It’s pointless to get into an argument over who is or is not looking at the situation objectively. Anyone who isn’t likely would not be able to discern that. I will point out that Allen Priest, Jeff Wiewel and I have all passed the Senior TD test. In any case I have said my piece, so I’ll bow out of this discussion. I wish you good luck when you take this exam.
And the new menu choice still has chicken and a potato. Both scenarios involve a replacement.
Let me first say that I would never hire a TD who has demonstrated an unwillingness to learn from his mistakes. I would be concerned that he would consider it far more important to be right than to make the players satisfied with his rulings. Further, so people understand where I am coming from on this, in the past seven or eight years I have had two players so dissatisfied by a ruling of mine that they wished to appeal. In both cases the special referee upheld my ruling and, while the player ruled against was unhappy, in neither case did he decide to appeal to TDCC. In one of the cases the special referee upheld my ruling, but stated that he thought I could have done better and presented a spectrum of rulings that he would have upheld in that situation. After taking that feedback I modified my ruling in favor of the player who appealed. The opponent was OK with the decision, the player was still unhappy, but he felt heard.
Now, on to the substance of this thread. In the first post Mr. Smith quotes from Rule 30 and asks for clarification. While the portion he quotes could easily be misunderstood, it is clear from reading the rest of the Rule that there is no conflict. Mr. Wiewel points this out and, as Mr. Smith elected to ask this question in public rather than send an email to Judy Misner, he elected to clarify for everyone what the Rule says so that everyone can understand the ruling that the office would invariably give would it be asked if TD X qualified to take the Senior TD exam at an upcoming national event. Note again that Mr. Wiewel is simply being a good TD here. He’s not saying “You have Black because the computer says so” but instead is explaining in great detail why the Rule is interpreted the way it is. Mr. Smith initially appears pleased by this, thanking Mr. Wiewel, and going on to request more information about the exam, which Mr. Wiewel generously answers, even though the information is all present in Rule 30, which, recall is the Rule Mr. Smith cites.
Suddenly, out of nowhere Mr. Smith claims that Rule 30 is internally contradictory. He bases this claim on trimming enough from 30.b10 to make it plausible that there is a conflict, though in fact the Rule makes no sense, as edited. Mr. Wiewel responds not only with an explanation of the lack of contradiction, but also a quote of the whole 30.b10. Mr. Smith proceeds to overlook the definition, or at least explanation, of the word “substitution”, and instead offers a Google result. When it is suggested to Mr. Smith that he accept the interpretation of Rule 30 by the Chair of the Committee that wrote and maintains it, he cites an English teacher who agrees that there is a conflict. Note that Mr. Smith fails to indicate whether he asked said English teacher to read the whole Rule 30, or just 30.a1, 30.a2, and 30.b10, or even just the portion of those rules which he decided to include in post 351053. We therefore have no idea to what Mr. Smith’s English teacher referred.
A final point, regardless of any apparent contradiction, Mr. Smith is the only person to have expressed confusion regarding the plain meaning of Rule 30.b10. Instead of responding that he appreciated the clarification and possibly even suggesting that b10 be assigned a full letter like e has been so that there is less confusion, he proceeds to go on the warpath, including, no doubt against me after I post this. Here’s the thing: Mr. Wiewel was nothing but courteous and generous throughout the thread, at least until his chicken and potatoes analogy, which I suppose could cause offense in one eager to take it.
In conclusion, I note that Mr. Wiewel inadvertently neglected to answer one of Mr. Smith’s questions. The closed book exam is largely composed of multiple guess questions with a pairing question. It is identical to the Open Book exam. It should be noted that anyone who has seen a Senior Exam in an Open Book fashion has no need to take the exam closed book.
Alex Relyea
I would agree that the same statement as the current b10 relabeled as paragraph c (or maybe 31a?) would be superior. But if someone is determined to be confused, there’s little that can be done to prevent it.
You are playing rules lawyer with a collection of NTDs, including me. Get a clue.
I was a section chief at a national scholastic championship some years ago. I mentioned to one of my section assistants I had a rule book at the scorers table. He informed me he had no need for said book as he had the entire thing memorized
Right then I knew we were in trouble. And we were. He hacked off so many players with his pedantic BS. My review of his performance seems to have been sufficient that he has not worked a national event since.
You don’t get it. And it appears you may never understand.
We may even have passed some higher level certifications and have a tad more experience.
But what do we know?
It is kind of buried in the discussion but in the second post of mine I said “The test is 30 multiple choice questions (4 pts each), one pairing question (20 pts) and 112 pts needed to pass (80% of the 140 pts).”
I never dreamed I would have to say that the tests used closed book are the same as the open-book tests since the b10 changes are only for pre-reqs to take the test.
I described this thread to my wife. She didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
This is a decent opportunity to say that some have thought the SrTD test tougher than the FIDE FA test or the bar exam. That is usually do to overthinking what the questions might mean. As long as you remember that when “no rules variations” is stated (it means no US Chess rules listed as variations, no CCA rules, no scholastic rules, etc.) then the questions are straightforward after that.
The rules themselves have phrases like this: “This type of TD credit can be used as a substitute only twice replacing”. The words substitute and replacement are use interchangeably.
Actually I did thank Jeff for clarifying this.
I agree. Another possibility would be to simply add at the end of a1 and a2 “expect for b10”.
Again, you have completely missed the point.
If that is what “Thanks Jeff!” means, then I withdraw that portion of that sentence. It was not clear to me that that was what was intended.
We can argue about this at great length, but I think I’m in the vast majority when I say that I don’t think it is Mr. Priest who has missed the point, here or elsewhere.
Alex Relyea
“Substitute” and “replacement” are somewhat analogous, but they are not perfect synonyms. A substitute is usually temporary, whereas a replacement is more likely to be permanent. When I was in elementary school (over 50 years ago), we occasionally had substitute teachers – usually because the regular teacher was sick or something. After a few days or a week, the regular teacher always returned. I don’t recall these substitutes ever being referred to as replacements. On the other hand, if I quit my job (or got fired), they would probably hire a replacement to do what I was doing. I doubt if this person would be referred to as a substitute.
In this discussion, I believe “substitute” has been used to refer to alternate things that can be done to fulfill TD certification requirements. “Replacement” has been used to refer to a later paragraph of a rule that literally replaces, or supersedes, an earlier paragraph. These are two different kinds of things, which is why different words were used. Context is important.
On the other hand, a substitution in professional soccer is more permanent, at least within a particular game.
While I often don’t agree with Micah, I also don’t get the hostility. There have certainly been benefits to his contributions here. (And also some duds.) But unlike some posters, I don’t discern any particular agenda.
Perhaps it would be wise to remember that electronic communications are imperfect and easily misinterpreted. (I know I can do better at that.)
In this particular thread, it seems like a possible improvement (a minor renumbering) has been identified that might or might not have merit.
Beyond that, I will simply observe that it can be difficult to break into an established group like the crowd at US Chess. I started getting involved locally in the early 2000s. I was one of the youngest then at about 27. I am probably more keen than most. I am still mostly an outsider. (No blame — I just haven’t yet found ways to get involved beyond as a TD.)
This week I looked around at the US Open. I remain one of the youngest, and I will be eligible for some senior events in five years.
Actually I found it pretty easy to get involved at US Chess. It involved saying yes alot when asked to do things. It also meant not trying to tell folks with more experience that they did not know what they were doing. And not doing that repeatedly. That is not the way to get cooperation.
We had a new member elected to the EB whose first meeting involved that new member telling the EB how they were screwing things up and how to change things. Several of the requested changes were to return US Chess to something we dropped a few years before. because it did not work. This new member did not know that we had even tried those suggestions. Their credibility was shot for the rest of the term…
I’m glad to have had your service (and continuing contributions). However, I have not ever (to my knowledge) said no to anything (including being a moderator here, to which I probably should have said no…). Nor do I recall telling anyone with more experience that they were wrong or that I knew better. So I suspect there’s more to it than just that.
(Note: I have been vocal about pandemic-related matters, perhaps, but having been a data scientist at Johns Hopkins during a pandemic, I feel like that might be an area of at least some strength for me. Still, I recognize mine is not the only perspective on such matters.)
Perhaps it’s more a matter of being in the right places at the right times, or knowing the right people at the right moments. I know attending workshops at the U.S. Open can be a good way to start, so I am planning to attend at least one this week. (I had hoped to go to a couple today but had to run home to Baltimore for a few hours.) I wanted to two years ago but ended up doing the FIDE Arbiter seminar instead. And last year, of course, this blasted pandemic.
So maybe I’ll ask this (and not just of Allen Priest), with an eye toward the next year or so: What are the right places to be in order to get involved? Who are the right people to talk to?
Are there committees that need more working hands? Point me to some people to whom I can say yes!
Thank you Mike.
Having “more experience” doesn’t necessarily mean you are always right. Three examples I can think of off the top of my head are the following:
A Senior TD once told me that only time controls at Game 30 and faster are dual rated.
A National TD thought there was a money floor at 2100.
Three National TD’s said there is no minimum base time requirement for regular rated time controls.
That others make occasional errors doesn’t mean they’re always wrong, either, and one error by a senior TD does not automatically catapult you above that person in all matters. Find a balance, Micah. You’re still new. (So am I. Even though I am pushing forward on credentials – I think I am the closed book test taker to which Jeff Wiewel refers above – I am also seeking more and more varied directing opportunities so I can learn. I know next to nothing, for instance, about running team events.)
Also recognize that not everyone will prioritize the way you do, and that’s okay. Possibly even good.
I would also suggest that if you find yourself reaching for serious linguistic analysis for a thread on a chess forum, that’s a good sign that you might want to take a step back and revisit your own priorities! (I should know – I am married to a linguist!)
As for taking the senior exam closed book, I would suggest that you consider not doing so unless you have a very compelling reason.
(Long, boring story alert: I had passed a FIDE arbiter seminar with Carol Jarecki, and needed senior TD to be able to start collecting arbiter norms, so I was trying to accelerate the process. But in the end I failed anyway. I then volunteered for a bunch of events in several states and got the open book experience requirements, and passed it easily enough that way. If I could go back, I would just do that instead. I learned more that way. Several – including at least three in this thread – advised me to take that path but I stubbornly ignored them. Consider that, warts and all, these guys have a lot of experience that just might be valuable. And you can still disagree with them while believing that.)
The Senior TD exam is not a trivia contest.
Allen was overly harsh, but this is not the first time you have tied yourself in knots by taking rules out of context. While it’s possible that it could have been better positioned, b10 is very clear that it is providing a reduced set of experience requirements—fixing on a statement from a page earlier is “rules lawyering” and is a good way to fail the Senior TD exam.
I would like to become a Senior TD so I can run FIDE rated events. There are no currently active FIDE Arbiters in my area.