize purposes?
The difference is that the organizer has the information necessary to give the players what they want, but the USCF doesn’t. Pretending that we do have enough information when we don’t will only lead to more problems.
That’s what happens now - except we know its almost a definitely incorrect order.
So this part is not worse, its better.
Now you’re adding qualifiers to justify your argument. There is a standard rulebook order, you just personally want it to be longer. How many does it have to be? 12? How often do you have to go past three, much less 4?
Which is actually what they should do - so this part is better.
So let’s see, of your three objections, two actually ARE better, and one is contrived. That’s not convincing.
The problem solved is that sorting it will solve the issue (which is usually just curiosity) for most people and will likely deflect some questions for BOTH the organizer and USCF. For those organizers who aren’t currently using the standard rulebook order, they’ll be encouraged to do so.
For the cases that people have to go back to the organizer, they should have done so anyway - providing them a link to the organizer makes that simpler. It deflects the interruption from USCF because they don’t know the answer anyway - so that’s good.
And it makes people happier just because the info is available.
Again - this seems so incredibly simple and obvious that I can’t imagine why you are picking these nits - other than its the typical chessplayer thing of people should just learn the secret handshake and deal with it.
If you wanted to argue “this is worthwhile - but there is a pressing issue that’s even more worthwhile” - ok that may make sense. I can buy that. I don’t know how much time these sort of questions take out of our day. I know organizers post the results with tiebreaks because people ask for them and it heads off questions - so yes, I think people want the information.
But that hasn’t been the argument - and I don’t see your argument as convincing.
The USCF also has the information to give people what they want in most cases - probably the vast majority. And its a step up in USCF service. And the organizer doesn’t always have the time, money or the ability.
Actually it’s much worse. Currently we tell people that it is not in tiebreak order. You are incorrectly telling them it is in a tiebreak order. Since the USCF doesn’t have all the information needed to provide prize order, it is better to be honest with the members rather then being wrong - and expect the organizer to have to do the work of correcting the USCF’s mistake.
No, the USCF rulebook doesn’t provide a suggested method for completely ordering all players. I don’t care if it is longer, but what we currently have isn’t complete. And it seems unlikely that a complete system is possible without the information being provided by the organizer.
Wow. So you think that it is better that the organizer be bothered because the USCF has made a mistake. This part seems clearly worse to me.
I guess since you completely misanalyze which situation is better, it’s going to be hard to convince you.
Well incorrectly sending players to him to ask about prize distributions is going to take up more of his time, so you don’t seem to be making a solution more likely.
Maybe you should first be encouraging the USCF to do that. After all, the Scholastic Nationals use a different (and complete) order of tiebreaks. (though not one that can be computed from the data currently provided).
As I stated before, the MSA should either display correct final tournament standings or it should not display tournament standings at all. That means not displaying point totals, and limiting the event reports to game results and ratings changes.
I think most people would consider it valuable to have the final tournament standings be available in the MSA. But the only way to get correct tournament standings is from the Tournament Directors. So that is what the USCF should do.
If it is too much trouble to do that – for the USCF or the TD’s, or both – then the USCF should not guess as to the tournament standings. Assuming that a tournament followed the standard tie-breakers for Swiss tournaments is guessing, since it might not have been a standard Swiss, or a Swiss at all.
Another option would be for TD’s to be able to state when they upload the data that the tournament format is “USCF-standard Swiss”. That would mean that one point was awarded for a win, half a point for a draw, and that the final standings were determined by (1) game point totals; and (2) the standard USCF tie-breaking systems (Modified Median, Median, Cumulative). In that case, the MSA might compute the standings, including point totals, and display them. Enough information is already submitted to do this. If the TD does not select “USCF-standard Swiss” the MSA should not display point totals and just display the players in pre- or post-event rating order. Probably a high percentage of tournaments are in fact “USCF-standard Swiss” events.
No, currently we tell them nothing, and give them something that they often don’t find useful.
No, that’s not what we’re telling them. We are giving them the option to choose to sort it in the standard rulebook tie-break order which in most (but not all cases) may be the order used in the tournament.
We were never dishonest or wrong. Your implication is incorrect on both counts, and therefore your argument is specious. Further, its not a mistake, since there was no error. Finally, only the organizer can verify prizes to begin with, so the organizer would have to answer any residual question any. Consequently, your final point is irrelevant.
Tom, if you deal with what I have actually suggested and not add things (like that we somehow misrepresent the sort as the actual prize listing) then what we have is nothing more than a set of additional useful tools that may answer additional questions in many cases, and in the cases it doesn’t it directs the player to the organizer - who is the only person that can answer the question anyway.
In what sense is that the wrong thing to do? (Hint - its not.) Again, maybe there is something more useful to do - but again - that’s not your argument.
I don’t see how giving our members more information is ever the wrong thing to do; we never misrepresent that information.
And besides, its the perfect complement to the description of tie-breaks already online, right?
So far you’ve been unable to make any argument that the situation is misanalyzed without entirely misrepresenting my position. If you care to make such an argument while actually using my actual suggestion, I’d be happy to hear it.