For today’s report I’m going to do something different. I’m going to write about what happens behind the scenes at the Glen Rock Quads. I’m doing this for a simple reason - I don’t actually know what happened in the tournament room. Sorta. Let me explain.
As a matter of fact, let me explain a lot of what goes on behind the scenes at a tournament.
For starters, there are two types of tournament directors (TDs). Floor TDs and Pairing TDs.
A floor TD is the visible presence in a tournament room. They help people find their tables, address player concerns, resolve disputes during games, make sure results are recorded, and generally make sure the playing area is operating normally.
A pairing TD works behind the scenes. They operate the computer on which the tournament is run. They enter results, create the pairings, and ultimately submit the results to the US Chess Federation. They also make sure everyone’s USCF membership is in order, and in the case of ICA tournaments, collect registration fees from anyone who didn’t pay in advance. Pairing TDs all know how to work as a Floor TD. But a Floor TD often doesn’t have the training to be a Pairing TD.
Now I wasn’t originally scheduled to work this event. I was brought in at the last minute to replace a tournament director who was out sick. Unfortunately I had another event earlier and couldn’t attend until it finished. I arrived at ICA just as the beginner-level quads were finishing. Fortunately in my absence the tournament was under the always-watchful guidance of Jonathan Zeng while ICA owner Diana Tulman filled in on the computer until I arrived.
Pairings at ICA are done on a specialized piece of software called WinTD. It’ll run you about $95 if you ever want to buy yourself a copy. The structure of the program is fairly simple: you create a tournament, define sections, add players, pair rounds, then enter results. But all of this and more must be done in a meticulous manner. Chess tournaments rapidly experience problems or a complete breakdown if information in the program isn’t correct. Even something as simple as a misspelled name can irritate players and their families. If you’ve ever watched a Pairing TD require several minutes to solve a problem, this is often why. It has to be done in an exact manner or the problem may become worse.
So as the results arrived I entered them into the computer, always with a second check to make sure they were entered correctly. Human error during data entry happens surprisingly often. This could be on the part of the Pairing TD (ex; reporting White won when they actually lost), or on the part of the player (ex; reporting both players won a game). With 11 quads on Saturday there were 66 results to enter. All it takes is one error to throw off the result of a single quad. It’s awkward at best to tell a winner “sorry you didn’t really win, would you mind sending back your prize money?” So we need to get it right every time.
To prevent errors we have several failsafes. First, the pairing TD always double-checks their data entry twice. One when typing in the results for white, and once reading back the (automatically created) results for black. Second, the pairing TD (or at least I do this) manually adds the scores on the results sheet for each player, then compares it to what the software is telling me the results should be. This helps catch me entering Quad 6 results for Quad 5, for example. Third, we create and send out a document with a list of all the players and the results for each game. This lets the players identify any game results which were incorrectly reported to us. This is rare, but does happen sometimes, particularly with younger players. That’s one reason why winnings aren’t paid out for a week or so after a tournament. We want a week for any issues to arise that we might not have been aware of. (If you ever play in a tournament with cash prizes worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, expect the delay to be even longer, sometimes more than a month in case a player appeals a game result to the US Chess Federation).
Sitting in the back room gives one a very clinical result of the tournament. All the results went across my desk, but I didn’t get much of the contest or flavor. The triumph of victory or a player watching all their carefully laid plans falling apart with a single error. Hence why I went for more of an educational post than what I usually write. I can’t tell you what I don’t know.
But I hope you found it an interesting peek inside the workings of a chess tournament. And I hope you’ll join me in congratulating all the quad winners.
Quad 1 - Yefim Treger (MORE FROM HIM)
Quad 2 - Sean Fiterman
Quad 3 - Aaron Basov
Quad 4 - Nicholas McCahey
Quad 5 - Kate Stripunsky and Lucas Sokolov (tie)
Quad 6 - Adrian Noh and Adib Mousa Tuwaini (tie)
Quad 7 - John Liebman
Quad 8 - Ali Issa Abbassi
Quad 9 - Nicholas Sambalis and Leo Cohen (tie)
Quad 10 - Alexander Wang
Quad 11 - Illia Onyshchenko II
Our next quad tournament will be on March 16. Hope to see you there!
Section 1 Report by Yefim Treger
In my second game on March 9-th I played with a young opponent Julian. He had just won beautifully his first game against a strong expert, so I decided to play with Julian something strange in the opening. I (Black) chose a variant “1. e4 Nc6” where Black sacrifices his pawn but gets a big advantage in the development; in particular White loses his right to castling. My plan was successful!
He did take a pawn but lost the right to castling. Just compare two positions in the picture. In the left position White cannot finish the development of his pieces properly since his king had moved. Moreover his king may be under attack by the black rooks. I thought in that moment: “I have to show him that his position is bad because he lost his right to castling”. Seemingly Julian had not understood and made a mistake. So I won a game. My lesson to all chess students of the ICA is “Take care about the safety of your king. Do not lose the right to castling!”
Visitors: 239