Rule 32B3 Question

Running Chess Tournaments
1

In a recent 6-round event (not too hard to guess which one) the prizes were as follows:

1st $2,298 (plus 1st Place Bonus $77) 2nd $1,149 3rd $536, 4th $306 5th $230
1st Under 2400 $1,379 2nd Under 2400 $766

The final standings were

2673 5-1

2699 4½-1½

2495 4-2
2391 4-2
2387 4-2
2385 4-2

2345 3½-2½
2340 3½-2½
2226 3½-2½
2208 3½-2½
2148 3½-2½

When SwisSys 8.882 calculated the prizes, it came up with the same results as I did with my banged-up calculator, up to a point:

2673 $2,375
2699 $1,149

But now we had a disagreement with the prize distribution for the four players who scored 4-2.

SwisSys awarded each of the four 4-2’s $746.75, while I think that the 2495 correctly received $536, and the other three 4-2’s who were Under 2400 should get $817 (I tend to round up and down a little inconsistently).

USCF Rule 32B3 (page 181) states:

“Ties for more than one prize. If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner.”

To me the main difference between my case and Example 3 in the Rulebook is that the class prizes in the Rulebook are all less than 4th place. But in my case the two class prizes were more than 3rd place (and more than 4th place).

Here’s the way I was thinking about this. If those three players who were Under 2400 each had a half-point less, then it’s clear that the only prize that 2495 would win would be Clear Third, $536, because s/he’s not eligible for the Under 2400 prizes. Same thing if there were only one other Under 2400 with 4 points (in that case 2495 would still win the $536 for third and the sole hypothetical Under 2400 player would win the $1,379 Under 2400 prize). But then why should 2495 get MORE money, just because three other players scored more and tied with this player-- three players who are all eligible for a prize for which 2495 is not eligible? The basis for pooling the class prizes with the place prizes is so that the class prize winners do not win less than the place prize winners, by just taking the class prizes only, while the higher rated player wins more by taking the place prize. But the higher player should not receive part of the class prize, if this makes the class players win LESS-- in effect taking money away from the class prize winners. Under the prize distribution calculated by SwisSys, the 2495 player is in effect benefiting and the three Under 2400’s are in fact being penalized because they scored as well as they did.

Interestingly SwisSys and I both agree on the giving the five 3½’s $46 each-- which seems to indicate that SwisSys also wants to keep 4th Place included in the 4-point group and award the $230 Fifth Place prize amongst the five 3½’s (not also letting them share in 4th place as well, for example). The difference of opinion in prize distribution thus seems to be confined to the four 4-2’s and is apparently due to my interpretation of Rule 32B3.

Of course it really doesn’t matter if this is SwisSys or any other computer pairing program-- the computer just does what the rules say to do (assuming the algorithm is correct). So is this a case of a possible alternate interpretation or maybe even an unintended consequence of a strict application of the rule, or am I just totally misunderstanding this rule entirely, and now I have to explain to the organizer why I’ve overpaid three players and underpaid another one a couple of hundred dollars (full disclosure: only some of the three Under 2400 4-2’s were paid, so maybe I could cut my losses there)?

I’m interested in knowing what some other TDs who might be familiar with this rule think about the prize distribution alternatives (just the methodologies listed please, or corrections or alternatives to them, and not one’s personal opinions about class prizes and relative amounts of prizes, etc).

Thanks to everyone for your time.

2

I tend to agree with you.

But in your scenario, why would the 3rd under 2400 player bring in the $306 4th place prize into the three-way u2400 pool instead of bringing in the $536 3rd place prize? He has just as much right to the $536 as the $306. I would agree that giving the 2495 player the 3rd prize of $536 is more fair, but what rule allows the u2495 player to get $536 and the 3rd u2400 player to only get the $306 to bring into the pool?

3

I’m focusing on the following:
“Ties for more than one prize. If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible. No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner.”

Splitting the two U2400 prizes three ways gives the U2400 players more than splitting four prizes four ways. Thus only the eligibility-limited prizes are included.

I am, however, surprised that the five 3.5s didn’t share both fourth and fifth instead of just fifth.

An argument could be made that four prizes are put into the 4-2 pool, then the three U2400s share two of the prizes to get more money than a four-way split, with the dollars from the remaining two prizes left for the 2495. I don’t think it is a valid argument, but be prepared for it.

4

The 2495 player tied for the $536 prize as well as the $306 prize, and he/she gets the largest prize for which he/she is eligible. Either the 2495 gets $536 or he/she gets an even share of the pooled prizes. The 3rd U2400 player gets more money by bringing $306 into a 3-player pool than by bringing $536 into a 4-player pool.

5

Actually, it doesn’t. ($1379 + $766) / 3 = $715. ($536 + $306 + $1379 + $766) / 4 = $746.75.

6

I have to admit that at the tournament, under the pressure of players wanting to be awarded their prizes as quickly as possible, I didn’t understand why SwissSys wanted to award each player $746.75 and I urged Steve to award the prizes the way we did: $536 for the player rated 2495 and $817 for each player rated under 2400. I do think that our prize distribution is more logical and can be defended under rule 1A (“The United States Chess Federation (USCF) presumes that its tournament directors have the compentence, sound judgment and absolute objectivity needed to arrive at fair and logical solutions to problems not specifically treated by these rules”), but SwissSys’s distribution conforms to a literal intepretation of rule 32B3. Personally, I don’t think it’s fair or logical for the 2495 to win more money than he/she could have won if he/she had had half a point more than the three players rated under 2400.

To fix the problem (as I see it, anyway) with rule 32B3, I would amend it by adding, after “unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible”, the words “plus any prizes available after awarding prizes to the others in the tie”.

7

By the way, rule 33B says “Generally, place prizes should be higher than class prizes, both to reward the relative excellence of the chess played and to avoid distribution problems”, but tell that to Bill Goichberg! Obviously he wanted to encourage players rated 2200 to 2399 to play in the tournament, but he also wanted to encourage the 2400s to play by offering a fairly large number of smaller place prizes.

8

I’ve just thought of another way to justify Steve’s and my division of the prizes ($536 for the 2495, $817 for the three players rated under 2400), besides resorting to rule 1A.

Rule 32B3 states that “If winners of different prizes tie with each other, all the cash prizes involved shall be summed and divided equally among the tied winners unless any of the winners would receive more money by winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible.” If the 2495 wins the 3rd prize of $536, that player is ineligible for the 4th prize of $306 because a player can win only one prize. Therefore, under rule 32B3, you should compare the amount the Under 2400 winners would win in a four-way split of all four prizes ($746.75) with the amount they would win in a three-way split of all the prizes except the 3rd prize (the highest prize that the 2495 is eligible for), i.e. with $817. Since they get more money in the three-way split, they each get $817 and the 2495 gets $536.

9

When you have a complicated prize fund, you have a complicated prize distribution.

10

Bob, I believe your logic is incorrect. The critical words in rule 32B3 in this situation are winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the tie are ineligible. You may not include the fourth prize of $306 in this alternate calculation because the other player in the tie (the player rated 2495) is eligible for that prize.

Players often mistakenly think they are being cheated in situations such as this because “the 2495 player ends up with prize money he’s not entitled to (the two U2400 prizes).” The point of rule 32B3 is to ensure that does not happen. Imagine, for example, that you are coloring the money used to pay out the prizes. You color the general prizes (1st-5th) blue, and you color the two U2400 prizes pink (completely arbitrary color choices). The point of 32B3 is to ensure that when you pay out the prizes, the player rated 2495 can be paid without receiving any pink currency after you have distributed as much pink currency as possible to the three players rated under 2400. If this is not possible, it means that you have paid the three players rated under 2400 entirely with pink currency, and there is pink currency left over. So, the three players rated under 2400 would do better to give up any claim to blue currency and just divide all the pink currency among themselves. The point here is that the $306 fourth place prize is blue currency, not pink.

11

Ken, if the Under 2400 prizes were $500 and $250, say, instead of $1379 and $766, then I’d agree that the prizes should be split four ways: ($536 + $306 + $500 + $250) / 4 = $398 for each player, including the 2495. I’ve often had players complain in this type of situation that the 2495 is sharing in Under 2400 prize money. My explanation is that the 2495 is getting $398 of the $536 3rd prize and the rest of that prize is going to a player rated under 2400. In your terms, the 2495 is only getting blue currency, and is not getting any pink currency.

What’s different where the Under 2400 prizes are $1379 and $766 is that the four-way split prize would be $746.75, which is bigger than any single prize that the 2495 can win. How can you say that the 2495 is eligible for the $536 third prize and the $306 fourth prize when rule 32B1 says that a player can win only one prize? If the 2495 won $746.75 it would mean that he/she would be winning the $536 third prize and $210.75 of the $306 fourth prize. I think it’s more logical to say that the 2495 wins just the $536 prize and the $306 goes to one of the players rated under 2400 who is also tied for that prize.

Unfortunately there is no example in the 5th edition rulebook to show which interpretation of rule 32B3 is correct. Something for the 6th edition?

Before Steve Immitt pays out any more prizes, maybe CCA should ask the Rules Committee for an opinion on how the prizes should have been awarded.

12

Your observation is very interesting, and a bit troubling. I think the principle you are trying to apply is that a player should not take from the pooled prize money an amount greater than any of the prizes for which he is eligible.

That may indeed have been the intention of rule 32B, but I can not find the wording to justify that reasoning. Specifically, rule 32B1 states that “the award may be one full cash prize if a clear winner, or parts of two or more cash prizes if tied with others.” There is no mention of a limit on the sum of the parts in rule 32B1.

Also, rule 32B3 is very explicit:

It is completely true that the player rated 2495 ends up with an amount greater than either of the prizes going into the pool for which he is eligible. However, continuing my “blue/pink” analogy, he is still not drawing any pink currency from the pool. That appears to be the only restriction rule 32B3 imposes in this case.

Essentially, rule 32B3 establishes the principle that equal scores result in equal prize money unless a proper subset of the tied players who are eligible for one or more restricted prizes do better by relinquishing their claim to the unrestricted prizes.

I think this may very well be a case of unintended consequences in the wording of rule 32B3. It would indeed be a good example to bring to the rules committee. Too bad this example didn’t come up in time for me to submit another rules change ADM this year. :slight_smile:

13

Let’s look at it this way. What if there were only 2 players tied for third and neither was a class player. It’s simple to see that they would each get half of the sum of the 2 prizes.

Now we also have class prizes here and the decision was to give the only player above the class limit the higher of the 2 place prizes. Doesn’t this mean that when the class prizes were calculated that only the 4th place prize was added to the pool for them while third went to the player over the class cap? That’s what it looks like to me. I see no justification for taking the lower of the 2 place prizes instead of half of their sum.

I believe the correct way to distribute is to give half of 3rd + 4th to the player rated over the cap and add the other half to the 2 class prizes and divide by 3. This is because class money may not travel up to players who are only eligible for place prizes.

To look at this a different way, what if there were two players over the class cap and two under? It would be agreed that neither place player is entitled to clear third. How would changing the rating of a player to be under the cap entitle a player over the cap to win more money?

14

Hmmm. Interesting discussion.

What I would have done would have been that the 2495 tied for 3rd/4th and gets $421, the 2391 and 2387 bring the U2400 1st/2nd into the mix, and the 2385 brings the other 3rd/4th tie into the mix so the three U2400’s get $855.33 each.

I can best see the argument of giving the 2495 3rd place, and splitting 4th and U2400 1st/2nd. I don’t think that the intent of the rule of “winning or dividing only a particular prize for which others in the the are ineligible” and “No more than one cash prize shall go into the pool for each winner” was meant to say that the three U2400’s should have to exclude themselves from the 3rd/4th/5th prize in order to be able to access the U2400 prize. No more than one cash prize per winner makes sense. However, I don’t agree with any ruling that has the U2400 players ONLY split the U2400 prize, give the 2495 3rd place, and divides the 4th and 5th place prize between the 3.5 scorers. With 3 players involved in the U2400 scoring group, they should still be able to bring 3 prizes into the mix.

15

Just to clarify my process:

Assume that the 2391 is actually rated 2401. Then we would all agree that the 2495 and 2401 split the 3rd/4th and the 2387 and 2385 split the U2400 1st/2nd. So the 4 prizes that we are talking about are really a 3rd/4th tie, 3rd/4th tie, U2400 1st/2nd tie, and a U2400 1st/2nd tie.

Shifting our hypothetical 2401 back to 2391 just means that the 2495 still gets his 3rd/4th tie, but the other 3 players now split a 3rd/4th tie and the two U2400 1st/2nd ties.

16

So we have the following options mentioned so far:
A) 2495 gets 536, others get (1379+766+306)/3
B) 2495 gets (536+306)/2, others get (1379 + 766 + (536+306)/2) /3
C) All four get (1379+766+536+306)/4
D) 2495 gets 536, others get (1379+766)/3

I think C is technically correct (the U2400 players are NOT getting less than they would splitting only the U2400 prizes - so a shift from an equal split is not triggered) while A is probably what people were aiming for when this rule about place prizes was first written (I vaguely remember hearing that it was based on a US Open case where one expert tied overall with some prize-winning GMs and after the prize division he ended up getting an amount less the first place expert prize).

D is wrong with the actual prize structure but would have been technically correct if it was 456 and 256 instead of 536 and 306 (with the 2495 getting 456 and the 256 being available for the 3.5 players).

A comes across as feeling fairer, and the 2495 would get the same amount he would have gotten if he was sole third. If I had my preference, I’d want to simply avoid the issue by having a different prize structure. From a practical standpoint, four prizes were used for the four players and the 2495 (the only player who would receive more money under C) received the maximum he could have if he was the only one with his score. So an appeal seems a bit unlikely.

17

After spending more time noodling this out than I should have, I believe you are correct in that A is the right answer. Everyone gets more than they would have otherwise and it follows the rule.

18

I didn’t say that A was the right answer. I said that it felt fairer and was likely to be accepted by the players even though C technically looks to be correct.

19

Sorry, I actually meant to say C, which makes a bit more sense with my previous statement.

20

I’m sticking with B.

:smiley: