Chess Scotland Noticeboard

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

@ Mike
Why does it matter how many players are eligible to play in an event?
I don't understand the point.

Surely the important point is how many players actually enter an event, because this is what determines the money generated by that event through entry fees. This is the very reason that is causing some people to see it as unfair. It's that simple, some people think it's unfair.

Is your logic not tantamount to saying - all you lower-graded players, as well as subsidising the prizes in the Open, why don't you help out the Open even more by not bother playing in a section where you may have a chance of winning a prize to enter the Open where you have no chance?

Now then, some people do decide to play in sections where they won't have much chance of winning. That's fine, that's an individual choice. However, this is not the same as whole lower sections being obliged/forced to subsidise the Opens

[/b]

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

Pat to clarify, I have never suggested anyone enters a tournament because of prize money. I have stated on several occasions it is naive to think players would.

In fact it is those against equal prize money/prize money determined on number of entries who suggest this is the case suggesting players would deliberately keep their grades down to hoover up the money.

Edit: I'll leave this debate to the poll now as my fingers are getting tired. Crying or Very sad

_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

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

I suggest that most players are like me. They enter the section that they anticipate will produce the most enjoyable games. They would quite happily pay to enter if there was zero prize money on offer.

So why do prizes exist? So that the tournament controllers have people hanging around after the last game finishes willing and able to put away equipment, and rearrange the furniture as required.

Simples

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

Stuart

Daniel Rocks · Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 9:24 pm Post subject:

Spot on Mike, got it in a nutshell!
_________________
Daniel Rocks

Graeme Kafka · Rook Joined: 21 Feb 2007 Posts: 75

"OK juniors. Rule number one. Don't bother putting in the slightest bit of effort to genuinely improve your game. You'll earn twice as much and a lot more easily if you can manipulate your rating to stay at 1400 'cause there are heaps of folk at that sort of level."
- CS junior training day, c.a. 2020.

Wha's like us?

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

Well,well,well..remember me? Yes I am the guy way back at the top of page 2 that highlighted a truly abysmal prize fund compared to entries received. I confess to have been quite taken aback by the depth of feeling in both camps. First of all let me say that I have done particularly well in tournaments this season and also a couple of seasons ago. I will try to fend off any fin-like comments by saying there are good legitimate reasons for this, attitude probably being the main one. I simply love tournaments and regularly play abroad in events where I have next to no possible chance. Donald Wilson I feel has it about right prizemoney wise in the East of Scotland championship congress where the fund is split in a relatively fair manner. There are other congresses however where the fund split in my opinion is very unfair and I will continue not to enter them.

Robin.

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

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

@ Grame Kafka.

I don't see that your remarks are actually relevant to the debate - the point is that people see it as unfair that the other tournaments should subsidise the Opens.

Irrelevance aside, I'm not sure they are even logical.

Why mention earnings? Makes it sound like you think earning money should be the main reason for juniors to improve their chess. Also could imply you'd think it a good idea if if the lower-graded tournaments were subsidising the Opens so the hard-working juniors could earn money.

Again, this idea that players (juniors in particular) would a) want to keep their grades lower to earn money b) could win money by so doing is ridiculous. That myth has already been exploded several times and by several people on this forum - read the arguments against it and then, if you still disagree, put forward a reasoned argument - don't just keep repeating things without debating them.

@ Graeme, Mike, Daniel, etc.
The point is that it is seen as unfair by some people. If you disagree, fine. But come up with a reasoned argument. Don't try to personalise it, address the points. The only argument I can see so far is that you simply think that the rest of us should subsidise the Opens because the better players deserve this.

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

Stuart

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

What a strange choice I have.

I could post a respose and be a plant
Or I could do nothing and vegetate

robin moore · King Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 164

I am going to try and address an informal input by Graeme regarding juniors. My opinion is this.... Juniors have basically no interest in prize money, they simply want to improve and do well in tournaments where they meet like minded friends of a similar age from across the nation. Most keen juniors improve rapidly on the grading list then eventually come to a standstill. No juniors start out with a plan of winning money by donning a long-term diddy disguise. Most, if not all juniors wish to reach Open standard.

I am going to suggest this for entry fees across Scotland (allowing for grade)...

All juniors play for free in the bottom section of all tournaments if they are CS members.

They play for half adult price in the middle section minus CS deduction.

They pay adult price minus CS deduction in top section.

Robin.

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

That is definitely worth considering Robin.

You'd get my support. If anything I'd rather any surplus/redistribution/subsidising whatever guise we wish to give it went to Juniors.

A few points on this debate:
A lot of people have just resorted to scare mongering and citing extremes with no factual evidence to back it up on both sides. In my view this is unhelpful.

There have also been personal slights regarding player's tournament performances, unwillingness to play in Opens... For the second night in a row I have had someone suggest that I wouldn't be interested in playing in a FIDE rated swiss as there was no Minor or Major (tonight in person no less!). That's not my opinion or preference but the saber rattling on here has obviously given people that impression.

I have no interest in posting on this thread anymore but I wish people would read posts thoroughly and not blindly assume they know someones position. Interact with fact, assume with caution! Check for understanding don't resort to facetious comments that don't actually reflect the person's opinion.
_________________
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!

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

@Mike
What I meant by not personalising, was things like suggesting people were playing certain ways/entering certain tournaments because of grade/fear type factors. Perhaps 'individualising' might have been a better way of putting it? Doing this, in my view, does nothing for a debate. The 'troll'remarks were only intended to jokingly refer to what I perceived as the weaknesses of the other arguments - if they were personal or misplaced, then I apologise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure that, if that any 'extra' money generated through entry fees was given over to encouraging juniors to enter, then that would be supported by many people.

At the very least, this debate has provided plenty food for thought..........

HughBrechin · Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 11:18 am Post subject: