The general consensus seemed to be then, as I thought it had always been, that you split what you can among all tied participants and use tie-breaks as a last resort for items that are not easily split. For titles like State Champion the idea is that all tied players earn the title.
However, at a recent tournament, I was reading the rulebook on the subject (which unfortunately I do not have access to at the moment), and it said that unless announced in pre-publicity, titles were assumed to be awarded through tie-breaks. However, I’m sure that is not the usual custom - despite lack of prescribed advertising. Fortunately, in the event I was at, it made sense, because of the two tied players, one had played all games to get the top score, but the other had two unplayed half-point byes, and easier competition at that (the tie-break winner lost to a GM last round, and the other beat me for example, etc).
Can someone do me a favor and cite me the paragraph I looked up about tie-breaking and titles, that says unless advertised, to use tiebreaks?
Can someone repudiate my claim and point me out the opposite?
Assuming that I have #1 correct, is that a rule that we can ignore, must follow (if we forgot to announce otherwise), follow contingently (as in share titles unless one player has an egregious tie-break edge over the other as in my example above)?
If #1 is noted correct, and no advertising for nationals mentioned the rule, and yet, the press releases call them co-champions (obv. only one gets the tallest trophy), then is that an error (although a probably uncorrectable one)?
If the rule is not generally well-liked, would anyone care to attempt to clean up the language on it?
Just curious, as none of this involves me personally.
Ben
I am not sure what you saw. Below might be what you are looking for:
Prizes
32A. Announcement.
Prizes to be awarded and the methods used to allocate them must be announced in pre-tournament publicity if they vary from the standards below. In all cases, these guidelines apply equally to individuals or teams. See also 23A1, Obligation to pay guaranteed prizes.
32A. refers to $$$ prizes.
32G. Other non-cash prizes.
No player shall receive more than one non-cash, non-trophy prize, the most valuable to which he or she is entitled.
32G1. Tiebreaking.
Unless another method has been announced in advance, tiebreaking (see 34, Breaking ties) will be used to resolve ties for merchandise, memberships, or free entries, to determine which player wins any title at stake or qualifies to advance into another contest, or for any purpose other than the awarding of money prizes.
TD TIP: One popular method is to have a series of speed game playoffs for non-divisible prizes such as trophies. This should be announced in advance. See also 34E12, Speed play-off game(s).
In practice, most titles are usually shared, it’s the indivisible things, such as trophies or qualifying for another event (such as next year’s championship), that is awarded by other means, such as a playoff or tie breaks.
I’m fairly sure the guidelines for national scholastic events call for co-champions.
Glad to hear it, but I looked today in the uscf online files at their National High School tournament flier and the thicker rules booklet and it was not mentioned. What guidelines are you referring to?
Should the default be the reverse? All participants are title-holders unless announced that tie-breaks will determine the award? That would probably make a director seem mean-spirited if he put that line in there, so I’m guessing that’s why the other is the default (tiebreaks determine title).
Glad to be proven wrong and to hear the USCF has their act together at least in this respect by announcing in advance in their policy.
I had always thought it was the default to declare all tied winners as co-champion. Anyone else feel that way? Guess that just means I need to reread the rule book from time to time to see what else I’ve missed.
Alright back to the original post. My point #1 has been clearly established. #2 was therefore refuted, and thankfully #4 as well. Anyone have comments on #3 or #5? I’ll make a mild unsubstantiated assertion that titles have several times (perhaps, dare I say, “usually”)been awarded to multiple, tied co-winners without using tie-breaks and without the practice having been announced. Despite being against rule 32G1, is that pretty bad or something that should be encouraged?
I’m surprised at the information about national scholastics, because the Parents and Friends tournament this past weekend (at the Elementary Championships) wasn’t handled that way. Dave Gilchrist and his son, Ian, had 7 points as a team (first 4 rounds counted), the same as the Father/Son “winners”, but Dave was told that he had lost on tiebreaks and that they wouldn’t be considered “co-winners” with the winning Father/Son team.
This didn’t sound fair to me. I realize that there’s only one pair of trophies, but they should still get the bragging rights from a mention in the tournament results (and should have been mentioned as having tied during the trophy presentations). I know this isn’t in the same category as the Elementary Championships themselves, but some people take the Father/Son competitions seriously.
Given that I can’t recall any complaints being filed regarding this issue, I would suspect it is not on anyone’s radar. The rule can be changed by the Delegates or the Rules Committee, if that is what you want to try.
It is nice that people find these things. I wish the USCF had the $$$ to hire a “rules cop” to see that what we intended is what we get!
32G1. Tiebreaking.
Unless another method has been announced in advance, tiebreaking (see 34, Breaking ties) will be used to resolve ties for merchandise, memberships, or free entries, to determine which player wins any title at stake or qualifies to advance into another contest, or for any purpose other than the awarding of money prizes.
First, there is a prior announcement in the national scholastic regulations regarding co-champions. For that matter, the Illinois K-8 organization has the same written policy. Since the policy is written as part of the organizational regulations, and those regulations are available, a specific announcement at each tournament or in a tournament’s TLA would not be necessary.
Since there is no merchandise, membership, etcetera related to the mere title of co-champion, that title can be multiplied freely. Since trophies cannot be multiplied freely, they get awarded on tie-breaks (with an explicit statement that the co-champion recipient is fully justified at changing the plate on a second or third place trophy). Scholarships cannot be multiplied freely and would be awarded by tie-breaks.
IMHO, the title (only) should be awarded to all co-champions, even thought the section of 32G1 that I bolded would seem to go against that reasoning. Since players are often referred to as co-champion rather than champion, you can make the argument that you are not awarding multiple champion titles (nobody won the unencumbered title of champion), but rather simply recognizing the players that won the multiple identical titles actually awarded, and the multiple awards negate any need for tie-breaks.
Trophies and other indivisible prizes should be awarded on tie-breaks.
The Ky scholastic rules also provide for the ties to be called co-champions but the tie breaks determine who gets what trophy. They can chnage the plates if they wish.
I know it’s not a national title, but I disagree about it being covered by the regulations. The father/son competition is specifically covered in Appendix C of “USCF NATIONAL SCHOLASTIC CHESS TOURNAMENT REGULATIONS”. There’s nothing in Appendix C that says 20.3 DOESN’T apply:
It looks to me like this was a mistake at the National Elementary.
I agree. BUT, it is covered by the “USCF NATIONAL SCHOLASTIC CHESS TOURNAMENT REGULATIONS”, where it’s mentioned in Appendix C. Nothing I saw in the rules says rule 20.3 DOESN’T apply to this competition.
What justification is there for not following the rule? It looks to me that both father/son teams did well, why not call them “co-winners”? WHAT DOES IT HURT?
Seriously, this is one of those “DUH” questions. It COSTS the USCF NOTHING to recognize both teams and call them “co-winners”. It doesn’t diminish the other team’s accomplishment in any way. All it does is add a little positive recognition for the team that didn’t get a trophy. I’m sorry, but doing otherwise just seems … pointless.
There are certain titles which inherently can be awarded to only one player – for example, the Denker winner in each state, since only one player from each state can advance to the national Denker event.
This tournament only awards trophies for 1st place in the various catagories. Some of the catagories are very small so one place trophy is appropriate. However in the larger catagories of the Parent/Friends tournament there should be more then 1 place in the combined catagory. At the High School Nationals there were over 30 teams in the coach/player catagory, and only first place was rewarded.
The larger catagories will vary from one scholastic to another. It seems there were only 4 coach/players teams at the elementary championships, and there were less father/child teams at the high school championships. I think if a catagory has more the 15 teams 1st - 3rd should be awarded. Blank trophies could be on hand, and plates sent to the 2nd and 3rd place teams.
