TLAs for next year

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Placing this is Tournaments so all can enjoy.

Already we see TLAs for events in January and February that do not list or specify the delay/increment time. At the bottom of this message is a National event that lists no delay time.

Perhaps this will be a non-issue, at least for tournaments that are not on the bubble between rating systems, but I suspect there will be a few chess lawyers who make a stink about “no delay” in events where the delay or increment is not listed in the TLA—which will now be SOP, as I understand it.

This is the one practical flip side to the changes made last month that take effect next year. Spare a thought for the USCF staffers who have to deal with such things on an oft-changing basis. Joan DuBois is one of my personal heroes.

And the beat goes on.

[i]A Heritage Event!
Feb. 18-20 29th Annual U.S. Amateur Team Championship West California Northern

(Blitz/Scholastic Feb. 20 only.) Main event: 6SS, 30/90 sd/60. Hyatt Regency, 5101 Great America Pkwy., Santa Clara, CA 95054. Free Parking! Hotel: Free Parking! $109 call 800-233-1234 for chess rate. Reserve by Feb. 4 or rates may increase. Four-player teams plus optional alternate, average rating of four highest must be under 2200, difference between ratings of board 3 & 4 must be less than 1000. January 2012 Supp, CCA min & TD discretion to place players accurately. Main Event Prizes: Exclusive commemoratively inscribed digital clocks to each player and trophy to the team for top 3 overall teams, top team u2000, u1800, u1600, u1400, and u1200; top “industry” team (all players from the same company), top “family” team (siblings, cousins, parents, uncle/aunts, grandparents), top junior team, and top school team; top scorer on each board (1-4). Gift certificates for best 3 team names. Main Event EF: $188/team or $47/player by 2/14, 2/15-17: $197/team, $56/player, Onsite: $217/team, $66/player. Main Event Sched: Registration: Sat 9:30-10:30am. Rounds: Sat 11:30 5, Sun 11:30 5, Mon 10, 3:30. Info/flyer: ask@BayAreaChess.com. NS, NC, W, F. Chess Magnet School JGP.[/i]

2

Well, while rule 5Fa has been repealed (as of January 1, 2012), rule 5F was otherwise left intact. In the example you provide, the tournament is clearly regular rated only. Rule 5F (top of page 10) would lead one to believe that in the absence of any announcement of delay, the delay is five seconds, not zero.

(I agree that TLAs, and in fact, all publicity, should be specific about time controls, including increment or delay.)

3

I thought the new TLA form—for those who use it—would have a place to note the delay/increment time. There was some discussion last month about how much of an adjustment that would be for some TDs and organizers and how much extra work it could be for the office.

Maybe I was wrong again…

4

Eric, I certainly didn’t mean to imply you were wrong!

I’m not exactly sure I know what TLA form you mean. Whenever I’ve submitted a TLA, it has just been a free-format copy of an existing ad for a previous year’s tournament, with the details changed as needed. Then again, I haven’t submitted many print TLAs, though I have done battle with the (free) online-only TLA submission page.

Could you possibly be thinking of the online rating report submission form? Currently, for each section, that form just has a free-form text field (and some clever parsing code to make sense of what is entered). Mike Nolan has posted a link to the prototype of a new form layout which does provide space specifically for the increment or delay information for the time control.

System Administrator’s Note:

An updated development version of the new rating report data entry form was posted on 9/26, we hope to go into open beta testing with this new program in early October.

My apologies if I misunderstood. I was only answering the comment about what “chess lawyers” would assume if there were no delay or increment specified in the TLA. And you do raise a good point for events that are advertised as G/29 with no explicit delay. If the delay really is zero, then such an event would be quick rated. However, with any delay at all, such an event (starting in 2012) would be dual rated, and a default of five seconds delay would apply. Does the organizer really mean d/5? Or d/0? Or does the organizer mistakenly think that the “old” rules are in effect, and the delay is three seconds because that time control was (prior to 2012) quick rated only?

5

This is the TLA form, Ken: is.gd/uTwbhE

System Administrator’s Note:

[i]The problem with providing external copies of pages from the USCF website is that they may not be updated if the original link is updated or changed. The actual link to the TLA form on the USCF website is:
main.uschess.org/docs/forms/Tour … ntForm.pdf

However, that form has not yet been updated to reflect changes that take effect in 2012.

It is not clear when a policy statement regarding TLAs for 2012 events and time controls will be issued.[/i]

Like you, I have not used it in years. When I submitted TLAs for our club for a year until someone else took over, I did the same as you and probably the majority did: I tweaked an old TLA listing from a similar event and emailed the revised version to Joan.

Did we (that’s “we” in the larger sense) not kick this around right after the Delegates Meeting last month?

I never take offense at folks who misunderstand or imply I am wrong; however, I fume at the gall of the new blood on Rules who I hear plan to let Kirsan tell me I can’t use my Chronos at a Futurity in Palookaville. Grumble.

6

I was afraid this was going to happen. Actually, I knew it was going to happen.

It’s nobody’s fault, either. It stems from the desire of many to allow G/25 d/5 to be dual-rated, along with the desire of others to make it possible to calculate the tournament type (regular, dual, quick) from just the time control (including delay or increment), along with the desire of still others to simply improve truth in advertising (by explicitly listing all time control details).

So it’s a great goal, worthy of pursuing relentlessly. But oh, what growing pains. :neutral_face:

So –

Amen.

There are multiple possibilities, if an event is submitted without explicit mention of the delay/increment:

  • Assume the obvious. G/60 would be assumed d/5, and the office would correct the TLA accordingly. G/20, likewise, would be assumed d/3.

Advantages:[list][*]Might reduce the office’s work load in the short run.

  • Would probably produce the intended results most of the time.
    Disadvantages:* The “obvious” isn’t always obvious, especially for G/25 through G/29.
  • In the case of G/29, the main control would have to be shortened to G/26 so that d/3 doesn’t push it over the line.
  • Might increase the office’s work load in the long run, because organizers would not be involved in correcting their TLAs, and so would never be forced to mend their ways.
    [/:m]
    [    ]Return the TLA to the organizer, with a demand for correction, and list the recommended corrections.

Advantages:* Would increase organizers’ awareness of the need to be explicit.

  • Would ensure that the organizer’s intent is fully carried out.
    Disadvantages:* Might increase the office’s work load in the short run.
  • Would delay the publication of the TLA, perhaps to the extent of keeping it out of print altogether.
    [/*:m][/list:u]
    I wish everybody the best in implementing this highly desirable change, and in overcoming the short-run practical problems.

Bill Smythe