# Prize Distribution Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Running Chess Tournaments\ **Created:** [July 14, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463 "2014-07-14T00:03:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mulfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mulfish](https://forum.uschess.org/u/Mulfish)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 2:54am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/21 "2014-07-15T02:54:06Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > > [@Crume](#): > > > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > > > > [@Crume](#): > > > > > > > > > [@wintdoan](#): > > > > > > > > > > There are some legitimately tricky price distributions. This isn’t one. It’s $550 each. Period. > > > > > > > > $550 is not self evident and I’d like to see rule support for that decision. The Over-1800 5.5 is not eligible for U1800 money and is receiving more money than the expected ( ( 2nd + 3rd ) / 2 ). See 32B5 Example 2 where an Expert loses out on any money at all due to summing only class prizes. > > > > > > > > [Edit/Add: See Michael Langer’s crosstable above for a great example of tied players who are ineligible for Under prizes.] > > > > > > > > I’d pay out $500 to the 5.5 score group based on (in)eligibility of the over-1800 player. > > > > > > You would be incorrect to do so. Please reread rule 32B3 carefully. > > > > > > While you will not find this language in the rule book, the governing principle is that equal scores result in equal cash prize amounts provided that it is possible to pay each player’s prize using only prize money for which the player is eligible a priori. (This is an alternate way of stating the “unless any of the winners … are ineligible” clause of rule 32B3.) In this case, the under 1800 is paid $500 from the under 1800 prize money and $50 from the second place prize money. The other player in the tie receives $550 from the second place prize money. > > > > > > Suppose for a moment that the prizes were reversed. That is, suppose the second place prize was $500 and the under 1800 prize was $600. This case is an example of the “unless any of the winners … are ineligible” clause of rule 32B3. The under 1800 player wins more prize money by claiming the under 1800 prize exclusively and renouncing any share of the second place prize money. In that case, the under 1800 would win $600 and the other player would win $500. (To use my phrasing above, it is impossible to pay the over 1800 player involved in the tie more than $500 and not dip into the under 1800 prize money for which the player is ineligible.) > > > > To verify I’ve revised my thinking correctly… The $550 pay out to the Over-1800 is OK b/c it is LESS than the pure 2nd place prize of $600. The reverse situation (U1800 as $600, 2nd as $500) made the Over-1800 ineligible b/c the $550 is MORE than the pure 2nd place prize. > > > > All based on 32B3 and determining whether the end result is under or over the maximum eligible prize. Correct? > > Ding! Ring the bell and award the full ten points! 🙂 > > Now, it’s time for the advanced class. 🙂 Suppose we have the following prize structure: > > 1st $2000, 2nd $1000, 3rd $500, 4th $300, Under 2400 $1300-$700. > > Distribute the prizes if the results are as follows: > > A 2600 6.0 > > B 2500 5.5 > > C 2450 5.0 > D 2380 5.0 > E 2330 5.0 > F 2190 5.0 > > (all other players score less than 5.0) > > Satisfied with your prize distribution? Now, distribute the same prize fund if the results are as follows: > > A 2600 6.0 > > B 2500 5.5 > > C 2450 5.0 > > D 2380 4.5 > E 2330 4.5 > F 2190 4.5 > > (all other players scored less than 4.5) > > Does your distribution of the prize fund in this case cause you to rethink your distribution in the first case? Isn’t the result exactly the same? 1st and 2nd are obvious. D E F split the $2000 U-2400 money because that’s how they get the most, renouncing 3rd place. C gets 3rd. 4th goes into the pot for the next lowest score group. You don’t have to be a TD to figure this one out! (Hopefully I didn’t just make an idiot of myself). ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/22 "2014-07-15T03:25:14Z")
> [@ILfish](#): > > Didn’t the 2nd or 3rd edition of the USCF rule book have some sample prize distributions listed in it? > > Also, I recall a tournament in the 80s where the prizes were 50-40, A 30, B 30, C 25, D/E/U 25 where a Class A player and a Class B player tied for second. Both players received $35, but the organizer took $15 from the A & B prizes along with the $40 second place prize to get the $35 for the two players. > > Larry S. Cohen Prizes with disjoint eligibility sets (X, A, B, etc.) rather than nested (open and Uxxxx) can give very easily give rise to really unfortunate prize distributions such as higher rated players with lower scores getting more money than lower rated players with higher scores. ---
**Author:** ![wilecoyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/2bfe46/32.png) [@wilecoyote](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wilecoyote)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 3:46am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/23 "2014-07-15T03:46:30Z")
> [@Mulfish](#): > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > Now, it’s time for the advanced class. 🙂 Suppose we have the following prize structure: > > > > 1st $2000, 2nd $1000, 3rd $500, 4th $300, Under 2400 $1300-$700. > > > > Distribute the prizes if the results are as follows: > > > > A 2600 6.0 > > > > B 2500 5.5 > > > > C 2450 5.0 > > D 2380 5.0 > > E 2330 5.0 > > F 2190 5.0 > > > > (all other players score less than 5.0) > > > > Satisfied with your prize distribution? Now, distribute the same prize fund if the results are as follows: > > > > A 2600 6.0 > > > > B 2500 5.5 > > > > C 2450 5.0 > > > > D 2380 4.5 > > E 2330 4.5 > > F 2190 4.5 > > > > (all other players scored less than 4.5) > > > > Does your distribution of the prize fund in this case cause you to rethink your distribution in the first case? > > Isn’t the result exactly the same? 1st and 2nd are obvious. D E F split the $2000 U-2400 money because that’s how they get the most, renouncing 3rd place. C gets 3rd. 4th goes into the pot for the next lowest score group. You don’t have to be a TD to figure this one out! (Hopefully I didn’t just make an idiot of myself). Well, this is a slightly modified version of a topic that was discussed in this very forum August, 2012. Back then, three NTDs (one of whom is easily the most experienced director in the country and one of whom is a Special Referee and also very experienced) and an ANTD (also very experienced) came up with three(!) different prize distributions. Doesn’t rule 32B3 say that the correct distribution is to add the four prizes (3rd, 4th, and the two U2400 prizes) and divide evenly, so that C, D, E, and F all receive $700? The alternative in 32B3 is to check whether the three players under 2400 would receive more by splitting just the U2400 prize money and renouncing the place prizes. They would not, as that would only be $666.67 each. In fact, the three prize distributions were: 1. C, D, E, and F each receive $700. 2. C receives $500, and D, E, and F each receive $766.67. 3. C receives $400, and D, E, and F each receive $800. (The third distribution is the one offered by the special referee and is reached by awarding C half of third place and half of fourth place, and dividing the rest of the prize money evenly among D, E, and F.) In rules committee discussion, it was suggested the correct prize distribution is clear (in fact, I think the word “obvious” was used) because of the “one prize per player” rule. But I claim that rule is not as clear as one might hope. In the example that started this thread (2nd place $600, U1800 $500), a player under 1800 who was tied with a player over 1800 correctly received $550, which was the under 1800 prize money of $500 plus an additional $50 taken from second place. Doesn’t that contradict the “one prize per player” rule? That leads to the inference that “at most one prize per player” refers to the prizes that are put into the pool to be divided among the tied players, not to the payout resulting from the division. ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 3:29pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/24 "2014-07-15T15:29:48Z")
The following seems to be a general principle which gets you to the right place: Each group of players (which could be just one player) is entitled to an equal share of the maximum prize money for which someone in that group is eligible after allowing other players at or above them in score to take the maximum prize money for which they (jointly) are eligible. All determinations of joint prize money for any group allow at most one prize per player. Thus starting from the top, each score group collectively gets the maximum for which someone in the group is eligible, then within that score group, look at whether any player or group of players can do better by letting the others pick first. If not, they get the average. If someone can do better, take the subgroup with the maximum average payout, take their prizes out of the mix and repeat with other subgroups until no one does better. At that point, give everyone else the average of what’s left for the score group. This avoids trying to specifically allocate shares of prizes to individual players. The tendency is to share equally because there is no other “fair” way to allocate the pot if no one does better on their own. ---
**Author:** ![jwiewel](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/jwiewel/32/104_2.png) [@jwiewel](https://forum.uschess.org/u/jwiewel)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/25 "2014-07-15T18:03:20Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > > [@Mulfish](#): > > > > > [@wilecoyote](#): > > > > > > Now, it’s time for the advanced class. 🙂 Suppose we have the following prize structure: > > > > > > 1st $2000, 2nd $1000, 3rd $500, 4th $300, Under 2400 $1300-$700. > > > > > > Distribute the prizes if the results are as follows: > > > > > > A 2600 6.0 > > > > > > B 2500 5.5 > > > > > > C 2450 5.0 > > > D 2380 5.0 > > > E 2330 5.0 > > > F 2190 5.0 > > > > > > (all other players score less than 5.0) > > > > > > Satisfied with your prize distribution? Now, distribute the same prize fund if the results are as follows: > > > > > > A 2600 6.0 > > > > > > B 2500 5.5 > > > > > > C 2450 5.0 > > > > > > D 2380 4.5 > > > E 2330 4.5 > > > F 2190 4.5 > > > > > > (all other players scored less than 4.5) > > > > > > Does your distribution of the prize fund in this case cause you to rethink your distribution in the first case? > > > > Isn’t the result exactly the same? 1st and 2nd are obvious. D E F split the $2000 U-2400 money because that’s how they get the most, renouncing 3rd place. C gets 3rd. 4th goes into the pot for the next lowest score group. You don’t have to be a TD to figure this one out! (Hopefully I didn’t just make an idiot of myself). > > Well, this is a slightly modified version of a topic that was discussed in this very forum August, 2012. Back then, three NTDs (one of whom is easily the most experienced director in the country and one of whom is a Special Referee and also very experienced) and an ANTD (also very experienced) came up with three(!) different prize distributions. > > Doesn’t rule 32B3 say that the correct distribution is to add the four prizes (3rd, 4th, and the two U2400 prizes) and divide evenly, so that C, D, E, and F all receive $700? The alternative in 32B3 is to check whether the three players under 2400 would receive more by splitting just the U2400 prize money and renouncing the place prizes. They would not, as that would only be $666.67 each. > > In fact, the three prize distributions were: > > 1. C, D, E, and F each receive $700. > 2. C receives $500, and D, E, and F each receive $766.67. > 3. C receives $400, and D, E, and F each receive $800. > > (The third distribution is the one offered by the special referee and is reached by awarding C half of third place and half of fourth place, and dividing the rest of the prize money evenly among D, E, and F.) > > In rules committee discussion, it was suggested the correct prize distribution is clear (in fact, I think the word “obvious” was used) because of the “one prize per player” rule. But I claim that rule is not as clear as one might hope. In the example that started this thread (2nd place $600, U1800 $500), a player under 1800 who was tied with a player over 1800 correctly received $550, which was the under 1800 prize money of $500 plus an additional $50 taken from second place. Doesn’t that contradict the “one prize per player” rule? That leads to the inference that “at most one prize per player” refers to the prizes that are put into the pool to be divided among the tied players, not to the payout resulting from the division. Regarding the one prize per player counterexample (open and U1800), the U1800 did not get any more money than the highest prize he qualified for (the $600 second place) so he did not exceed one prize. Otherwise any split of 1st and 2nd could be contended because each player received more than the amount of one of the prizes (2nd). I’m kind of hoping the “obvious” split was 1x$500 and 3x$766.67. If not then I am confused. If it is then I’d still guess that the confusion involved among even ANTD/NTD TDs means it’s not particularly obvious. ---
**Author:** ![brennanprice](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/brennanprice/32/723_2.png) [@brennanprice](https://forum.uschess.org/u/brennanprice)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/26 "2014-07-15T18:39:09Z")
> [@jwiewel](#): > > I’m kind of hoping the “obvious” split was 1x$500 and 3x$766.67. If not then I am confused. If it is then I’d still guess that the confusion involved among even ANTD/NTD TDs means it’s not particularly obvious. This is my only answer. ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:44pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/27 "2014-07-15T18:44:21Z")
> [@wilecoyote](#): > > Doesn’t rule 32B3 say that the correct distribution is to add the four prizes (3rd, 4th, and the two U2400 prizes) and divide evenly, so that C, D, E, and F all receive $700? The alternative in 32B3 is to check whether the three players under 2400 would receive more by splitting just the U2400 prize money and renouncing the place prizes. They would not, as that would only be $666.67 each. I think the problem with that was that the rulebook in 32B3 uses the word “ineligible” when that’s not what really is meant. C is “eligible” for both the 3rd and 4th place money, but obviously can’t take both of them, so the 4th place money should go into the D,E,F group which gives you the (I believe clearly correct from general principles) $500 for C + 3 way split of $2300 for D,E,F. ---
**Author:** ![relyea](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/relyea/32/190_2.png) [@relyea](https://forum.uschess.org/u/relyea)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/28 "2014-07-15T19:26:03Z")
I think that (part of) the problem here is that Mr. Ballou posited two hypotheticals, and no one has said which one they are using. Alex Relyea ---
**Author:** ![wintdoan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/eada6e/32.png) [@wintdoan](https://forum.uschess.org/u/wintdoan)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/29 "2014-07-15T19:40:53Z")
The second one is the easy one. The 5.0 takes the 3rd place money without question. It’s the first where the unfortunate wording in the rule book causes confusion. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/flex019/user_avatar/forum.uschess.org/system/32/2_2.png) [@system](https://forum.uschess.org/u/system)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2024, 8:41am UTC](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463/30 "2024-04-22T08:41:00Z")
[Previous page](https://forum.uschess.org/t/prize-distribution-question/19463.md?page=1)