This is a serious charge, and merits fact checking. Aside from GM Barbosa, do we know the players in question? Would like to compare against the rating list designated for the event (January 2018).
I would like to think the original commenter’s rating calculation uses the wrong basis.
Not having been at any of the USATs I think I am a neutral party.
The 2219 average referred to would depend on there being a 1000-point rule used, in which case the 897-rated 4th board playing behind the 2406-rated 3rd board would end up getting averaged in as a 1406 instead of as an 897 (which gave a 2092 average for the 2647 / 2417 / 2406 / 897 line-up - IDs 12774477 / 16113661 / 15778877 / 13919283). The web-site below (which I think is the official NJ site) does not seem to mention a 1000-point rule, so maybe the rule was not applicable this year, or maybe it was missed on some web-sites. If somebody thought the rule existed even though it didn’t then I can see that person thinking the non-existent rule was violated. If the rule was supposed to exist but wasn’t on all of the pre-event publicity/web-sites then I can see a team feeling they shouldn’t be penalized after arriving with what they thought was a legal line-up based on the web-sites they viewed.
I have not seen the 1,000-point rule listed for the USATE the past few years. It seems the “maximum of two GMs” rule superseded it.
Background: About 10 years ago a team of three GMs and a very young boy with a very low three-digit rating won USATE. There was lots of chatter and lots of complaints at the time. goo.gl/FmE91w goo.gl/LFgtJq
After that a rule was in place some years that limited the 4th board to no more than 1,000 points below the third board. Or maybe a team could choose to do that anyway, but have the greater than 1,000-point difference counted as 1,000, as Jeff suggests.
This year and I think the past few years the rules have limited teams to two GMs, but with no restriction between 3rd and 4th boards as far as I know. This allows a team of something like two promising juniors of Class B, a Class A coach and a newbie scholastic player on board four, all from the same club or school. (IOW, the rule designed to prevent outrageous team-stacking had a ripple effect on teams way down the wallchart.)
But I would not swear that the 1,000-point rule was not in effect this year. That’s not the kind of thing that slips past the USATE staff, normally, but maybe someone can confirm it officially.
And yes, a team of two GMs, one strong IM and a young child rated 200 is just as bad as 3 GMs and the same child. But at some point you cannot fend off every attempt to game the system at what should be a fun event.
Edited to correct that it was a boy, not a girl, on 4th board for the team with three GMs.
Thanks, Eric. I know the 1000 point rule didn’t exist at the USATE in 2008. Not sure about intervening years. It has been a mainstay at the other regional events, so it appears to be an organizer rule, not a national rule.
I really don’t have a problem with consideration being paid to the titled players in 2008. It’s commonplace in bridge for an amateur to pay a professional to join a partnership or team. It’s how the professionals make money; cash prizes at bridge are a rare exception.
The way to stop this “gaming the system” is pretty easy. Don’t allow the professional players to compete. This is supposed to be an amateur event; it’s in the name. It’s an oxymoron to say that this is an amateur event, but a four person team with two GM’s and an IM is allowed to compete. The professionals have no shortage of tournaments they can enter. Let the amateurs have this one. My proposed rule change: No GM, IM, or USCF 2400 may enter.
I believe the USATE has never had the 1000 point “rule.” At least I think I remember Steve Doyle telling me that once.
As to eliminating “professional” players, that would be a huge mistake. Part of the fun of this tournament is seeing a GM squished into on board 59 with three kids.
This was the largest USATE ever; don’t try to fix what clearly isn’t broken.
This year it might finally have surpassed the comfortable capacity of the venue. It was impossible to walk down the hall without turning sideways or getting bumped. I was late for the show before round 4 since I was among dozens of cars circling the lot looking for a parking spot.
But the debate over team-stacking and what if anything to do about it goes back at least to the 1990s. Read Mark Ginsburg’s articles on this, from the links in my earlier post. (Which contain links to other articles on the issue.)
Since I will likely never play on a team that has any chance at winning USATE I do not worry about it. I can see why others might feel differently. I would not want to ban >2400 players from the Amateur Team events. I enjoyed the chance to play Dzindzi in the 1990 USATE, one of only two GMs I have played apart from simuls. A few years ago a chess friend greatly enjoyed playing Joel Benjamin, who led a team of much lower-rated students and relatives.
But with so many GMs and strong Masters within a short drive of Parsippany, and with chessplayers and human nature being what they are, there will always be those who try to get creative, to put it nicely.
I chuckle at most of that, but the organizers need to deal with it. The two-GM maximum is something, even if it does not stop all the wheels turning in the minds of the devious.
The USATE had 325 teams this year, which was the absolute upper limit on capacity. We had space for 162 boards, allowing 324 playing teams and a bye. At the registration desk, we were actually numbering the team registration forms, and we were prepared to turn away teams after we had 325 entries.
It was indeed a tight squeeze. This year, in the small rooms (the Algonquin/Morris/elements rooms down the hallway where the chart room is), we had five boards instead of four. We had to split one team across two tables to do that. (We had six chess boards on the two rows at the ends and four on the two rows in the middle, since there had to be space for the doors.)
Of course, I am not speaking for the organizers, but as a member of the staff, I would suggest that teams entering next year’s USATE take care to enter in advance as early as possible to avoid being turned away for lack of space.
If you think this clearly isn’t broken, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Back when I was in college the Pan-Am Games was a nice event for us “just plain joe’s”. Now schools like Webster University, UTD, and UMBC stack their line-ups with GM’s. Were I in college today I would not consider attending it. (And for what it’s worth, Carnegie-Mellon, which won the USATE, doesn’t attend it either.)
The US Amateur Team tournament is a great idea, but as long as teams are allowed to stack their line-ups with professional players then it isn’t an amateur tournament. The pros have many tournaments. Let the rest of us have this one.
I get your point, but this debate was decided decades ago, at least in the East, where >2400 players are relatively plentiful.
I agree that extreme team-stacking like three GMs and a beginner is not in the spirit of the competition. But the alternative of banning GMs is worse. One of the best games I ever played was a loss to Dzindzi at the 1990 USATE. (Really. Playing a sitting US champion, as he was at the time, brings out the best a player has, feeble though that might be.) It’s one of my best chess memories.
I wish the shenanigans to maximize prize-chances for teams did not happen—we are talking trophies and clocks, not cash—but I shrug it off. The good at USATE outweighs the bad. The positives of having GMs rub elbows and pawns with commoners outweigh the negatives.
2400+ rated players may be more common in the east than in other parts of the country, but they’re still a tiny fraction of the chess playing population there. They can find other tournaments to play in. They don’t have to play here. But if you’re OK with having them at this tournament, then at least push for some truth in advertising. If titled players are going to be encouraged to play, then let’s find a tournament name that fits, and leave the word “amateur” out.
Yes, “amateur” modifies “team”, so you are correct as far as the semantics go. But if you think that it makes logical sense to call a four person team containing two GM’s and an IM an “amateur” team, then we see this very differently.
Well, with all due respect to your opinion, the USATE reached a record in 2017 with 306 teams and then smashed that record into itty bitty shards with 325 teams this year and no possibility of adding one more team. I would submit the market has spoken loudly and clearly.
According to the activity analysis tool (on TD/A) there were 34 2400+ players, 85 masters, 155 experts, 221 A players, 195 B players, 163 C players, 136 D players, 103 E players, 81 players rated 800-999, 75 players rated 600-799, 36 players rated 400-599, 32 players rated 200-399 12 players rated under 200 and 41 unrated.
443 players were from New York, 571 from New Jersey, 111 from PA, the 3 closest states, but there were also 50 players from MA, 47 from CT, 46 from VA, 20 from DE and 17 from MD.
Interestingly, while the 3 GM’s and a 5 year old is the ideal lineup to beat a team with 4 2200’s, it’s vulnerable to 2 GM’s and 2 B players, which is vulnerable to 1 GM and 3 experts which is vulnerable to 4 2200’s, i.e. it’s all a matter of matchups. In all cases, you’re aiming to tank one board and spread the extra rating points to the others, but you have to know what the target team looks like before you can figure out how to do that.
You would be wrong; the market has not spoken because no option has been presented to it. For all we know there might have been 400 teams entering had you barred professional players from competing. Or there might have been 200, but until you give people an alternative you can’t know which would draw better.
