I am interested in the details of methods that other computer TDs use to be sure their data entry is perfect. I thought my current method was foolproof, but in the last tournament, I discovered I was wrong. I somehow entered one board result incorrectly, and did not catch my error (although I did my usual double-check.)
In the future, I will use some sort of triple-check system, and I would like input from experienced TDs as I improve my system.
I use both WinTD and SwissSys.
I would like details of your methods, not just “I enter down the white side and then check down the black side.”
Do you print out the pairings after entry, then compare that to white, black or both? Do you do your double-check on the screen or on paper? Do you compare visually, or do you have an assistant read results to you? Any other methods?
Thanks for any input.
With WinTD, I run through the results twice (usually a page at a time). If you key in a different result on the second go, it halts the quick-keys, beeps and puts up a result dialog. If it turns out that you got off track, you can clear a block of results and start from where the error was. (I actually will use the black column and transpose results on the second pass, but that’s an acquired skill—there’s no real advantage to that if you can trust that the scoresheets don’t have any errors or illegible results).
Doing the WinTD White and then WinTD reverse-Black results has allowed me to catch those people that do D and D or L and W instead of 1/2 and 1/2 or 0 and 1.
The first pass I read the D as a 0 and recorded a white loss, or the L as a 1 and recorded a white win. The second pass with reverse black results I entered the reverse-D as a white win and caught that mis-keying (or entered the reverse-W as a white loss and caught the second one).
If you use SwissSys you have a somewhat tougher time because the second entry simply overlays the first. For that I’d suggest printing the results and them putting them right up to the screen for comparison (first the black side and second the white side). Hopefully the screen will have the same size and spacing as the printed sheet to make things easier.
If you have a second TD (or any kind of assistant) handy, you can have one person read aloud the results on the pairing sheet while the other person enters them into the computer.
The assistant can read the results, one at a time, while the TD does the data entry. Don’t be slow by saying “Jones beat Smith on board 1, Johnson lost to Jackson on board 2”, etc. Just say “Starting with Jones and going down the white column, we have one, zero, zero, half, one. Then one, one, half, zero, half. Then zero, zero, half, one, half.” Et cetera. Reading five at a time produces a good rhythm. At the end of the page, stop entering the white results and go down the black column from the top, the assistant reading and the TD checking the already-entered results on the screen. Finish page 1 (both the entering and the checking) before going on to page 2, etc.
This method is extremely fast, and takes care of both the entering and the checking quickly.
IMO, it is too loud and would distract other operations of the backroom. Perhaps another TD starts inputting what the assistant is reading aloud inadvertently. This method should be used if and only if “Break in case of emergency”.
The “perfect” way of entering result: Slow and Steady. I recall the tortoise won the race .
Enter the results (using the White results is faster for me)
Print out the paiting sheet with the results
Proofread the Black results using the actual pairing sheets against the printed results.
Double check the actual pairing sheets for both White and Black for notes from the players, such ad “Out” or “wd” or “bye next round,” etc. (these can sometimes be written in very tiny handwriting).
The above method, which TD Walter Brown showed me, is a fast way of confirming that the proofread results are entered the same way in SwissSys as on the pairing sheet (although it does use a lot of extra paper).
Sometimes it can be helpful also to print out a list of the inactive players and staple that to the other two, in case you need to redo the pairings quickly and you’re not sure who has been withdrawn or was given a bye in the previous c-file.
The much more salient problem is making sure that all the messages about players who are not playing the next (or a future) round have been processed correctly. This is usually where most of the errors arise, and where a concerted effort should be made to proofread the messages (which often come in in a number of different ways), as opposed to a typo in the result sheets.
Another SwissSys trick (I am not as familiar with WinTD as I ought to be, so I defer to Tom as to whether this works):
Enter the results as the round progresses and save in an .S#B file. This does two things:
If you are running a tournament Web site, you can export the pairing sheet with partial results as html for the web site during the round. Site visitors can check for incorrect results while monitoring the round’s progress.
By entering results during the round, one can check unreported results against occupied boards to identify any data entry issues or unreported scores.
This is all supplementary to the techniques Steve Immitt described above, which are generally excellent, but have one point I have to quibble with.
Query whether it is best practice to encourage such notices via message on a pairing sheet. A withdrawal is the type of thing that is best verified in a way that the requestor’s identity can be verified, such as a personal communication, email, or phone call. Even discounting the possibility of shenanigans in withdrawing someone else via the pairing sheet, I prefer not to have anything on the results sheet besides results.
(And actually, I prefer to get results via countersigned duplicate score sheet, but baby steps.)
Using SwissSys, I enter the results based on the white side of the player filled in result sheet, then I fold that in half lengthwise and check the black results against what is on the screen. Every five or so results I confirm I’m on the right row by checking the name of the player.
We’re usually rushed for time at the end of our night, otherwise I like Steve Immitt’s suggestion of printing out the results entered and checking that printout against what the players entered.
All of these are good methods, and I have used many of them.
Scorekeeper training is an important factor, too. Scorekeepers need to know to use 0, .5 and 1, enter both columns, and know how to enter forfeits (and for that matter, be aware that forfeits exist: “my opponent never showed up.”)
Also, accept that errors will occur. As long as they are rare and there’s a mechanism for correcting them, you’re doing well.
The system I’ve been using is to enter results based on White’s results and check them visually on the screen based on Black’s results. I now think this is inadequate for large sections, since I entered incorrect results twice in the Under 2200 Section of the World Open. I like the system that was used at the Nationals and Supernationals where I’ve been a section chief (one of each): pairings TD enters the results and prints the completed pairing sheet, then the section chief reads results from the result slips and the pairings TD compares them to the pairing sheet. At the World Open the pairings TD and the section chief are the same person and there are no result slips, but we could try a similar system where the pairings TD enters the results and prints the completed pairing sheet, then another TD helps him check for accuracy by reading off results from the original pairing sheet. Of course this would require getting other people in the back room to be quiet for a few minutes - no easy task!
I help my newer staff understand that correct results and pairings take precedence over everything else in the backroom. True that everything going on likely has an impact…but it would be an exception to be more important in those minutes than the results/pairings critical path of the entire tournament or section.
.