The logical problem can be illustrated thus: Suppose you have an U1600 section with U1400 class prizes. If Tom’s interpretation is correct, and assuming unrated players are allowed in this section, the unrateds could, in the absence of any special restrction, win the U1600 (“place”) prizes but not the U1400 (“class”) prizes. Now, suppose we change that to an U1650 section with an U1600 (and U1400) class prize. The unrated’s prize eligibility has changed, but the nature of the prize has not.
There is nothing absurd about adopting this as a policy in your tournaments. What I am unable to swallow is that this sort of micromanagement was intentionally included in 28D, which is (or ought to be) a very general set of guidelines. Therefore, I conclude that a reading of 28D which produces this result must be mistaken.
That being said, I think this question has received more ink than it deserves. The only thing we’re arguing about is the default condition – what happens if the organizer says nothing in his pre-tournament publicity about unrated prize eligibility. Virtually all experienced organizers make specific provision for unrateds, which obviously overrides anything in 28D. There is no “best” solution to this; it depends on the structure of your tournament and the makeup of your player pool.
I don’t want to get into another round of logic chopping, but note that 33B makes it pretty clear that the term “place prize” is not intended to include the top prizes in class sections. I won’t go so far as to claim this “proves” my claim, since there is no particular reason to assume that the author had 28D and 33B in front of him at the same time. I’ll stick with my assessment above: “No consensus.”
And this is exactly where we differ. I think that the “nature” of the prize has changed. It is now a prize for a subset of legal entrants of the section (those rated under 1600) where before the prize was for the champion of the section. There is no logical problem unless you attempt to ignore part of the “nature” of the prize.
It seems to me that the larger logical problem occurs when you make one of the legal entrants of a section ineligible to win 1st in that section. In particular when trophy, title, etc are in the mix. I can’t imagine not giving an unrated scholastic player the 1st place trophy when he won the section.
I’d like to look at this from the viewpoint of an unrated player.
If I’m unrated and feel, because of previous play against Class C players, that I can handle playing in the U1600 section, then I’m going to do it if the tourmnament structure allows me to do that.
If I don’t make the score for a place prize, I don’t see why I should whine, because I understand I’m playing others who may be stronger than those I regularly play. Besides, my score will be the proof I need that maybe I should have entered the U1400 section , if there is one.
Now if I do happen to score enough wins to win a place prize, then as long as it isn’t explicitly stated in the tournament publicity, I would expect to be able to win the prize justified by my score. If I didn’t, then I’d whine loud and long!
As an unrated player, I need to be realistic about my own strength, and yet have some confidence that I can play in the section I want and am eligible for. If I’m turned down for a prize I’ve earned by my playing ability, even if I’m an unrated, then I’m going to wonder why no one wants to recognize the fact that maybe I’m stronger than those in the section I played in, and have the prize go to someone who I might very well have beaten.
I agree it all has to do with the way the event is designed and how it is advertised. But I don’t understand how prizes in a section labeled U1600 that contains eight other classes can be called “class” prizes. To me, they are place prizes covering a group of classes, not any individual one. A class tournament has place prizes within the classes.
In the Massachusetts Open we use different restrictions for different sections. In the 2005 tournament, for example, unrated players couldn’t win 1st or 2nd in the three day U2000, U1750 and U1500 sections and they couldn’t win 1st in the one day U2000 and U1300 sections, but there was no restriction at all in the scholastic sections. Naturally this was stated in the TLA, flyer and Chess Horizons ad.
Conceptual difference. It sounds like you regard sections as independent tournaments, whereas I think of them as administrative subsets of the “real” tournament, an occasionally necessary evil.
You can call it a green parrot if you want, but that will make it hard to carry on a conversation. Any prize that is limited to players below a certain rating should be called a class prize, because it is a class prize. Fuzzy language leads to fuzzy thinking.
And similarly, it could be said any prize that goes to the top scorers (1st place, 2nd place, etc) should be called a place prize because that is what it is.
And since a section which allows unrateds would have place prizes which are not limited to those of a certain class, it’s top prizes are therefore not class prizes.
Strangely enough, the May-June 2005 Rank & File lists an unrated player coming in 3rd in a Reserve section.
It isn’t particularly productive to argue about whether top prizes in a class section should be called “place” prizes. They sort of are, and they sort of aren’t. On the one hand, assuming they are can lead to undesirable consequences. On the other hand, what else are you going to call them? Maybe all we really need is a new term for these prizes.
The best policy, instead of worrying about terminology, is to simply figure out in advance what you want the effect to be, and word your TLA accordingly.
I have considerable sympathy for this position in practice, especially with regard to scholastic tournaments. What I object to is the reasoning you use to reach it. Rather than simply say “This is how I want to run my tournaments” (which is pretty much my position), it seems to me you are arguing that: a) 28D says that unrated players can win place prizes but not class prizes; b) you have a definition of “place prize” that includes the top prizes in class sections; and c) therefore unrateds are eligible for the top prizes in class sections. The problem is that this kind of reasoning can be used to prove anything, if you can redefine your terms at will.
The only way to resolve the factual question of what the term “place prize” means in the Rulebook would be to find whoever drafted that section and inquire about the “legislative intent.” Worth doing, but, as I pointed out above, it will have very little practical effect.
Yes, redefining terms can cause problems. But it has seemed to me that you have been arguing your position primarily based upon redefining terms to be what you think they should mean. The use of “class prizes” for the top prizes of a section appears nowhere that I could see and you thus define your solution based upon what you see as it’s essential aspect while ignoring other important aspects held by those prizes. In reality, a section that allows unrateds is not a “class section”. I’m assuming that you really mean an “under section”, but it even fails that definition since then unrateds could not then be included. And the only argument that I have seen is this argument by definition - and I feel that definition is thus incorrect. You didn’t say that this is just the way that you want to run your tournaments, but that this was the “nature” or the definition of words and prizes.
As long as you include in your tlas your limitations on unrateds (though they didn’t appear in your scholastic tla), you can certainly run them that way successfully. But the claim that others are redefining terms while at the same time arguing from authority …
If ‘class prizes’ are defined as prizes that are not open to all chessplayers based solely on the player’s rating or lack thereof, then yes, the top prizes in an ‘under’ section are class prizes. (I’m ignoring, or trying to ignore, events that restrict entries to some age or geographical group.)
However, in that case the top prizes in a Masters-only tournament are also class prizes.
Has separate prizes for class D and Class E (perhaps smaller prizes),
What do you do if a 940 rated player comes in first overall? It seems to me that you HAVE to give him the first prize even though he’s not a class C player! Therefore, it seems clear that the top prize is NOT a class prize and should be open to unrated players as well.
Further, if the top prize is larger than the class prizes then a class D or E player should be eligible to win it.
If you don’t want to do things this way then don’t have a 1st prize in the section, just have a class C prize, class D prize, etc. If it says 1st place then you should give it to the player that finishes with the top score. Otherwise, what does 1st place mean? I think it is very bad practice to open a section to players that can’t “win” that section if they finish with the best score.
One other question – what if it were a completely separate tournament? That is, what if it were an under 1600 and unrated tournament, with no corresponding “open” tournament being held at the same time? Would you still say that the 1st prize is a class prize rather than a place prize?
I can’t agree with a definition of 1st place that doesn’t mean the person (eligible to play in that event) that finishes with the best score.
If it doesn’t MEAN 1st place, then don’t CALL it 1st place – CALL it a CLASS prize. If an event is OPEN to those outside a certain rating class, then the 1st prize for that event should not be considered a class prize.
If an unrated wants to cheat that badly, then they will just throw a few games and have a provisional rating. (I played against a guy rated around 900 at the National Open last year. He had a provisional based on a few games played against high school students that was out to lunch. He picked up a nice upset prize that should have gone to someone else who actually rose to the occasion. I was lucky to pull off a draw with him.)
It seems like the focus of the discussion should be how to encourage more people to come out and play rather than to worry about whether an organizer should be able to allow an unrated a reasonable chance for a prize.
The term “place prize” is customarily used (and, it seems clear from 33B, was intended to be used in the Rulebook) for the top prizes in the open (or only) section. You are choosing to define it differently in order to get the result you want from 28D. What you want to do may be a good thing, but you are trying to get to it by twisting the meaning of the rules to make it mandatory.
I agree, and one could make the argument that an unrated player would not be eligible for these absent a specific provision. It is extremely unlikely that this would ever come up.
I depends on how you define the section/prize. An “Under XXXX” prize (or section) is open to everyone under that rating; a “Class X” prize/section is open only to players in Class X. They are both class prizes, but of different kinds. All this is covered in 38B and 38C.
It is true that if you defined the section as “Class C,” then added class prizes and allowed D players to enter, you might have a problem – but who who do something this foolish?
Perhaps I’m not expressing myself clearly enough for you. I never said that allowing unrateds to win the top prizes in class sections was a bad idea. (I think it has some drawbacks, but there are situations – such as when you want to be sure to award all the trophies in a scholastic – when it is probably desirable.) I said that it is not what the Rulebook sets as the default condition in 28D. You persist in arguing that because an outcome is desirable, it must be the law. Non sequitur.
If an U1400 section has top prizes, U1200 prizes, and U1000 prizes, a 900 player would be eligible to win any of them. Does this mean that, by your definition, the U1200 prize is also a “place” prize? As I pointed out above, “Class X” and “Under XXXX” prizes are different kinds of class prizes, but both are class prizes.