I had a question asked of me tonight, and want to make sure that I gave the correct answer.
The scenario:
1st, 2nd,3rd place prizes, and X,A class prizes.
2 players score perfect 5.0 and split 1st and 2nd
An expert and an A class player are the only players at 4.5
There is an expert at 4.0 and an A at 4.0
Question: Do you award 3rd Place/X to the 4.5 players and give the A class player the A class award, or do you award the 3rd place/A prizes to the 4.5 players and give the expert the X class award?
The only guidance that I can find is the paragraph after 33D1a that says that it is recommended that place prizes be figured first, then the class prizes by the highest first. Under that guidance, I would award 3rd/X to the 4.5’s, give the A prize to the 4.0 A player, and not give anything to the 4.0 expert.
Does that sound correct to everyone? (I hate having any money issues where the ruling comes with the term ‘recommended’ instead of "this is how you do it’)
The amount of the prize is the most important. I have played in many tournaments where Class prizes are more than place prizes. In the example you give, if one of the 5-0 players is an Expert, for example, and 1st X is more $$$$ than 2nd place, then the 5-0 players would split 1st overall and 1st X, which is more money than 1st and 2nd (even if the other 5-0 is a Master).
Assuming place prizes are higher than all the class prizes (not sure, because you did not specify) then the players with 4.5 in your example would split 3rd overall and 1st Expert, which is the way you specified it in your post.
IF 1st Expert and 1st A are the same amount of money, then you are supposed to also give them 3rd and 1st expert. However, if 1st A if a larger $$ amount (sounds odd, but I have seen it) then the players with 4.5 get 3rd and 1st A. Further, if the class prizes are BOTH more than 3rd overall (suppose 3rd overall is $100 and 1st X and 1st A are $125 each), then the 4.5 pointers each get their class prize, and 3rd overall goes to the 4.0 players.
Due to the $$$ prizes being distributed this way, it is common in Michigan events (where I am from) for one person to win class money, and get a place trophy! This makes it somewhat difficult for the chess magazine people who want to print a pic of the prizewinners!
I am guessing from your post that you did everything right.
Sorry, I forgot to say that 3rd, X, and A are the same amount.
When I was asked this, I had to think about it for a few minutes. This wasn’t an actual incident (thank goodness), this was trying to settle the issue between 2 players who were arguing about the proper way to distribute the prizes.
In order to make it easier to explain the prize distributions to the players, I always make the prizes differ by some small amount - say $10 or even $5. While you can explain to them that the USCF rules make the 3rd and X prizes “superior” to the A prize when they are the same amount, being able to tell the players that they will take the biggest prize that they can works much better.
(I also prefer under prizes to class prizes as it seems wrong to me for a lower rated player with a better score to ever receive a smaller prize than a higher rated player with a lower score.)
Yes, your calculation is correct. One way to look at it is that each player in a tie brings the “highest” prize to which he is entitled into the pool. In this case, since the prizes are the same size, 3rd is “higher” than any class prize. So 3rd and X are split by the 4.5’s, leaving the A prize to the next A player in line.
Since there are two players involved in the third place tie, only two prizes may be awarded to them. One interesting (and probably incorrect) way of determining the two prizes is to awards 6/3 (six thirds) of prizes with the expert getting one third of third place, two thirds of top expert the A player getting one thirds of third place and two thirds of top A. Leaving one third each of third place, top expert and top A to be awarded to other players.
Because place prizes take priority over class prizes of the same value (while there is nothing saying the one class takes priority over another class when the prizes are the same value and different players are involved for each class), what I think is actually better is to give the expert half of third place and half of top expert while the A player gets half of third place and half of top A. Thus 4/2 (four halves) of prizes are awarded to the two players, leaving half of top expert and half of top A to be awarded to other players.
This option has received the endorsement of multiple NTDs.
Follow-up edit: 33d1 deals with non-monetary prizes.
I’ve heard of this theory (used to be quite popular in the Pacific Northwest), but I don’t care for it – too complicated. BTW, I don’t agree that all class prizes are “equal.” I consider X>A>B, etc., if they are the same amount. This can become important if the pries are defined as “UXXXX” rather than “Class XXXX only,” as a player might be eligible for several prizes but can only pull one into the pool.
Per 32b4, if you have under prizes then a single player is eligible for more than one class prize and you use the highest of those. In a slight variation of the case that prompted this thread, both the expert and the A player would be eligible for the third place and U2200 prize, so those would be split and the U2000 prize would be untouched.
Since nothing specific is said about the priority of two different players who are each eligible for a different class prize, exercising TD discretion regarding prize priority gives you at least two valid options.
One is to put the prize for the higher class into the pool, and another is to put half of each equal-value class prize into the pool. My personal preference is to go with the four halves option in the event that this rare situation ever comes up around here. There is nothing wrong with you using your preference.
I wasn’t quoting 33d1, I was referring to the unlabeled paragraph that followed 33d1.
I agree that there are a lot of headaches that can be saved by how you set your prize fund up.
I never even considered the possibility of using only a fraction of the prizes; I don’t think that in reality I would do that without some kind of announcement beforehand. I know as a player I would be very surprised if that happened. (It would almost seem like you are saying that the 4.0 Expert and A class players are splitting whichever class prize is left as a consolation.)
Hmmm…are those players that are discussing this taking one of the TD exams? This is a question on one of the exams.
BTW: I use the fractional method discussed by Jeff. Why? It makes sure that after the top scoring A and X players get their $$$, that the next A and X players in line for prizes also BOTH get some $$$. Any other method leaves one of those “next in line” A or X players with no cash and no reasonable explanation for the one that gets nothing. Anyhow, it works for me.
Is using the fractional method a variation from Rule 32 that needs to be announced in advance?
I like the logic of the fractional method, but I don’t see how the wording of rule 32 supports it. Even though the prize money using fractions of prizes works out to be the same for the higher scoring players, I read rule 32 as requiring that prizes put “into the pot” for tied players have to be consumed in their entirety.
Nope. It is not a major variation on the rule and is unlikely to influence a player in their decision to play or not play.
32B1…"or parts of two or more cash prizes if tied…
This whole situation can be avoided if the organizer just makes no prize = to any other prize (even if it is + or - by $1). That way there is a clear explaination as to why one prize got thrown into the pot instead of the other.
You are correct the wording could use a little help in supporting that fractional method. And the fractional method does comply with the philosophy of giving the largest amount of $$$ to the best scoring players. Not using the fractional method is probably more standard.
Some of these topics have already been discussed in the Distribute Prizes thread. I’ve now brought that thread back to life (by adding a short post to it). See all of you over there – especially pages 2 and 3.
Change the situation a bit. Suppose that we have prizes of $300, $200, $100 and the other prizes are $100 female and $100 youth (so that there’s no obvious “ordering”), and suppose that a woman and child tie for 3rd-4th. They would both get $100, taking the 3rd place money, but what’s the source of the other $100? I would submit that any fractional split is justifiable, and the only way to determine what is the “fairest” way to do that is to look at lower score groups. If, for instance, the next group down has one child and no women, it would probably make most sense to take all $100 out of the female money for the tied players, and give the $100 youth money to the next lower player. If there are two kids and one woman, you could give use 2/3 of the female money and 1/3 of the youth money to provide the $100 for the 3rd-4th players, and the three eligible players in the next group would all get $33.33, or perhaps go $50-$50 and give the woman in the next score group $50 and the two kids $25 each. Either of those has some merit.
When all the prizes are either overall or “under” prizes, the distribution can be computed unambiguously starting at the top score group and working down, using the rules that, in case of ties, pull overall before rating, and pull higher rating before lower. As soon as you get into disjoint categories, that’s no longer the case.
The Youth and Female prizes are exceptions to the rules and are awarded separately from the advertised place or class prizes (33D1); i.e., they do not get tossed into the pot and divided with class and place prizes.
And what do you do when a girl is both the top female and top youth?
The problem is that the tournament organizer didn’t set the prizes very well. Much better would be something on the order of 300-200-100 Female 95 Youth 90. Then there is no ambiguity about which is the “better” prize among those with the same score.
I guess that according to the rule that Tim quotes, she would get both. If I understand the rule, if my 3rd-4th place tie consisted of a boy and a girl, they would split the $100 3rd place money, the girl would get the $100 female money, and they would split the $100 youth money.
Point 1, doesn’t 33D1 refer to non-monetary prizes?
Point 2, it seems to me that Youth and Female prizes do not fall into the “standard exceptions” category (biggest upset, best game, brilliancy), but instead are more like class prizes.
You are correct that 33D1 refers only to “indivisible” prizes. However, the first sentence of 33 begins “These are recommendations, rather than rules of mandates.” Personally, I believe that “female” or “junior” prizes are qualitatively different from place/class prizes, and should not be combined and divided, but if you feel differently I have no problem with it. Creating an explicit rule on this, though, would be a very poor idea. It would continue the USCF’s trend toward imposing a stultifying conformity, when we should be encouraging local initiative and creativity.
)