25% of participants in regular-only OTB rated events (ie, slow chess) traveled more than 100 miles, based on the ZIP codes of the members and the tournament. (This factors out online events, but the ZIP codes in our records aren’t always correct.)
For Blitz events it was 22%, for quick-only events it was 7% and for dual events it was 5%. Overall, 11% of OTB participants traveled more than 100 miles. (The high Blitz numbers probably represent players at national scholastics.)
14% of participants in slow chess OTB events traveled more than 250 miles.
The announcement says: “By June 1, 2024, only Tournament Directors who have completed the required training will be able to direct US Chess rated tournaments.” How will this be enforced? Will noncompliant tournament directors have their certifications revoked or suspended? If suspended, will their term continue to run during the suspension?
Also, has it been considered whether online and/or correspondence tournaments should be exempt from this requirement? If so, why was it decided that these trainings are necessary for directing online and correspondence tournaments? Maybe I am missing something, but these trainings seem to be about in-person events only.
Fair questions. Since to my knowledge we have no “online certified TD”, it seems like it would have to be all or nothing. However, since cyber-bullying is also a thing, I wouldn’t say training is inapplicable online.
Not being a TD, this question comes from ignorance, but if the chief TD is certified, could a “former TD” (one whose certification was suspended because they didn’t take the training) still be deputized and serve on the floor? They couldn’t get TD credits, of course, but would it be sanctionable to anyone if John Doe, Local TD hires the suspended Hal Terrie to work on the floor in their local event?
It appears 1061 of 1634 club TDs have worked in an event since January of 2022.
572 of 717 Local TDs
199 of 229 Senior TDs
15 of 17 ANTDs
67 of 104 NTDs
Of course if the TD isn’t listed in the tournament records as a TD (and not all chief TDs take the time to put in the complete list of TDs at their events), then they wouldn’t be counted in the above.
Suspended is used for violations as a director and revoked is too draconian. I’d like to see something like “licensed”, and a TD needing to be both certified and licensed to be included in a rating report (or able to submit one).
Interesting hypothetical question Mike. Most TDs won’t answer hypotheticals because there are so many nuances that can change the most appropriate answer. Does the recalcitrant or distracted TD know that lack of training means tournaments cannot be worked? Does the Local TD know in advance what staff the organizer hired? Does the organizer know the TD cannot work as a TD? Is this a legal contract issue? An Ethics issue? A TDCC issue?
I’ve probably only scratched the surface of what might change a potential answer.
Point noted. In this case, I envision a scenario where Chief TD John has always worked with TD Fred, who is very competent and of unquestioned integrity, but balks at taking the training. The organizer is aware of this, US Chess is aware of this. I think this scenario will play out frequently after June 1, 2024, so it is fair to ask US Chess if they would take action against the organizer, John or Fred.
I note that the questions I asked much earlier about what impact the training requirement might have had on the high profile cases had it been implemented 20 years ago have not received any comments either.
There seems to be an undercurrent of suspicion that the TDs who will be getting the training are the ‘bad actors’ in any undesirable situations. I don’t think that’s the most common scenario. I think they’re more likely to be witnesses to something. Better structuring of how events are run might forestall some situations.
I understand this particular contractor has a certain amount of prestige. Nevertheless, what rocket science information are they offering that couldn’t have been made available for free in a youtube video? It appears that this contractor will offer course certification services, but to what extent is that more reliable than self-certification anyways? Why can’t the USCF simply offer occasional mass regional or national workshops for free, which would be helpful for some TDs who would have been in attendance anyway? Why can’t the USCF ignore certification altogether (or at least annual certification) in favor of allocating a few questions to the TD testing process?
When comparing the benefits of requiring the annual training under this particular contract versus the inevitable loss of TDs and rated events, I’m not seeing a net positive in the vast majority of cases.
Slightly off-topic, has the USCF investigated the possibility of reincorporating under a different state (e.g., through domestication) if it wanted to access more favorable litigation rules and a cap on the amount of damages? Is Illinois law the most favorable here? Just curious.
Using 18 as a standard is rather arbitrary. Some people are more mature at a certain age than others. It is not like someone the day before their 18th birthday is completely incapable of dealing with these issues and suddenly become capable when the clock strikes midnight.
Also, while safe play standards are important and tournament directors need to know how to deal with safe play issues when they arise, we should remember that enforcing safe play standards are a small part of the average tournament director’s duties.
Personally, the fact that the US Center for SafeSport was authorized by Congress doesn’t exactly give me any assurances.
As far as having questions on the TD exam, not that many of the active TDs will ever need to take another exam, unless they decide to move up in certification level.
Now, if people want to revisit recertifying TDs without making sure they’re aware of the CURRENT rules, that’s a different issue.
I do tend to agree that annual recertification seems a bit extreme, since we offer even Club TDs a 3 year certification period. Being a TD isn’t like being in a certified licensed profession, like being a CPA or attorney. Are there any TDs for whom being a TD is their primary source of income? I kinda doubt it.
The concern about a cap on the amount of damages could be much more effectively achieved through contract. For example, when anyone becomes a member of the Federation, they agree to the membership terms and conditions. The Executive Board could amend these terms to provide that, in the event of legal action between the Federation and a member, the member’s sole remedy would be a refund of their membership dues (or a fixed nominal amount). Such a provision is rather common in terms and conditions. I have even included such a provision in the terms and conditions of participation all players in my chess tournaments agree to upon registration. To what extent such a provision is enforceable under Illinois law, I do not know, but it certainly should be considered.
The idea of imposing terms and conditions on memberships such as you suggest has been suggested many times, it runs into a lot of legal obstacles. Among them is the fact that most tournaments aren’t run by US Chess.
The membership terms and conditions exists to protect US Chess, not organizers of tournaments. A limitation of liability could limit, among other liabilities, whatever liability US Chess may have with respect to tournaments organized by other organizers but nevertheless rated by US Chess.
The USCF cannot screen for the rare minor who has adult judgment. Bright line tests like adult supervision of events are the best way to minimize issues. Let minors serve as tournament aides.