In our weekly scholastic tournament, an extra rated game was arranged for a kindergartener who received full point pairing bye and a fourth grader from the HIGHER section (and rated 382 points higher than the kindergartener). Both kids agreed to play the game and were informed it would be rated. As expected, the kindergartener lost the game.
The second day, the parent of the kindergartener would like to protest the validity of the game, saying that the kinder was not be able to make a rational decision about playing the extra rated game or not and the parent needs to be informed for consent on extra rated games.
The game was finished and results was recorded, so we cannot stop the extra rated game from making a dent on the kindergartener’s rating. There is no prize involved in this tournament. Any suggestions whether there is anything we could explain to the parent to reconcile? Thank you
That is an interesting situation. Never heard of one like this before. Both players should be responsible for the game and should not a parents consent.
Appeal to common sense. A kindergartner that really plays a lot and learns more chess could be 100-500 ratings points higher by this time next year. Ratings are nothing but an external validation of skill level. They seem to penalize losing and reward winning, but really they are just loose estimators of skill. A parent would do better to have faith in the fact that the kindergartner’s underlying skill will improve with lots and lots of practice, study, and yes, losing. Show them page one of the tournament history of someone who is now 2000+.
A lot of K & 1 need special attention and there becomes a time when the ratings/rating difference makes the value of the extra game approach nil. but with 382 I probably would have just asked the kids & let them play if I thought they understood what they were agreeing to do. If the parent is already leading with a protest and not just asking about the extra game then I’d be real careful on how I presented anything back to them. (I had a peer worker who was a master at getting our manager to change their mind on something they originally strongly opposed)
We do most of our weekly scholastics as quads/6RR by rating and extend them to be double games up to whatever can be fit in. It keeps the kids busier not waiting for other sections. Also use live ratings since they drastically change (and it is what parents expect). Odd number of players / late entries can usually be easily accommodated since most of the u800 play more than 3 games in the allotted time (yes sometimes 6 are done quite early and there more desire to play so just make another quad with the same 4 players). This format alleviates the wide rating gaps usually associated with the extra games across sections.
This is definitely an interesting topic. This is one out of many reasons that I do not run scholastic events. Parents have made it difficult for tournament directors when it comes to results and prizes. Unfortunately when children are young they do not have the capacity to understand certain situations.
Time to repeat what I’ve said in the past. Parents generally fall into one of four groups.
One - They know what is going on have very few questions or complaints and some of them help newer parents understand how things work with chess tournaments. These parents are generally easy to deal with and when they do have questions those questions are legitimate enough that even less experienced TDs realize they need to be dealt with.
Two - They don’t know what is going on and are too shy or intimidated to ask anybody, often resulting in getting confused and frustrating and then deciding to simply pull their kids out of chess. These parents are easy to deal with because they are, unfortunately, invisible. A TD with a deliberately intimidated unapproachable attitude may prefer this type of parent but it does not bode well for the long term viability of having kids in tournaments (which is the whole point for some TDs).
Three - parents who don’t know what is going on and ask questions determined to get answers. Some TDs find these parents to be irritating wastes of time. I have found that actually answering their questions calmly and completely (occasionally asking them to wait a few minutes for the answer because of something time critical you are doing) often ends up moving them into the first group and making them much more willing to help other new parents than the average members of that first group. The time I’ve spent answering such parents has resulted in them intercepting questions from other parents that would have otherwise requires spending 10 to 20 times as long as what I spent answering the original parents. Instead of irritating wastes of time I look upon these parents more like potential diamonds in the rough that can be valuable not only for eventually saving me much more time than I spent, but also for persuading other parents the deal with regularly to consider getting their own kids involved in chess. Even if you ignore the potential for expanding the pool of interested parents I still at least break even in time spent if only 10% of those parents opt to help other tournament-neophyte parents. And it may be perception bias but I think the percentage is significantly higher than 10%
Four - the parents who ask questions searching for the only answers they are willing to accept. This is fortunately a very small percentage and you also run up against adult players who do the same for themselves.
I would have given them the procedure for submitting an appeal to US Chess, dictated by the appropriate section in the rule book. Doubtful it would go anywhere unless they can show where you violated the rules.
It’s implied that by entering a tournament that you agree to follow the rules of US chess, whether or not you’ve actually read them. They should know that they have the right to refuse to play extra games as in this situation if they care so much about their rating.
Seeing as this is still drawing attention, there are a few other things to mention.
if the kindergartener was still subject to the special rating formula that would average in 400 points below the rating of the opponent that beat him then that extra game may have reduced the kindergartener’s rating decline.
Requiring parental approval gives a very good chance that no extra rated game would occur at all even when both kids really want to play.
Having the option to know the result of a game before deciding whether or not it is rated would result in one of the players opting against rating any game. If the kindergartener had won then the fourth grader’s parents could simply refuse to let it be rated.