Well, it violates the fundamental tenet of at most 1.00 prizes per player. Simpler would be to avoid the problem by taking Allen’s advice and staggering the numbers so the higher ranked prizes are slightly higher $$ so you never run into this, and definitely do not make the lower ranked prizes slightly higher $$.
Since, in this example, it had already been determined that this player is eligible for $101 (the single “under” prize), I don’t regard it as a violation of “at most 1.00 prizes per player” that this player’s amount was fashioned from two other prizes.
I see a couple of other possible issues, though. But I’ll wait for more posts from other forum rats before I go on.
As for Allen’s advice, that looks to me like a work-around rather than a solution. I would really prefer a “true” solution.
Also, some tournaments violate Allen’s advice, on steroids. In the upcoming World Open, some of the prizes in the Under 1800 section are higher than some in the Under 2000 section, and so on down the list. I’m not about to describe the world’s largest tournament, organized by the country’s most experienced organizer, as “poorly designed”.
Bill Smythe
Changing one of the basic tenets to get the desired outcome will almost certainly have unwanted side effects.
This is entirely under the control of organizers. Kludging up a rule to fix a bad prize fund design isn’t a good idea.
Although I have seen some people recommend that all “overall” prizes be greater than all “under” prizes, that’s not feasible when the prizes go as deep as they do at the World Open. However
(a) the World Open generally has massive ties for almost everything below maybe 3rd overall, so the chance that you will get a “stupid discontinuity” which actually matters a great deal is slim.
(b) the closest that I can see to your “problem” to be fixed is $1000 2nd place U1500 in the U1600 section vs a $900 5th place. 10% difference isn’t noise. (There are a number of bang-on matches, but that isn’t a problem).
As far as multi-section tournaments are concerned, the sections are all TOTALLY SEPARATE events as far as prize distribution is concerned.
That a player eligible for more than one section might think there’s a better chance of winning a larger prize in a different section is pretty much the same decision as deciding there’s a better chance of winning a larger prize by entering someone else’s tournament. It’s a marketing issue, not a prize distribution issue, and Bill Goichberg has few peers when it comes to tournament marketing.
I’m not sure where that comment was aimed—I don’t think anyone is talking about prizes crossing sections. The World Open has U1500 money in the U1600 section—there is no U1500 section. The only real overlap in the entire schedule is that there is U2200/unr money in the Open section, AND a U2200/unr section, but the Open section prizes are based upon FIDE ratings (and there is no compressed schedule, and no reentries) so it’s not something that is likely to appeal to someone hoping for easier money.
You think that only because you do not understand it.
Actually the opposite is true. For example, you said unrated players would be eligible for the under prizes at the Washington Open. However, under the rules they are not. See this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21900&p=299372&hilit=+Eligibility#p299372 and Ken Ballou’s response to the question “Can you give an Unrated an Under prize?”. Ken said “No, you can not. Such prizes must be advertised specifically as (for instance) “top under 1200 or unrated, $20”.”.
Everyone, get your popcorn ready as Allen is now likely to continue to display ignorance and throw out attacks and insults.
Two things can be true at once. Allen can be overbearing. And you can nitpick answers and dodge the truth in other people’s advice.
-
Yes, the rules are clear how to handle Uxxxx and overall prizes that are numerically the same. And whether you want to admit it or not, the consumers (who don’t inhale those chapters on the rule books) are confused about how those work in practice. If you ask a player what they think should happen if someone finished both 5th and top U1900, they would probably guess that they get both. And, note that it would be possible to set up prize fund distribution based upon that principle and it would be much easier to explain (and to compute). However, the US Chess rules are complicated by the one player-one prize limit. TD’s more experienced than you have generally found that it’s better to stagger the numbers slightly in favor of the higher unders to make it simpler to explain.
-
You claim that it’s “clear” (your word) that the Unrateds can play in any section. Maybe you’re right that they can “play” in any section. It’s not at all clear that they can win any money other than the specific unrated money in the bottom section or the overalls in the top section. In fact, by your interpretation of what Under money means, they can’t. But an unrated entering the tournament would have a right to be confused—most tournaments like this have specific language dealing with unrateds.
Reread my posts and you will see how your selective interpretation is incorrect.
Why do you ask questions when all you do is tell people they are wrong when they point out the issues in what you post?
Do I know what prize someone won? Yep - but how do you expelain that to the player who doe snot understand the rule and who is confused why he got a lower prize than he expected. You say he won this particular 200 prize rather than that $200 prize adn the reposen from the player is ???. You can make a better design that avoids that issue. I pointed that out and your response was I did not know the rule. BS.
But then, my 1st repsonse was you figure it out and tell us all. You couldn’t do that because you think you know it all.
You waste my valuable time, and that of others.
It’s not at all uncommon for a local TD to be very confident in an interpretation where an NTD would see more nuance. Especially in application of rule 1A. NTDs tend to understand that the most important thing is to restore equity rather than follow any particular rule. There tend to be great debates on how best to do that, bearing in mind that players will expect not to be penalized if they follow the Official Rules of Chess.
I mentor a Senior TD who had great difficulty passing the Senior exam, largely because of this attitude. He told me many years ago that he expected that an NTD would know everything in the rulebook and apply it flawlessly every time. Now that he’s finally passed the exam he understands much better.
This past weekend I had a discussion with another very experienced NTD as to how best be fair to both players, and the rest of the tournament, in a situation that the rulebook doesn’t begin to anticipate. It took fifteen minutes to agree on a solution. No one appealed, so I guess we did all right.
Alex Relyea
At the risk of changing the subject, the tournament director doesn’t decide what the prize structure is, that’s done by the tournament organizer.
Now, in many cases, especially smaller tournaments, the organizer is also the chief, if not the only, TD. But the prize structure is done while wearing the organizer’s hat, the prize distribution is done while wearing the TD’s hat.
Okay, let’s go back and take a look at what you said. (Emphasis mine)
This clearly shows you thought unrated players were eligible for under prizes which is not correct.
I’ve done it in this case because you are wrong!
I agree that it’s better to have the under prizes be different amounts but again, it’s not hard to explain that if a player is eligible for two different under prizes that are the same amount, they simply get the higher rating based under prize. This isn’t rocket science.
I did do it actually. I stated that if a player is eligible for two different under prizes that are the same amount, they simply get the higher rating based under prize.
Keep the popcorn coming! Can’t wait to see what excuses, attacks, and insults Allen will come up with next!
-
I understand many players don’t understand how prize distribution works until you explain it to them.
-
I agree it’s better to stagger the prize numbers slightly for several reasons but if the prizes are the same, explaining to someone which prize they get isn’t rocket science.
-
I agree that more specific language dealing with unrateds on the flyer would have been good.
Allen, I suggest if you are concerned about wasting your valuable time responding to Micah, don’t do it. There are plenty of knowledgeable people here who can give the same technical guidance you can give. It also eliminates the risk of being caught giving incorrect guidance; I think he’s right about the bolded part he quoted from your early post.
+1
You are missing the point. The player involved doesn’t care which $200 they get. It’s the other people in the section that will care. And you greatly underestimate the difficulty of explaining US Chess prize rules (which may not be rocket science, but are quite different from common expectations) to someone who is thinking they’re getting shafted.
But pretend that you’re stuck with this. (As Mike Nolan points out, the organizer sets the prize fund—but the TD has to determine how the rules require it to be distributed). You claimed that it’s “clear” that unrateds can play in any section. I believe Allen thought the same thing. The difference is that Allen interpreted that the lack of exclusionary language meant that they were eligible for all the U prizes. I believe that if someone made an issue about it, that view would prevail precisely because of the lack of language to the contrary. If you (Micah Smith) permit an unrated to play in the U1800 section, how can you allow them to win place money (which is U1800 money without any mention of unrateds) and not U1650 money? You can’t. You would lose that challenge. The U1400 section is a bit different because that has an explicit mention of unrateds, just not in the section title; here it’s clear that the intention it that it’s U1400/Unrated. You would probably be able to successfully justify excluding unrateds from the U1200 and U1000 money, but not the overall prizes (and obviously not the explicit unrated money).
In short, you can make a consistent ruling that unrateds can play in the open section where they can compete for the overall prizes only, are excluded from the U1800, and can play in the U1400 section, where they can compete for overall prizes and the unrated money—all that requires is to say that it’s clear from the other wording that U1400 meant U1400/unrated. If that’s not what the organizer wants, they should be more careful next time before they write their flyer.
Sorry Mike, the question was what was wrong with the event. As Tom points out the lack of clarity can clearly result is players believing a situation to be the case, even if the rules lawyer finds an exception. And in fact, the bolded part is not as clear as what you and Micah think - see Tom Doan’s post.
I think we all agree that the flyer could be a little more clear in several places.
The point now is that you were wrong on several statements you made about the rules.
Also, the bolded part is clear. You said unrated players would be eligible for the U1200 and U1000 prizes but Ken Ballou previously stated on this forum that unrated players are not eligible for under prizes. Now you continue to argue and come up with some rules lawyer exception or accept the fact that Ken is a bigger authority on the rules than you.
I agree that explaining US Chess prize rules to someone who thinks they are getting shafted might not be the easiest thing in the world but this could happen no matter how the prize fund is distributed.
I never said they would be able to win place money here.
Isn’t this the exact opposite of what you’ve been saying? And again that misses the point that a slightly improved prize fund makes it simpler.
They can play but they can’t win anything?? Seriously?? You say it was “clear” that they could play in any section. If they can play in the U1800, what can they win in it?
Regarding sloppy flyers, the following was a few posts down from the one you cite from Ken Ballou:
uschess.org/forums/viewtopi … 97#p299397
Note that this was a mistake by CCA, which is a much more professional operation than whomever put together the flyer in question here. And note that the organizer wasn’t out any money because of it—it was the other players in the section. (Unless the TD makes an error and someone appeals and the organizer has to pay out extra prizes as a result—settling that is between the TD and the organizer).