Chess Scotland Noticeboard

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

1. No Director of Chess Scotland receives any remuneration. There are three people who receive a fee for specified services (the Grading Officer; the Membership Secretary; and the Editor of Scottish Chess), but none of them is a Director. Directors can claim expenses actually and necessarily incurred in carrying out their roles, but they don't always claim all they are entitled to. In short, they behave pretty much like tournament organisers (actually, some of them are tournament organisers).

2. On the question of distribution of prize money, I am happy to see a modest transfer of money from the lower tournaments to the higher ones, but it should be a trickle rather than a torrent. For example, at the East of Scotland (which is the only congress totally under my control) in 2010 the Major and Minor between them brought in £767 and received back £580 in prize money (a return of 75.6%), whereas the Championship brought in £292 and received back £350 (a return of 119.9%). I would prefer to see a smaller difference between the percentage returns, but I can't ignore the fact that the Championship is a championship, with a certain amount of prestige attached to it, so I have to keep the main prizes (1st and 2nd) higher than those in the Major and Minor - but I don't offer as many prizes in the Championship if the number of entrants doesn't justify it. (See the entry form for this year's EoS for further statistics on prize money in recent years.)

From the posts on this thread it is clear that some people strongly favour equality of prize money across congress sections, while others strongly support skewing prize money in favour of top sections. Fine. My view is that (just like the question of whether domestic tournaments should be FIDE-rated) some tournaments should go one way and some should go the other - give chess players a variety of tournaments, and see which ones succeed and which don't. Personally, I think venue and timing count for more than prize-money distribution, but I don't mind if other people disagree.

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

To add to Stuart's examples:

You have the following volunteers with zero renumeration in most regions:

League Secretaries
Arbiters
Area Graders
Tournament Organisers
Teachers in schools
Management committies
and many many more...

As Stuart suggests all of these people are volunteers and receive no renumeration. They make a valuable contribution to chess and it annoys me that they end up being forgotten in the national debate.
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

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

For all those believing in equality & mediocrity in chess, please take your eyes of the rest of my bit! For everyone else:
I believe that chess sco is in dire straights with very little money. But we, the players have some! So, I suggest we all get together & contribute some money in order to increase the prize money in at least one sco event. Alex was suggesting £ 500 for a top section. Given that the tournament directors already give ~ £ 200, we'd only need to collect £ 300 ! That means 30 of us give £ 10 !
In 96 Sco was even worse of & we had to pay our own travelling expenses to the Olympiad. But when we came back, someone had collected money from members to reimburse us, which I thought was very sweet.
But I believe it's even more important to entice titled players to come to Scotland.
_________________
''All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.'' Voltaire

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

I have to say the prize distribution at the EOS never bothered me, as the amounts are as you say quite small. I have always felt that the event offered value for money, it is timed right and the venue is good.

As for Sigrun's idea, the money you are talking about will have no benefit to chess as a whole, but if you want to write a cheque for 300 pounds? Smile

One event will not be enough on it's own to get playing playing harder. I am sure that the rest of us have other more pressing bills to pay. lol

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

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

Phil, many thanks for helping support my point!

Have you been taking lessons from someone? Wink

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

Daniel Rocks · Posted: Sun May 08, 2011 11:43 pm Post subject: Seriously???

Couldn't resist.

I cannot see why some people are so opposed to higher sections reaping higher prizes? There are few players in Scotland for whom prize money should even be an issue (I'm talking about the few GMs and IMs who periodically improve our tournaments).

How can you seriously suggest a 1200 (who wins their section after gobbling up en-prise piece after en-prise piece) should receive the same reward as Mr.2300 whose impressive move 10 novelty allows him to convert an advantage against a GM?

It is quite comical to suggest that equal prizes across section is unfair for weaker players. If anything it is actually unfair for players who are far too highly graded to enter a grade-banded section, while at the same time not realistically challenging for a prize in the Open. What you get is a situation where it makes more economic sense to be 1100-1300 than 1900-2100.

The reason for grade-capping sections is to stop weaker players from losing games quickly and easily and having an overall joyless weekend and poor experience. If it was all big one section then your Minor and Major regulars would be categorically blown off the board and score sub-50% scores. Like has been pointed out, if there is no incentive to get better, why don't I just sandbag my rating and go and scoop some money in minors and majors where said prize money would apparently be as equally well deserved as an impressive performance in an Open? Apart from the fact that Open sections produce high quality games of chess, (occasionally) Fide-rated games, games in chessbase, potentially attract foreign players to our bigger events and provide an element of prestige (Nobody would want a sub-2200 Scottish champion now would they?).

Baring in mind that your entry fee should first and foremost be seen as paying for the experience and atmosphere which comes through using a venue's facilities and being able to enjoy 15 hours of chess, you should think rationally when arguing that a 1650 performance should be so handsomely rewarded as a 2500 performance. "

Like everything in life, better quality of performance reaps better rewards. You wouldn't suggest Arbroath should receive the same rewards as the Old Firm for winning their respective football division. Like others have pointed out, if financial aspects is really a priority, just put in the huge amount of time and effort that others would need to in order to gradually move up sections in tournaments and inevitably earn that extra £100, 800 grading points later.

One final point. I do agree that volunteers (Arbiters, League Organisers etc) are the ones most deserving of any rewards as without these people the events would not run at all. My post focuses solely on the playing aspect of things.
_________________
Daniel Rocks

Derek Howie · Bishop Joined: 21 May 2010 Posts: 28 Location: Glasgow

The argument that "I'm a better chess player than you so you should be be subsiding my prize money" is one that would make me think twice about entering a congress.

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

Personally I don't have an issue with the principal of higher prize money in the top section. But when there is a low entry and prize money in the open greatly exceeds entry fees for that section then we've clearly got the sums wrong

However to run an annual economically viable tournament it is more important to keep the minor players happy than it is to keep the open players happy. There is more of them and that makes them more important. Only high level of sponsorship can change that fact.

Tournament controlers in general feel much more successful when they get titled players competing. These guys work ward for too little (delivered) appreciation. I suspect that many players in the open section want to compete against titled players but I very much doubt if many of the players in minors care about the strength of the strongest payers in the open. Personally I don't like the practice of paying appearance fees to get GM participation. I know its standard practice in other parts of the world when tournament directors have suitably big budgets but it doesn't encourage me to enter. Actually it has the opposite effect upon me, I have ceased to enter this type of event.

Geoff Chandler · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 1:07 pm Post subject:

This is political correctness gone potty.

Some players are not as good as the others players.
Never mind we will make their prize money the same
as the good players. No, why not make it higher?

That's a great incentive for self improvement.

I work 4 hours a week, my mate works 36 hours a week,
We do the same job so therfore we should get the same wage. Confused

The reason why the prize money at the lower tournaments
is kept to a minimum is so the genuine players meet players
of their own strength and ability.

The gullible ones who think these minor tournaments will not
be infested with sandbaggers from here, across the border
and Northern Europe. Are just that. Gullible.

You would be doing a great mis-service to the core of players
who support and play in these minor's and majors.
The real backbone of Scottish chess.

Their tournaments will be flooded with sharks, they
won't stand a chance. Infact their only hope would
be to enter the Open and scrounge a grading prize.

And the lads who say they don't care about the stronger tournaments
will suddenly find they do care, because they will be in one
everytime they enter a minor tournament.

They may even give up (what's the point?) and without the under 1600's
players who keep Scottish Chess running everything would grind down.

And don't say it won't happen, because it will.

Hell, I still have one or two scruples left, but I'd come of retirment,
shed loads of grading points by losing all my games in a club championship
and cheapo all your asses for 5 games and £500. Smile

Personally I'd like to see the entrance fees lowered in the
minors and majors and free for first time tournament entrants.
But whilst playing venues are so expensive this is not going to happen.

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

Wow, I can only assume that we have some agent provocateurs in the other camp, and I haven't been told about them. Indeed, I'm almost tempted to just feed out a wee bit more rope and leave it there - might find a troll on the end of the noose................

I simply do no believe that we would be subject to a deluge of people trying to take advantage. I do not believe that many people are prepared to go to the bother of losing games on purpose at club and league level, then spend a whole weekend playing their best chess to win a bit of prize money. Even putting aside the waste of time and effort involved, what would make it economically viable once travel costs and accommodation were factored in? People can do that now if they really want to. They'd be spotted. They'd only get away with it once. If there were dozens of them, then only one would get the prize.

It is true that in many competitive activities, the best players are given the highest rewards. This is because they attract large audiences, sponsorship and television deals. To use this argument with chess seems very weak to me - why on earth should players in the minors and majors subsidise players in the open?

The arguments being put forward here (Daniel's and Geoff's being the most recent) are so weak and selfish and narrow, that I can only assume they are plants. Wink

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

Geoff, I look forward to all those with fins on their back at Prestwick this weekend. Razz

I also find some other extracts of your statement tenuous to say the very least. The idea that someone would deliberately lower their grade or keep their grade low baffles me. The only parts I agreed with was lower entry fees for the lower tournaments and also free entry to new players.

Also the L'Oreal defense seems to keep reappearing "because they are worth it" in relation to Open players. Wink

For me this debate is three pronged (I note that most are dodging the issue of the number of entrants related to prize money):

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?

The third point is the crucial one and next season I will be picking and choosing my tournaments based on these questions. If a tournament does not fulfill these then I will not be playing in it until the status quo is changed.

As a point of clarification if an Open is exclusively sponsored I have no issue with it having higher prize money but I resent the current redistribution from the lower sections to the higher sections. Fundamentally its not fair. (No-one dare say life isn't fair or else! Twisted Evil

)
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

johnmcbride · Queen Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 94

Stuart you beat me to it.

Travelling from some distance away, entering, petrol, subsistence and hotel cost would be in excess of 150. Potential level prize money maybe 2-250. Even when you are better than most people in your section this does not guarantee will win every game. For someone to make money they would have to be sure they would win every game, in which case their grade would go up and people would get to know them.

As has already been stated, congress organisers can do what they want. Players are motivated by different things and you cannot please all the people all of the time. It is my personal decision not to support massive cross subsidisation, although I do support more money for better players if it is sponsored. I just don't see why the many have to support the few.

Daniel Rocks · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 5:17 pm Post subject: