Allen wrote:
I long for the days when the rule book was silent about 14H
At least part of the discussion was not snarky. The Rulebooks as they evolved have often not explained why some changes were made or the history of the changes. Often only a TD tip gives a clue. The examples in the early books were expanded in later editions, but still need improving. We need a Rulebood revision to deal with changes that have occurred over the last few years, provide clearer guidance in gray areas with more examples, and anticipate how FIDE is going to deal with time contols, delays, increment, ratings, and other issues.
Yes, I am not thrilled with the way prizes often get distributed. I think there are flaws in the way things are done in light of the emergence of larger class tournaments and bigger prize funds. I understand how the rule reads and is interpreted, but I still believe that lower rated players in all classes are disadvantaged the way it now stands. In the past the rules on prize distribution were changed because of quirks or biases in the traditional methods and were eventually codified in a USCF version of the rules. I know how averse many are to change or even talking about change. Some even have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are. The fact that some of the computer programs screw up the way prizes are distributed are an indication that multiple ways are possible to give out prizes. That it often takes little changes in numbers to avoid a noted distribution problem of UX000 is another indication that this issue may need some fine tuning.
You may not like my opinion, but I have tried to address it with the little guy in mind who sometimes think the prize funds are too top heavy and give him little chance for a even a class prize. The decline of entrants in some of the big tournaments may be a harbinger. Maybe you have not heard complaints about prizes or don't care, but I have over the years and in many of the states where I have played chess. Some have already quietly voted with their dollars and membership dues when they are unhappy with CCA and the USCF. But please, do not let that bother you; the USCF and CCA can afford to ignore the players.
Thank you for clarifying your perspective on this - it really was not clear to me if this was a new issue for you or a long simmering matter - it seems to be long - simmering.
Do I understand this correctly - I think you are wanting to direct more of a class prize into the class and out of the place winners as you think it is a negative for lower rated players if the top prize winner in their class shares part of the class prize with place prize winners out of the class.
I personally like the fact that the current rulebook covers some topics in detail and provides examples and advice through the the TD tips. And yet there is another topic in these same forums where it’s being posted that the rulebook is too detailed, has too much material, and is too hard to read, and that it would be much better for the players and the TDs to have a much smaller book which leaves many things up to the TD.
Allen, I think that the player who shares in the place prizes ought to get the highest he can and no more. The class prize should then go to the others in the class. I have often watched A and B players root for one of their pals to win a place prize, finishing among the top three, because it means that they are now eligible to win a class prize If this player is going to receive a place prize higher in cash value than a class prize, then he should receive that and only that When there are ties on top and the money funnels upward from a class prize, it may be great for the masters he tied with, but it appears to the class players that the masters are sharing in the class money. The masters are looked on as not really earning the money but getting an accidental windfall. Great for them; bad for the lower rated players who then become unhappy with the whole tournament experience.
As an organizer, I have been very conscious of balancing prize funds and making more prizes available to accomodate the “customer” base. Too often events are made top heavy. Some players might like that, but it usually leads to lower turnouts. Spreading the wealth around is good for business. Everyone likes to get a prize. I always like to give books out to Top Upset, Unrated, junior categories, or just give out some door prize randomly just for showing up. These prizes are just as valuable to the player as 1st place is to the master. I don’t like the attitude of some TD’s and some higher rated players who look down on the class players or make fun of their play. Their snarky comments get back to the players.
The more players who are eligible for prizes the better. First, it keeps them playing in tournaments. Second, there will be less dropouts, a practice that I think is very bad in tournament play. Third, as long as players think they have a chance for a prize the more motivated they are to play and play well. The players in the B to E range make up the bulk of tournament players. Even though I am a master, I really want to see them be happy and win prizes. In the long run it is better for chess, and BTW better for me as I then have better and bigger tournaments to play in.
If it makes you feel better, then think of it as the top finisher in a class getting the entire top prize in a class PLUS a share of the place prizes – but no more added money than he would have gotten if his class prize and the place prizes were summed and divided among the tied winners. Maybe that would be a more “politically correct” way to word the rule, but the calculations would end up being the same as the current, simpler version.
No matter how you put it, I don’t see how the second place finisher in a class somehow “deserves” the top class prize just because the first finisher in the class is also in a tie for some place prizes. The TOP finisher in the class is more deserving of having his prize increased by including the class prize (if it’s higher than the lowest place prize that would be included in the split) than the SECOND finisher in the class. That’s why the rule is written the way it is – the top finisher for a prize should get the full benefit of that prize. The top player in a class should get the top prize in the class, UNLESS he’s tied for a place prize, there’s already one prize per player included in the split, AND the lowest place prize is higher than that class prize.
It’s bad enough that we have ridiculously large class prizes without taking money from top finisher in the class so the second place finisher can have more. Just how much of a reward do you want mediocrity to get!?
And you can check my rating, if you like. I’m firmly in class A and often enough I’m one of those class players that are trying to get a share of the money the “masters” (or experts, often enough) are going after.
The problem with your argument is that you are ignoring the fact that the masters are getting less money than they would if the “class players” were not winning the class prizes. It is not a windfall for the masters because they are getting a share of the class prize. It takes money away from them.
Why? When distributing prizes that involve a combination of place and “class” or “under” prizes, the director is supposed to do the calculation two ways:
- Pooling the place and class/under prizes and distributing evenly.
- Separate the place prizes from the class/under prizes, and distribute the class/under prizes only among the class/under players eligible for the prizes.
The director is then supposed to award the prizes in the manner that gives the class/under players the larger of the two amounts. If the prize distribution in the first case would give a “windfall” to the masters, then the class/under players receive more money under the second distribution.
Example 1: Suppose the prizes are $500-400-300, top U2200 $200. Suppose we have the following results:
Alice 2300 5.0
Bob 2250 4.5
Carol 2200 4.0
Dave 2150 4.0
(All other players score less than 4.0).
The correct prize distribution is:
Alice 1st $500
Bob 2nd $400
Carol split third/top U2200 $250
Dave split third/top U2200 $250
Notice that Carol gets less than the third place prize amount.
Exanple 2: With the same prize distribution as above:
Alice 2300 5.0
Bob 2250 4.5
Carol 2200 4.0
Dave 2150 4.0
Eve 2225 4.0
(All other players score less than 4.0).
In this case, Dave wins more prize money by taking the top U2200 prize and relinquishing any claim to the third place prize money. (Splitting the sum of third and top U2200 gives each of the three players involved in the tie $166.67.) So, the correct prize distribution is:
Alice 1st $500
Bob 2nd $400
Carol tie for 3rd $150
Dave top U2200 $200
Eve tie for 3rd $150
Generally, the principle is that equal scores result in equal amounts of prize money. The exception is demonstrated in my second example; if a class/under player does better by relinquishing a claim to place prize money, then he/she receives the more favorable distribution, and equal scores in that case do not result in equal shares of prize money.
“Mediocrity.” Interesting word and attitude that goes along with it. When TD’s start looking at some players as being mediocre… Do you call players “fish”, too? I have heard that comment by a few high level TD’s directed toward D and E Class adults and scholastic players.
I take as a given that every player is working as hard as he can in a tournament. Everyone differs in ability. The luck of pairings and the vagaries of the game often affect prizes more than the skill level of the players. I don’t like to see structural bias of prizes have any more effect than it has to.
In the World Open section, when the U2400 prize was brought up to share with 3rd and 4th prize, the 5th through 10th prize winners were given a windfall. Did they earn it or was it an accident of the way the prizes were distributed? Had Dominguez been a 2300+ he would have shared 3rd through 5th. 6th prize on would have gotten what they deserved considering their place. By adding in the class prize to 3rd and 4th, the 6th through 10th moved up a place and got more than they reallly deserved, and without lifting a finger. By taking a place price, which was substantially more than his class prize, D. did very well and is duly credited, but not more. He should not get a class prize and a place prize; that is another way of viewing how this works out. By taking a place prize, the class prizes are now available to the remaining, how you might term them, “mediocre” players who worked their butts off just as much as, and maybe more than the GMs in the top section, especially those chess titans who get free entry fee but drop out when things aren’t going well preventing players from getting title norms. These “mediocre” U2300 players are now the true class prize winners and would at least have gotten their entry fee back. Next year, they are likely to come back if prizes are distributed in the method I have outlined. Under the present system, why should they even bother? They are screwed by the structural bias even before they walk through the door and push 1. e4. Some of the smarter guys are going to do the cost-benefit analysis some day and realize what their chances really are. Some already have.
Seems like a fair word choice to me, especially since I include myself in that same rating group. At least I want to reward the TOP finisher in the class with the top prize. Taking the money for the top class player and giving it to #2? Yeah, I said it and I’ll stick to it: that’s rewarding mediocrity.
Bill Smythe proposed a variant for calculating prizes that you may find of interest:
See viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7719 for more detail and examples. Regarding some of your examples in this thread:
Incident #1
prizes were 1st $600 2nd 400 3rd 200 U2200 $100
Rulebook Smythe
Master A 5-1 600 600
Master B 4.5-1.5 233 200
Master C 4.5-1.5 233 200
1900 4.5-1.5 233 200
Expert 4-2 0 100
Incident #2
The prizes were 1st $120 2nd $60 U1900 $60.
Rulebook Smythe
Master 3.5 80 60
1850 3.5 80 60
1830 3.5 80 60
1890 3 0 60
World Open Example
Rulebook Smythe
Adamson 2442 2262
Adu 2442 2262
Dominguez 2442 2262
(...and the top-finishing U2300 players have higher prizes under the Smythe method compared to the rulebook. None of them do as well as Dominguez who earned a place prize.)
I agree with the prize distribution proposed by Smythe, but I follow the USCF rulebook (I run a weekly club event). In an area as sensitive as prize distribution it is nice to have a printed rulebook to help explain it to the concerned player.
Back on topic, the experienced TDs may find my solution to the original post amusing. I came up with my answers before reviewing solutions posted by others. After removing $600 from the first place prize I treated the balance ($840) as a separate prize. AAG (5-1) would get this as it is higher than the 2nd place prize that he earned. The remaining prizes are split between the also-rans:
Scenario #1
Unknown powerhouse - 600
Almost as good - 840
Also-rans - 453 ea
In Scenario #2, the unclaimed prize is $960 (1440 + 720 - 600 - 600). This is awarded to the also-rans (960+400+240 / 3). The result is the same as given by Keith Ammann, but based on different logic.
Scenario #2
Unknown powerhouse - 600
Almost as good unr - 600
Also-rans - 533 ea
Scenario #3
Unknown powerhouse - 600
Almost as good unr - 600
Oh so close - 960
Don’t forget me - 107 ea
Scenario 3 highlights an issue in the approach that I took, in that “oh so close” does better than “almost as good” in scenario 1. I think that it would be better to award 720 to “oh so close” which is acheived by pulling 2nd-unrated’s $600 from the left-over 1st-place prize (instead of from the 2nd-place prize).
I don’t like the idea of creating a new prize which wasn’t in the TLA, and awarding this to a player instead of the prize which was advertised. It produces more or less reasonable results in this case, although IMO it short changes Almost As Good, but as a principle for awarding prizes where there is a limit on a player’s prize it doesn’t work in general. What if instead of $600 the prize limit for unrated players in this section had been $1400? In that case the balance after paying Unknown Powerhouse would have been $40. AAG certainly wouldn’t have been happy being awarded a prize of just $40!
If it were up to you to amend the USCF rules to cover the situation where a player’s prize is limited what rules would you enact? (I’ve already given my answer to that question.)
A little off topic but I have actually created new prizes that were not in the TLA, albeit only when the turnout significantly exceeded the based on (one simple example from the '80s is going from $100-first, $40-second, $40-top A/B/C each to $100-first, $60-second, $40-third, $50 top A/B/C each). However, the prize fund change was announce prior to the final round being paired (maybe even a round earlier) and was not modified during the awarding of the prizes.
We’ve done that as well in MACA tournaments. All the advertised prizes were paid, possibly with increased money, and we’ve sometimes added new prizes that weren’t advertised. The difference in this case is that Eric is saying he’d create a new prize (effectively splitting the 1st prize into two parts and awarding it to two people) and award this prize to a player instead of the prize the player was entitled to according to the TLA (in this case, second place). I think the proper procedure would be to award the players the prizes they were entitled to according to the TLA (giving the $720 second place prize to Almost As Good) and then decide how much to increase each prize using the balance left from the $1440 first prize after limiting the amount paid to Unknown Powerhouse to $600.
Actually, come to think of it, Eric’s proposal does make some sense if it’s modified a little, although I think there are still a couple of problems with it. Like the other distribution methods it conforms to USCF rule 32C6.
The announced prizes were: 1st - $1,440 2nd - $720 3rd - $400 4th - $240.
With the 1st prize being reduced to $600 Eric is creating a new prize of $840. Adding this as a 5th prize would be pretty silly:
1st - $600 2nd - $720 3rd - $400 4th - $240 5th - $840
Instead Eric is awarding the prizes in descending order, other than the $600 limit prize:
1st - $600 2nd - $840 3rd - $720 4th - $400 5th - $240
Another way to look at it is that $120 of the $840 was used to increase the 2nd prize, $320 to increase 3rd prize, $160 to increase 4th prize, and $240 to create a new 5th prize.
If the prize limit for unrated players was $1400 the new prize should go at the end:
1st - $1400 2nd - $720 3rd - $400 4th - $240 5th - $40
This looks a little funny but it’s better than awarding $40 to the 2nd place finisher.
Similarly, if the prize limit were $1000 the new prize would be $440, which should go to 3rd place:
1st - $1000 2nd - $720 3rd - $440 4th - $400 5th - $240
In Scenario #2 there are two unrated players. This could be used to create either one or two prizes. In my variant of Eric’s idea, either way the prizes (other than the ones subject to the limit) would be sorted in descending order:
One new prize:
1st - $600 2nd - $600 3rd - $960 4th - $400 5th - $240
Two new prizes:
1st - $600 2nd - $600 3rd - $840 4th - $720 5th - $240 6th - $120
With two new prizes, the “Don’t Forget Me” players would get $30 each.
Scenario #3 is the same except that Oh So Close finishes clear 3rd, winning $960 if there is one new prize and $840 if there are two new prizes.
Is this what you’re suggesting:
1st - $600 2nd - $600 3rd - $720 4th - $400 5th - $240 6th - $240
I’m not sure how to fit that into a general rule. It seems like an ad hoc decision. Under what circumstances would you split a prize into three prizes (in this case, the 1st prize of $1440 is split into prizes of $600, $600 and $240) instead of two?
To me what’s most important is that the USCF rule should be written in such a way that for any given prize structure and set of results, every director who applies the rule correctly will award the prizes the same way. The specific rule that is adopted is less important. My preference is as I stated earlier: amend the current 32C6 by adding:
Any money left unawarded in a point group should be awarded in the next lower point group.
No player can win more money than he or she would have won if the unrated player(s) were not included in the prize distribution.
Maybe it would work like this. First award $600 to Unknown Powerhouse, creating a new $840 prize.
1st - $600 2nd - $840 3rd - $720 4th - $400 5th - $240
Since Almost As Good is also unrated his prize is limited to $600, creating a new $240 prize:
1st - $600 2nd - $600 3rd - $720 4th - $400 5th - $240 6th - $240
This is harder than Steve’s question in the original post. Perhaps this is covered by an existing rule, and the onus for working out the details is on any organizer who implements a deviation from the rulebook standards (such as using limits).
…but I’ll give it shot. Below is a draft:
It appears this TD may have been off the mark regarding not only prize distribution, but also pairings:
If the 1850 had already played the 1830, then the Master should not have been paired against the 1890. Instead, the Master could face (for example) the 1850, while the 1890 plays the 1830. This would be a simple transposition of only 40 points, and would preserve the integrity of the score group. By contrast, the actual pairing drops two additional players down into the next score group, unnecessarily.
I’ve never understood why so many TDs are so reluctant to transpose when two different score groups are involved. It’s as though their tunnel vision requires them to pair THE lowest in the top group against THE highest in the bottom group. They should get wise – it’s perfectly OK to pair down a different player (such as the 2nd or 3rd lowest), and/or pair up a different player (such as the 2nd or 3rd highest), up to the 80- or 200-point transposition limits. As a matter of fact, in this case, neither of these limits would even apply, since the transposition would be done to maintain score group integrity, rather than merely to improve colors.
Bill Smythe
I agree with those who feel that an approved procedure that will apply to all situations is a good idea. How about this?
Step one. Calculate all prize winners without regard to prize limits.
Step two. Identify those with limits. Reduce their prizes to the limit and note the total amount of reduced prizes.
Step three. Calculate the percentage amount of the reduced prize to total remaining prize amount.
Step four. (here is where I expect the discussion to occur) Increase each prize winners amount except the limited winners by the step 3 percentage.
Example: prizes 500, 300, 250 class 1 200, class2 150 Limit of $200 for unrated. Unrated wins clear first.
Unrated gets $200. $300 of prizes not awarded (steps 1 & 2)
Prizes 300, 250 class 1 200, class2 150 remain to be awarded. Divide total unawarded prize(s) of $300 by total of prizes that remain to be awarded $900.
Percentage is 33.3%. Multiply all remaining prizes by 1 1/3 to get new prize amounts.
Obviously not all agree with who gets the extra money. I feel that increasing all the prizes seems fairest to everyone while awarding the total advertised prize fund. The nice point about this calculation method is it works with based on prizes too. It should work if limiting which prizes are increased also. Some of the options might be A. only increase type of prize which was reduced (either every place or every class) B. For events with multiple class prizes for the same class, only increase that class. Note that if there were both reduced place and class prizes, the methodology would be applied to each prize type separately if options A or B were used.
Regards, Ernie
Regards, Ernie
I like that. It’s like my proportional redistribution suggestion, but it makes the math easier.