TD Categories

All Things Chess
1

The explosion of Scholastic tournaments has resulted in a corresponding increase in TDs with enhanced titles. For example, a Local TD dedicated solely to Scholastic can usually qualify to take the Senior TD test much quicker than one who directs Regular tournaments. At face value, this seems fair because the Scholastic TD has far greater numbers on their resume. But, is it really?

I have directed and assisted in both tournament types. There are distinct differences. For example, most Scholastic TDs don’t require recording of the moves, although they may impose an insignificant time penalty to demonstrate fairness for the more serious player. Also, time management is different for Scholastic tournaments. Often the Scholastic TD will terminate rounds early so pairings can get done quicker and parents can take their kids home sooner. In Regular tournaments good TDs anticipate worst-case scenarios and plan round start times accordingly. If a game goes longer than expected the TD may adjourn so the game can be finished later, but that never happens in Scholastic tournaments (not that I’ve seen, anyway). Finally, the dynamics for resolving disputes are different. Usually, the kids barely understand the moves; let alone what the rulebook says. So, unless a parent or coach is there to advocate for their child, the words “This is a draw because I say so!” decides the matter. By contrast, the Regular TDs have much greater pressure to know what they’re talking about, because most adult players read the rule book or have enough sense to insist on seeing one.

So, it seems there should be a distinction made based on the different experiences. Unless the Scholastic TD is staying current by directing regular tournaments perhaps an asterisk would do?

What do you all think?

2

I think that my experience directing scholastic tournaments is very different from yours.

Alex Relyea

3

Obviously, I can agree with you since I worked with you on at least two tournaments.

4

I don’t see any value in defining TDs who made their level through primarily scholastic tournaments.

It seems you’ve been involved with some pretty sloppy scholastic tournaments. I’ve TD’d both types as well…and they all are pretty similar. It makes me cringe to think that a TD would use, “Because I say so!” as a justification for a ruling for any situation. A well run tournament is a well run tournament, regardless of the players’ age.

5

I’ve had friends that have gone to adult tournaments and ended up with the “because I say so” type of rulings from TDs. They never went back.

6

Interesting responses focused on examples explaining differences between two types of tournaments. No criticism intended, but the basic question is being overlooked. Let me rephrase and simplify:

Two Ohio tournaments. (1) 200 player Gem City Open in Dayton. (2) 200 player Greene County Scholastic Championship in Xenia.

Should both have equal weight in the qualification process for advancing and promoting TDs?

7

If one directs almost all of one type of tournament, is one qualified to take responsibility for the other?

What experience do we have with previously adult-oriented TDs running scholastics, or previously scholastic-oriented TDs running adult tournaments? Or is this controlled by self-regulation or market forces; i.e. even though they have the license to do so, people just don’t end up doing that?

8

Reaching ANTD and NTD requires doing tournaments with (divisible) cash prizes, which precludes TDs that are solely scholastic (trophies and scholarships don’t qualify). The R requirement is difficult to meet with only scholastics. The N requirements are easier to attain for those TDs that work the scholastic nationals.
You’ll generally find that ANTDs and NTDs can handle either type of tournament.

9

I find myself wondering what the purpose of making the distinguishment would be? If the concern is that scholastic tournament TDs are somehow less able or less knowledgeable than adult tournament TDs, isn’t that why we have exams? They can’t cover everything, but they do try to ensure one has a certain level of knowledge. Likewise, if there are too many Senior TDs coming up, increase the difficulty of the Senior TD exam if the credits requirements aren’t going to be upped.

(In full disclosure, I intend to take the Senior TD exam. My current timeframe goal to meet the directing experience is 1-2 years from now.)

If the point of distinguishment is to highlight the different tournament processes of Scholastic and Adult Chess, there are other intermediate types that have been missed such as typical tournaments which go on at clubs. (Though I’ll concede that the vast majority of clubs will not provide the kind of credits it requires to step up above Club TD.)

And what would one do with those of us who direct both Scholastic and Adult on a regular basis?

If it’s to say, “Here are the good adult TDs, as opposed to those mediocre scholastic TDs,” then I’d say absolutely not. Or if it is to note that scholastic tournaments are less credit-worthy than adult tournaments. Sure, there can be differences in the type and nature of claims. (If anything, the average scholastic floor TD has to field far more claims and inquiries per tournament than in adult tournaments. The scholastic computer TD has to cope with players and scorers far less sophisticated and experienced. The Chief TD has the addition of parents and coaches to cope with.)

As to poorness of planning / shortcuts used / etc. They may be different, but are we saying that they never occur in adult tournaments of size?

The tournament category systems in relation to TD level, as I see them, exist to show that a TD has repeatedly faced the increasing complexities that occur at certain levels of attendance, not necessarily play. Those complexities will occur regarless of the type of tournament, based on the sheer number of players.

On the other hand, maybe I’m just in a skeptical mood… :wink:

But I do think I see the points being made, and it’s not that I don’t see any merit in them. So I’d better be able to suggest alternatives. Here are two:

  • In addition to the directing credits, introduce a “minimum time in grade” requirement for the next higher level (e.g. Senior TDs must be Local TDs for a minimum of 2-3 years before taking the exam.) Thus Senior TDs must be “more senior.”

  • Make a new intermediate TD category between Local and Senior; that new category would have all the current requirements of Senior TD, and the new category would be more difficult to obtain but carry the Senior title. (Or come up with a new title which reflects the more difficult nature of the new title and place it betwen Senior and ANTD.)

10

Having directed and organized the Gem City Open, and having worked in Xenia I will take on the question.

As an example, while the same skill set is required to make a ruling in say a touch move claim, the frequency with which a TD must make rulings is amplified at scholastic events. The ability for a TD to make the most equitable ruling is often times hampered by the lack of a legible score sheet in a scholastic event. There are several situations that occur in scholastic tournaments that are highly unlikely to occur in open tournaments. King captures, playing through checkmate, agreements that stalemate is actually checkmate are just a few of the situations that make directing a scholastic event much more challenging than an open adult event.

In my opinion, if we are going to bifurcate TD certification, then I would place the asterisk after the certification of the director who doesn’t have adequate experience with scholastic events.

11

LaughingVulcan wrote:

If you’re measuring time in years, I would think that such a measurement is seriously flawed. What good is having a title for “2-3 years” if one is doing little or no directing during that time? I am far behind the most active TD in the country but I average almost a tournament per week. If I were still at the local level I would be directing 100 to 150 more before becoming eligible for taking the exam for the next level. Many directors don’t do that many in their entire life. If a minimum requirement were to be made, it should be a quantity of tournaments and 100 would, in my opinion, be much too high.

While there is no substitute for experience, those requirements are already in place for directors looking to move up. I see no need to change them.

As for differences between scholastic and open tournaments, Grant Perks mentioned several problems that are more likely to occur in scholastics. I’d like to add one more; parental intervention. Any experienced scholastic director knows exactly what problems they can cause.

On the other side, the open tournaments also have issues the scholastics usually don’t. Number 1 on my list is premeditated cheating. Cheating children are easier to catch because it’s almost always spur of the moment and they haven’t figured out the supporting lies. In addition adults also seem to be more argumentative. This sometimes even occurs when they are shown the specific rule that applies directly from the rule book. The 3-fold repetition rule seems to be one many adults don’t understand but argue about anyway. Adults also seem to be more likely to argue that there is a rule to cover something even if there isn’t, such as the adult who tried to convince me that K+R vs. K+R with time delay on is an automatic draw.

12

There have been people who have jumped straight from Club to Senior and from Senior to NTD. Those are TDs that directed a LOT of events and finally decided that they may as well get the official certification that they were well qualified for.

When people talk about parental intervention at scholastic events they were probably thinking of intervention by a parent of the player or a coach of the player. There have been events where a TD faced intervention by a parent of the coach.

One of the challenges is when what parents hear from a player (or think they hear from a player) does not match what actually occurred (in one recent case of mine it seems that the parents misinterpreted the player’s story). One reason there are results slips at national scholastics is to have a physical record of what the players agreed happened in a game. Those slips have come in handy a number of times. The most memorable is when a player told the coach that the player won because the opponent had not shown up, and the results slip not only had the player’s signature attesting to a loss, but also had the (supposedly absent) opponent’s signature. A little two-minute results slip and explanation has often prevented a likely 30-60 minute debate and appeals process.

13

In practice, the various certification levels are relatively moot anyway, as any TD can pretty much direct whatever kind of tournament he chooses to.

14

Maybe buy a Flip video recorder (or use your Windows Phone 7, iPhone, or Android phone).
Turn on the video recorder when you are summoned to a table.

15

How about SDRS, as with using an appropriate suffix designator? Examples:

SDC, SDR, SDS, SDCR, SDCS, SDRS, SDCRS

SD = Senior Director
C = Computer Pairing Systems Expert
R = Competent Regular TD
S = Competent Scholastic TD

This is consistent with chess and other professional/volunteer fields that show various measures of proficiency. Examples:

CM, CPA, CTM, FM, GM, IM, LPN, MBA, MHA, MPA, MPH, NM, Ph.D., RN, MD

16

What do you define as the key difference between ‘regular’ and ‘scholastic’?

17

As described by the posters, it appears Regular Tournaments mean enforcement of all rules equally. Five year olds who cannot record moves do not play in Regular Tournaments nor does playing through checkmate occur.

Scholastic Tournaments have a much greater emphasis on resolving customer service issues, such as those caused by chess parents who don’t understand all the rules.

18

Such issues are often brought up following a game in which a TD was never called to the board. It is commonly a situtation where a child said that they won (after losing) and the parent is left feeling that the other player intimidated and cheated a way into reversing the rightful conclusion of the game. After all, other children might lie but not their kids (and generally their kids are not lying to actually change anything, but rather to simply get or maintain the approval of the parents). The only way a videorecorder would have helped would have been if the recorder had been recording the game even though a TD was never alerted to a potential problem. In the majority of these cases the child does finally say what really happened. In the remainder where the two players still maintain their conflicting stories we are left with going with the result reported at the scorer’s table when both players went up together immediately following the game.

19

So would we have something like SDR/NTDC/LDS for somebody who is extremely good on the computer has a lot of experience with working the floor for adults and some experience for working the floor at scholastics?

Or should we have five TD categories, five job categories, and three player categories:
CD (club director)
LD (local)
SD (senior)
AD (associate national)
ND (national)

CO (computer operator)
CC (computer chief)
FW (floor worker)
FC (floor chief)
OC (overall chief)

S (scholastic)
R (regular)
A (any)

I am guessing with my current experience I would come in with something like NDCOA/NDCCS/ADCCA/NDOCS/ADOCA/NDFCA
or NDCOACCSOCSFCA/ADCCAOCA (making the assumption that FC at the top level would render an FW listing unnecessary, and the same for CC vs CO and OC vs all of the others as otherwise it would be NDCOACCSOCSFCAFWA/ADCCAOCA)
and ten years ago I would have been something like
NDCOS/SDCOA/ADCCS/SDCCA/NDFWS/ADFWA/ADFCS/SDFCA/ADOCS/SDOCA
or
NDCOSFWS/ADCCSFWAFCSOCS/SDCOACCAFCAOCA

That gets to be either a great deal of info to try to handle, or somebody just picks one category and allows inexactitude.

20

You could probably shorten those to about three letters each, but you have the right idea.