And THAT is the heart of the matter!
In the USCF Forums, when we talk about tournaments, we are generally talking about USCF-sanctioned, USCF-rated events. This is a generally accepted baseline. Sometimes, we do discuss non-USCF events. That is stated up front when those events are introduced into a discussion, to avoid confusion.
You did not do this. In fact, that critical bit of information was not disclosed until Alex Relyea inquired about it.
But, in terms of USCF-sanctioned scholastic events as a whole, I’m quite certain that most of them do not do this. IF this is what Mr. Guadalupe was implying, then he was correct. However…well, see below.
You have yet to demonstrate that this implication was even part of his statement. I broke down the statement, and all I saw was a claim from him that USCF national scholastics don’t combine scores across sections, and that the state events he’s run don’t do that either. Do you dispute this? If so, please cite evidence demonstrating your reasoning.
Micah, this is the USCF forums, that is a forum for quality rated
chess events, of which the events you mentioned do not qualify.
Secondly, Franc has been clear that his thoughts are for NATIONAL
tournaments, except, where as noted. Further, I share Franc’s
opinion having directed or helped to direct hundreds of local level
scholastics, that the vast majority do offer team section trophies,
as opposed to overall.
Second, as Eastside has mentioned, the overall trophy concept DOES
attract greater participation at local events from especially smaller
chess K-12 private school chess clubs, whose teams would otherwise
be “chopped” up into multiple grade sections, and thus have little
chance at winning individual section championships.
Rob Jones
I have run some local scholastic events where I had team trophies for teams that could span sections. I did give the players in the higher sections extra points just for playing in the higher sections. For example, players in the top section would get 2 added to their scores, the middle section players would get 1 added to their scores and players in the lowest section would just get their raw scores.
I wrote a program that read the SwissSys output and generated the team scores for the top HS, MS, and Elementary schools. One problem was that you couldn’t award the team trophies until all the sections had finished. For our local scholastic events the top sections finished several hours after the bottom section was done. Because of that and other logistical issues I stopped doing this several years ago and no one complained.
If this was to be done at an important tournament the handicap points for each section would be a major issue that people would complain about. I think that the gain would be minimal and the pain would be high.
Mike Regan
The only time I’ve had team trophies spanning multiple sections, they were multiple ratings-based sections of a grade-based division.
The one I mentioned had: a Junior High division for K(theoretically) through 8th grade with ratings-based sections of Unrated, U600, 600-699, 700-799, 800-899, 900-999, 1000-1099, 1100-1199, 1200 and up; an Elementary division for K(theoretically) through 5th grade with ratings-based sections of Unrated, U400, 400-499, 500-599, 600-699, 700-799, 800-899, 900-999, 1000 and up; and a Primary High division for K through 3rd grade with ratings-based sections of Unrated, U300, 300-399, 400-499, 500-599, 600-699, 700-799, 800-899, 900 and up. The three divisions were each on its own schedule with the ASAP pairings posted by division. So all of the sections that the trophies spanned finished together and there was no extended wait needed to determine them.
It promoted having teams bring out all of their players so that they could gain points in the rating ranges that were not usually significant.
This is exactly what I am doing but their is currently no formula for combining team trophies among multiple sections. How would one go about trying to create this type of formula? Also, Another problem with simply combining team trophies among multiple sections without a forumla is that different sections sometimes have different number of rounds.
I was not talking about the USCF defining a formula, I was just asking about the idea in general.
In this thread, I did not ask for input about procedure for National events.
The events I mentioned are quality rated chess events, it’s just some of them are not USCF rated. Your statement implies that events that are not USCF rated can’t be quality events which is obviously not true.
???
People who have run these types of tournaments have answered this for you. Most apparently don’t do any adjustment. One gave a modest number of extra points to players in the higher sections. The IHSA used to run a five section tournament that multiplied scores in the top section by 10, with weights going down by 9,8,7,6. None of these are designed to properly account for differences in strength, since that would defeat the whole purpose (if you actually read what people wrote about why they run the tournament this way).
Tom, you’ve been reading too many of Micah’s posts. You actually used “their” for “there”.
Bill Smythe
Not since about 3rd grade (my typing vice is finger fehlers with two letter words). I just got the nesting wrong on the quotes.
I proposed this to Tom Doan, Thad Suits and others circa late 1990’s. There is an IL Scholastic tournament that is one of the few with no team prizes because it puts players in like rated quads (or hexes). IIRC, I actually proposed some formulas based on the relative ratings and SDs of the sections.
Why is it that this made me think of Kevin Gensler?
Thanks for fixing it. Much clearer now.
Bill Smythe
In my tournaments, the players are split up by grade and rating. I would like to combine team trophies among multiple sections since it prevents teams from being split up and not having a chance to win a team trophy in and any section and some of the sections don’t have enough players to award team trophies. I think the fairest thing to do when combining team trophies among multiple sections is to do it based on a formula that takes rating average, deviation, etc. into account.
-
The mean and standard deviation aren’t going to be known until some point during the tournament so the adjustments will end up being a black-box surprise.
-
The winning expectancy function is neither linear nor log-linear so any adjustment which seems “fair” in comparing adjoining sections will probably feel excessive when used to compare widely separated sections.
If you want to be “fair”, only count the scores in the top sections. If you want to make it interesting, do some adjustment known to all in advance (either additive or multiplicative).
Good idea, do it. Simply publicize what you are doing. And more power to you.
Those that do not like, simply do not play. End of story.
Rob Jones
Yes, Micah, don’t worry about being theoretically perfect. Theoretical perfection is impossible, anyway, as Tom Doan has pointed out. Just do something that feels more or less appropriate to you, such as the 10-9-8-7-6 scheme Tom attributes to IHSA. Then players will know what to expect, and will have fun running to the wallcharts in the later rounds with their pens and scratch paper, or their calculators or smart phones.
Bill Smythe
]]
How many times have players come up to you when you are busy entering results getting ready to pair the next round, asking questions like " If I beat x, and Y loses to Z, and N draws B, what are my chances at a prize?"
Rob Jones
They can ask, but I won’t answer. (Actually, my answer to “what do I need to win a …” is “score as many points as you can”). I will explain how pairings work and how tie breaks work (when I’m not busy getting the pairings out), but I won’t deal with the specifics of one player’s prize-winning potential.
I am with you there, for sure. The other question I hate is parents or higher rated players calling to see how many players in their
rating group have pre-registered before they will commit. I have always thought this rude as it is selfish to the chess club, seeking
to benefit oneself with little/no concern for the growth of the club.
Rob Jones
I have occasionally fantasized about the following situation. Maybe it’s actually happened to some of you.
In a plus-score tournament (no class prizes), Player X, rated 2300, approaches the desk at tournament registration, and hands the organizer a $20 bill for his entry fee.
A few minutes later player Y, also rated 2300, approaches the desk and also hands the organizer a $20 bill.
Players X and Y then see each other milling around the tournament room while registration is still going on. The following conversation ensues:
X: “Hey, you told me you weren’t going to play in this tournament.”
Y: “No, you told me you weren’t going to play.”
X, to the organizer, out of earshot of Y: “Since Y is playing, I’m not going to play. Give me my $20 back.”
Y, a little later, to the organizer, out of earshot of X: “Since X is playing, I’m not going to play. Give me my $20 back.”
Organizer, to both players simultaneously: “Since both of you have decided you’re not playing, here are your $20 entry fees back.”
X: “Wait a minute. If Y isn’t playing, I want to enter. Here’s my $20 again.”
Y: “You can’t do that. You said you weren’t playing. Go home. Here’s my $20 again.”
Conversation continues along these lines, X and Y both wanting to play, but only if the other does not.
Organizer solves problem as follows: “OK, guys. Here are two envelopes.” (Writes X on one envelope and Y on the other.) “And here are two blank 3x5 index cards.” (Inserts one card in each envelope.) “Each of you write YES or NO on your index card, out of sight of each other, put $20 in your envelope along with your index card, and seal the envelope. I will then unseal both envelopes. Either of you who writes YES is in the tournament, with no refund permitted. Either of you who writes NO will be refunded $20 and will go home immediately.”
What do you think of that solution, Baba Looey?
Bill Smythe