Chess Scotland Noticeboard

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

I think both Donald's and Rocks postings were good.

I suspect most players that play regulaly and those that work (or have worked) on their game do so for reasons other than the prospect of winning cash: they are motivated by the pleasure they get from playing the game itself and is some cases from playing it well.

So why is the level of prize money important, even to those unlikely to win it? Because it accords a status or value to the section they play in and all those taking part.

I think also people are motivated to achieve a certain status and respect from your peers that getting a black belt in Karate, a grading >2000, or a GM/IM title should earn you. The increased prize money in higher sections is if you like a token of that respect; a way of valuing the quality of play.

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

Here's a solution, don't have any sections at all just one event where everybody enters. Give good prizes for 1st - 5th place and then have decent grading prizes for u1000 u1300 u1600 u1900 etc. Everybody pays the same entry fee and everybody has a theoretical chance of winning a prize.

There are of course problems with such a format, but at least then the lower graded players could not complain about their entry fees going towards the prize fund of the open event. It would probably not be much fun losing to players 800 points above you though.

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

"Chess/Communism" - yes, you're right, we do know how that works out across history - those who hate the idea do all in their power to make sure it doesn't work as it threatens their vested interests Wink

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

@JR - yes, you are right, there are certain problems with the idea, not least of which people would be even more fed up about subsidising the stronger players!

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

And yet the questions are still not answered:

Should lower players have to subsidise higher players through their entry fees?
Should prize money be equalised across all sections?
Should the number of entries not determine the prize money in a particular section rather than the supposed stature of the players?

This L'Oreal defense is really beginning to anger me and as for the comparison to communism dont be ludicrous.

I also resent the implication that I amongst other players don't work at my game. I'm also not someone who hoovers up prize money but it is farcical to attempt to justify one tournament with 60+ players and only receiving £280 of prize money.

Compared with another section with less players receiving £1000 in prize money is nothing short of disgusting and the attempts of defending it for quality of play are nothing short of ludicrous. That sort of gap cannot be endorsed and I find it concerning at the numbers trying to defend it.
Shocked

Edit to add: I'm going to leave this debate as I feel I am running in circles. I think I'll go and look out some chess books in the hope that one day I can aspire to the dizzy heights of winning a tournament. Wink

_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

Daniel Rocks · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 5:49 pm Post subject:

O M G

Where do I start?

1. Mr Blyth, regarding "vested self interest", I redirect you to my point about having made virtually £0 from Opens, when I play I play to have good games of chess and for the enjoyment.

Stuart Blyth · King Joined: 11 Sep 2008 Posts: 209

@Daniel
You make the case against yourself.

I would like to doubt very much that, were I graded 2000+, I'd be adopting the opposite view. That's unlikely ever to be tested! However, all you seem to be arguing is that people are adopting positions according to their status/grade - that actually weakens your argument as it makes it seem self-centred to expect higher prizes for better players, with no actual logical argument in favour of it.

Why is it that 'lesser' players should simply be satisfied with the "good value" of playing in a chess congress and not the stronger players - should the same not apply to them as well? How on earth does this justify stronger players getting a bigger prize (assuming the prize is based on entrance fees - there may be cases where sponsorship or donations complicate the picture)

I, too, have been surprised at some of the opinions expressed on these forum pages. I'd hazard that the 2000+ players need the rest more than the rest need them..............

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

HughBrechin · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 6:10 pm Post subject:

Interesting debate. Here's my tuppence-worth, based on personal experience (perhaps not a surprising one, I think plotting responses against ratings would at the very least throw up something statistically significant).

Lower-rated players aren't the only ones doing the subsidising. Every time I enter a congress (not as often as I'd like these days) I know that I'm going to be rated 300-400 points below the top seeds and that my chance of winning any money is minimal (like Daniel, the most I've ever won at a time came from picking up a Minor back in the dim and distant past). I'm subsidising the prize fund for the top players as well. In fact, given that funds go to the Congress, not to the event, I'm also subsidising the winner of the Minor (and I have considerably less chance of winning my tournament than the vast majority of players in the lower sections - apart from anything else the variance is lower).

I'm a 2000+ (admittedly not a very big plus) player. I have been for a few years, one blip aside. I play what is, by some standards at least, relatively good chess. I've just done a bit of maths and I reckon that over the past four or so years I've received - from Scottish events - about £120-£130 in prize money (a grading prize or two, a couple of shares of second/third places and one best game prize). During that period I've put in at least three or four times that amount in entry fees. The downtrodden masses are not the only ones who get a duff financial deal. In fact, I'd argue that people around my level (and Geoff's, and Daniel's, and to some extent George's, though he's done very well at Edinburgh a couple of times recently) are probably in the worst position (once you get above about 1000 level) for making money of all - given that the variation in tournament rating limits between congresses means that just about everyone below 2000 gets the chance to be one of the big fish in a section once in a while.

And you know what? I'm fine with this. I don't work hard enough at my game to improve to a level where I'd be contending for prizes more regularly - too busy, lacking in moral fibre, simply not keen enough, pick a reason. Subsidising the FMs and the IMs doesn't really bother me. Higher prizes at the top of open sections encourage juniors to pursue the game: they can see that if they become very good at it then they'll be rewarded at least to some extent (it takes massive amounts of time, effort and generally money to get to IM level). Aren't we interested in encouraging people to play, you know, better?

(Edited when I decided I'd been inflating my prize money, like I do when talking to non-chess-playing friends.)

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

David and Stuart argue that its unfair for higher sections to have higher prizes. Since they are free to enter these sections and compete for these higher prizes how can that be unfair, unless its because they feel its unfair because of the grading gap?

That same arguement applies within sections, and the lower graded players who have no chance of winning a main prize could argue that they are subsidising the prizes for the strongest players in their section.

Surely its unfair for anyone to win a prize unless everone wins the same prize. So at the end of the day we should all get back our entry fee minus congress costs.

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Mike Scott · King Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 676 Location: Edinburgh

David
But why do you think that higher sections should not have a higher prizes?

After all, the higher the section the more players that are eligble for that section?

David Deary · Queen Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 98

Pat McGovern · Bishop Joined: 10 Jan 2011 Posts: 24 Location: saltcoats

Some tournaments have equal monies across the board, others weight it in favour of the higher (elite?) sections. this is their choice, your choice is whether to enter the tournament or not. Stop whining David and enter the opens if you wish.
The situation will not change unless more sponsorship comes into chess and even then the tourney director may weight the monies to attract titled players.
Realistically we win little money but the main reason we enter is to play a good game or two. we may also enjoy a little social life (more of that after Czech Republic).
If we only entered because of the prize money we will win then most of us would never bother. Very Happy