Chess Scotland Noticeboard

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Andy,

No Alex was not slighting you achievement in winning.

Ian (and others),

If we want to attract a sponsor, we have to have a strong field. With only 3 titled players wishing to play, that is not going to happen.

I have spoken to Alex about his idea with the 50K budget, it is an excellent idea and I have been trying to find a sponsor for this. I note that Geoff is also looking for a sponsor and I wish him luck with it.

The simple fact is we have 2 aims,

1, To determine the Scottish Champion
2. To promote players (not necessary Juniors) who are seeking norms to do so

We have the budget to do 1 tournament in Scotland each year for this.

I have a question to pose,

The last 2 years there has been no uprising in opinion on changing the format back to the failed all play all system that was quite frankly killing the Scottish.

This year there is. What has changed this year?

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

Andy,
I apologise if you took my comments as personal criticism. It was not meant to reflect my own personal view but that of several who complained about the event in Cumbernauld. Indeed I have frequently argued that you can only beat the players who are there and it is up to the others to enter. I always appreciate the participation of titled players particularly when it is at no cost as yours was.
Ian,
We don't have to look far. The English Championship, which I am controlling next week, is contained in the British and the event is therefore not restricted to only the English.
The Welsh is closed but held over a weekend. The Welsh U21 is open.
Sweden has an Open championship.

I think most countries have a closed event but some like Luxembourg seem to run opens but no national championship (I am willing to be corrected on this). I would suggest that the nature of the championship is determined by the popularity of the game in that country.

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

Alan.

The following are realistic budgets without sponsorship or donations.

(Sorry about the lack of tabs)

The first 10 player event would have a strong GM presence the second one or two GMs and 3 IMs. I may be being optimistic with venue costs for these. With no appearance fees you are still talking about an entry fee of £150 for an all play all with everyone paying an entry fee.
With a sponsorship of £5000 then the first two could have free entry, option 3 would be £125 and option 4 £90

Alan Tate · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 377 Location: Edinburgh

So a) and b) are not possible without a sponsor then.... and probably c) as well. £160 is also a bit much for an open but the money has to come from somewhere and the entry fee should be increased, in my opinion.
Where else is the money coming from?

admin · Site Admin Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 1386

Glasgow 2 years ago there was a donation from the Glasgow Chess League, Last year there was a donation of a free venue from Edinburgh Council. This year we had a donation from South Lanarkshire Council

Alex McFarlane · King Joined: 13 Mar 2007 Posts: 413

Edinburgh also had £5000 sponsorship as part of the Homecoming celebrations.

This year we had less prizemoney on offer and the control team basically made a large donation. I feel that it is reasonable to expect that the background workers should be able to get legitimate expences including lunch and a takeaway meal. This did not happen (again!).
The accounts will show a figure for the control team of circa £800 but donations will not be far short of this! Doing the accounts this way both shows a realistic cost for the event but indicates to a sponsor, or more importantly, a grant giver, that we try to raise money ourselves.
If the event moved out of the central belt then a contribution towards accommodation should be included.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

Alan,
How much would you increase the fee by? If you put it too high then there is a real danger that you price the event out of reach of most of those who are prepared to play. I would not like to see the fees at a rate similar to those charged for the British Championships.

I look forward to hearing your views on this, but please bear in mind money is tight for mist of us at the moment

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

I for one have decided not to spend so much on entry fees in the future. All the entry fees discussed would be way to high. A shame because of the hard work that volunteers put in, which I do appreciate.

It is guesswork how entry fees change the number of entrants, but what is better 100 players paying £40, or 20 players paying £100. Whatever the effect, it is clear that higher entry fees means less entrants.

You can only beat who are put in front of you, whether it be a 2600, or a 2100. It would be better if the best players played, but in this age of financial restraint, it just makes sense to cut your cloth accordingly. I would rather see a weaker but more financially viable tournament take place. For anyone to achieve a title they would expect to acquire most of their norms abroad anyway. So why is it so important to put on an expensive norm event that regardless of the format has produced so few norms in the past.

Alan Tate · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 377 Location: Edinburgh

I don't want to see the entry fee increased for norms, but to make the Scottish an event to be proud of. I don't know how much the British is but £100 doesn't seem unreasonable - about £11 a day. It's a once a year event isn't it?? That's pretty good value compared to many other activities as has been pointed out before. How much to you pay to see a football team these days? £30 for 90 minutes?
Skip one football match and you can pay the extra for the Scottish....

Would there be less entrants if the entry fee went up? As long as it's marketed well I don't see why this would be true. Anyway, 33 entrants in an open tournament can't really get much worse!

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

I don't waste anything watching poor quality football, even on the tv.

I am like most of the paying chess players were norms are not within my reach. Paying £100 for the chance of someone to get norm does not add up for me, it might for others.

If I want a cheap activity, I can go fishing for hours on end, or go walking in the hills for very little/no cost. Things that I used to do a lot more of and could pick up again very quickly.

It is not the cost, or cost per hour/day that matters. It is simply whether I see it as value for money. Luckily most chess in Scotland is very good value for money. The Scottish this time did not appear to fit this criteria, while last year it did because of the grants and the very good free venue.

JR · King Joined: 23 Jan 2007 Posts: 447 Location: Edinburgh

What annoyes me is that the IM's + GM's are already getting free entry to the event. On top of this they expect appearance fees and/or accomodation costs. With the greatest of respect to our titled players, none of them are world class players. Free entry + possibility of winning a prize + chance to be Scottish Champion should be enough incentive to compete.

On entry fees, I think anything between £50-70 for a 9 round event is acceptable, anymore and I think it will start to put people off playing.

Alan Tate · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 377 Location: Edinburgh

John you have hit the nail on the head - chess in Scotland is good value for money, too good. It deserves more. Didn't it lose over £1000 this year?
The £100(+) entry you spend is not for someone to get a norm, but so you can enjoy 9 days of quality chess in a quality environment.
Having events held in dingy halls with players in their beach wear (Chandler's comment not mine) certainly doesn't help the image problem chess has in this country - as long as chess has a bad image then there's nothing to interest a sponsor either.
Have an event worth reporting about 2 years in a row (doesn't have to be as grand as last year) and then the sponsors will start to come.
Joe conditions are normal everywhere in the world - why should we be different?

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

The reason it lost over£1000 was not that it was good value, but because enough players decided that it was not. 9 games of chess against the players that I normally see at every other tournament. The drop in numbers made it non viable, I am sure that CS did not want want to subsidise it.

Using my entry fee to pay titled players to play is ok to a point, but in the end it is paying so that other title chasers can gets norms. I know that you and others are norm chasers and that comment is not meant to be a slight on anybody, it is just the Coalition have ensured that my priorities have to change from now on. Spending is going to reduce for many people over the next few years.

I am just happy to play 1700-2000 rated players and still have a chance of a result. As already stated £50-£70 is reasonable for an international open, but there are other factors to consider, such as location and number of games per day. I would prefer a 7 round, 7 day tournament, than a squeezed in 9 round tournament over 7 days that has failed to get the players required to produce norms anyway.

An example, of how the conditions can be made better can be found at the e2-e4 tournaments. Not too expensive, well run and very good conditions. The key being hard negotiating with the hotel.

That being said, the work that is put in Scotland is fantastic and some of my favourite tournaments are played hall type conditions. I think I would stop playing weekend chess if Grangemouth, the EOS and Glenrothes started charging huge amounts.

SteveHilton · King Joined: 24 Jul 2007 Posts: 443 Location: Greenock

I have to disagree with you Alan when you state £100 is reasonable for an entry fee. Trt asking for that amount from someone who may otherwise be willing to play, but is of extremely limited income. In otherwords are disabled by economics.
I am saying that the fees have take these factors into account when being determined.

To those who say that titled players should be paid to appear a the national championships in an ideal world yes, but I think that we are not living in an ideal world. The fact is that there is little money available and there are more sports and pastimes competing for scarcer resources.

Those who advocate paying titled players to appear should bear this in mind