Chess Scotland Noticeboard

sigrun · King Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 307 Location: Europa

In the distant past the prize money in most opens in Scotland was good enough to attract foreign players! Then, on one dark day, some Scottish president decided to equalize all & the foreign titled players including most of the home titled players disappeared.
I read recently that Scottish chess gets support from the govn. - should some of that not be used to attract titled players to Scotland? It's quite pathetic that ambitious players have to play abroad for strong opposition.
Shocked

_________________
''All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.'' Voltaire

Donald Wilson · Queen Joined: 07 Mar 2007 Posts: 143

Prize money in Scottish Congresses is decided by congress organisers - nobody in Chess Scotland (or previously in the SCA) dictates or ever has dictated limits to the prizes that can be offered.

Shortage of big-money prizes in Scotland is a result of two main factors:
1. a lack of sponsorship;
2. extortionate hire fees for venues.

As for the money we get from the government, it's not enough to allow us to send our strongest players to all the main international tournaments - there's nothing left to subsidise titled foreign players to come here.

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

I'm sure venue hire is a major factor. I remember from when I lived in France, any organisation or club that was non-profit making was entitled to free hire of a room for their activity. This meant that the chess club I attended had no membership fees! Similarly, there was no charge to individual or club to play in the equivalent of the National League. On the other hand, anyone playing for their club in such competitions had to be a member of the French equivalent of Scottish Chess (and if a club had wanted its internal games graded, the same would apply to the players involved. I suppose the downside was that the membership fees were quite high (maybe £40 or £50 a year) and you had to be a member no matter how many 'proper' games you played! I think I only played one or two of these! I should add that, while my French is fine when speaking to someone with a clear, steady accent, that's not the case when speaking with, say, a forty-year-old wood pusher, mumbling and rattling off vernacular French at a rate of knots - so I can't guarantee that everything I'm saying is correct! Indeed, my games played count would have been at least one higher had I somehow not got Saturday mixed up with Sunday on one occasion, thus missing the match!

Can I finish by saying that this is not a sidways pitch in favour of any comments I've made on other posts - I'm not sure if the French system is relevant, and if it is, it could just as well undermine my position!

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

I am going to wade into this debate as I find it shocking that the prize money is not equalised across all sections. I note that Prestwick to it's credit has ditched the status quo of higher prize money in the Open that never attracts titled players. (who receive free entry whilst the rest of us don’t!)

I have played in a tournament this season where I was in a 52 player Major contributing approximately £1040 (estimating entry @ £20 a player) to the congress costs compared to a 34 player Open contributing £680 (same assumption). I am also certain almost double the prize money was paid out in that Open despite having less players. I’m sure most of you can work out what tournament I am talking about. Rolling Eyes

I suspect that this question has been posed to get some debate flowing. Prize money should be dictated by entries in my view not by the supposed stature of the tournament or the players. Wink

This argument that higher prize money brings out more titled players is a complete fallacy. However, I would be very interested to see some historical analysis of the prize money versus entrants as it could add to this debate.
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

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

David, you can't be serious - this smacks of fairness, a more collective, less elitist approach. Ain't you been paying attention to the Zeitgeist?

Wink

HLang · Queen Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 151 Location: Oxford

The Berks and Bucks congress has an interesting approach that I haven't seen elsewhere. You don't enter a section, you just enter. The organisers allocate the entrants to sections of 12-16 players by grade, creating as many sections as necessary. The prizes are at the same level across the sections.

http://www.englishchess.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/BerksBucksEntryForm2010.doc
_________________
"Heather's clever book". As plugged* by the Rampant Chess Team.

arf · Bishop Joined: 11 Feb 2009 Posts: 27

knowing my luck i'd end up in among the berks........

...i'll get my coat!

sigrun · King Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 307 Location: Europa

"dictated limits" I wasn't thinking of bossing anyone around, just asking a controller if s/he wants an extra £ 300 for the top section. I can't think that anyone would refuse such an offer!
Here is Alex: "sponsors will need to come forward to both support the tournaments which will provide the chances to progress"
You can read the rest of the article as a link from the candidate matches. He thinks we need £ 100 000 to stage 5 strong tournaments per year for your ambitious players to get experience at home.
I was less ambitious - would an extra £ 300 per congress attract our home GMs & may be a few from across the border?
Hastings has organized sections like the one you're talking about for years, Heather. But this is just for fun, you wouldn't be able to get any norms there, since everyone in your group is at your own level.
Equality? It'd be great if every1 who works was paid the same - that would be true equality, but we're not living in such a world. If you want more Scottish GMs then forget about equality - you need to do something to make people want to spend all their time to become pros.
_________________
''All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.'' Voltaire

Phil Thomas · King Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 758

GN · King Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 415

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

@ GN

First, you post does not even address the issue that was raised.

Second it displays a level of arrogance and elitism that I find rather disturbing.

Third, it does not even make sense - we have sections in chess for the very reason of giving people the chance to play at their own level and (a secondary concern for many, I'm guessing) to win some prize money.

Fourth, perhaps without realising it, you are actually making the case of the other person - you only highlight the degree to which our esteemed top players rely on their higher prize money being subsidised by the common wood pushers further down the rankings.

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

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

Yes, it crossed my mind that the post might be a joke or the work of a troll.

But, even if the poster meant it this way, it certainly sounded like something plenty of folk on this noticeboard would espouse - so it didn't seem to matter!

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

David/Stuart
Its a free world: why not organise your own congress and run it however you see fit. Personally I do like the idea of having equal prize money across sections but also agree that those in the higher sections have earned extra rewards. I certain feel having top players at events like Edinburgh is a major attraction.

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

Thanks, Mike.
I can always rely on you and others to help make my point, even when you're trying not to Wink