Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

    I think this organizer is very weak. He doesn't understand what "open section" means.

    Go to http://www.chesstour.com/getmost.html
    Open Section: A section open to all.

    Also take a look at https://www.vegaschessfestival.com/national-open/
    Sections & Eligibility

    Open (Championship) Under 1900 Under 1300 with separate under 1000 prize
    Under 2300 Under 1700 Beginners: unrated & under 1000 allowed
    Under 2100 Under 1500

    Open section is open to all players. Under sections are open only to players with ratings lower than the section limit. Players with provisional ratings (based on 25 games or fewer) may not win more than 40% of the top prize in any under section of the National Open; the balance of the prize goes to next players in line.

  • #2
    Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

    Originally posted by Denis Gauthier View Post
    I think this organizer is very weak. He doesn't understand what "open section" means.

    Go to http://www.chesstour.com/getmost.html
    Open Section: A section open to all.

    Also take a look at https://www.vegaschessfestival.com/national-open/
    Sections & Eligibility

    Open (Championship) Under 1900 Under 1300 with separate under 1000 prize
    Under 2300 Under 1700 Beginners: unrated & under 1000 allowed
    Under 2100 Under 1500

    Open section is open to all players. Under sections are open only to players with ratings lower than the section limit. Players with provisional ratings (based on 25 games or fewer) may not win more than 40% of the top prize in any under section of the National Open; the balance of the prize goes to next players in line.
    Hi Denis:

    I believe you are right.

    If a section prohibits any rating from playing, then the section ought not to be labelled "Open".

    For example, at Annex CC in Toronto, Ontario, the top section in their swisses is called "Crown". This is because there is a floor to the section. Players rated below this floor are ineligible.

    At Scarborough Chess Club in Toronto, the top section is labelled "1800 +". There is (No longer) any playing up option. So all players rated under 1800 are ineligible for the section.

    It would be wrong to label either of these sections "The Open Section".

    I believe Aurora is indeed using inaccurate language here in naming their top section for the Spring Open.

    If, as Denis says, it is a true "Open" top section, then there would be no rating floor, below which one is ineligible for the section.

    Bob A
    Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Tuesday, 23rd January, 2018, 10:04 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

      Thank you, Don Quixote.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

        Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
        Hi Denis:

        I believe you are right.

        If a section prohibits any rating from playing, then the section ought not to be labelled "Open".

        For example, at Annex CC in Toronto, Ontario, the top section in their swisses is called "Crown". This is because there is a floor to the section. Players rated below this floor are ineligible.

        At Scarborough Chess Club in Toronto, the top section is labelled "1800 +". There is (No longer) any playing up option. So all players rated under 1800 are ineligible for the section.

        It would be wrong to label either of these sections "The Open Section".

        I believe Aurora is indeed using inaccurate language here in naming their top section for the Spring Open.

        If, as Denis says, it is a true "Open" top section, then there would be no rating floor, below which one is ineligible for the section.

        Bob A
        Would you consider a tournament where anyone is eligible but the EF depending on rating has a wide distribution to be Open?
        "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

          Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
          Would you consider a tournament where anyone is eligible but the EF depending on rating has a wide distribution to be Open?
          Hi Tom:

          I am open (!!) to that......in fact, I think it is fair that weaker players pay more in the top section for the privilege of playing much stronger players (Fee according to rating). That is why I have no problem with the playing up fee......and I play up whenever I can (Into the section just above), and I am most willing to pay a premium to play against players I otherwise would not get to face.

          Bob A

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

            Originally posted by Denis Gauthier View Post
            I think this organizer is very weak. He doesn't understand what "open section" means.

            Go to http://www.chesstour.com/getmost.html
            Open Section: A section open to all.

            Also take a look at https://www.vegaschessfestival.com/national-open/
            Sections & Eligibility

            Open (Championship) Under 1900 Under 1300 with separate under 1000 prize
            Under 2300 Under 1700 Beginners: unrated & under 1000 allowed
            Under 2100 Under 1500

            Open section is open to all players. Under sections are open only to players with ratings lower than the section limit. Players with provisional ratings (based on 25 games or fewer) may not win more than 40% of the top prize in any under section of the National Open; the balance of the prize goes to next players in line.
            Speaking from personal experience, it is hard to not refer to the 'top' section as 'Open'. I try to always refer to my top section as 'Premier' whether rating restricted or not but sometimes somebody somewhere will refer to it as 'Open' even though, technically, it's not.

            On the other hand, we all know what is meant by the tournament announcement in your post. So, if you are into pedantry and precision, by all means point out the linguistic inaccuracy. But please refrain from the personal insults and aspersions on the competence of the organizer.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

              Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
              Speaking from personal experience, it is hard to not refer to the 'top' section as 'Open'. I try to always refer to my top section as 'Premier' whether rating restricted or not but sometimes somebody somewhere will refer to it as 'Open' even though, technically, it's not.

              On the other hand, we all know what is meant by the tournament announcement in your post. So, if you are into pedantry and precision, by all means point out the linguistic inaccuracy. But please refrain from the personal insults and aspersions on the competence of the organizer.
              You understand my point. I'm not against restrictions inside a section. If so, label it : premier, championship, A section but not open. Open means open to all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                Originally posted by Denis Gauthier View Post
                I think this organizer is very weak. He doesn't understand what "open section" means.

                Go to http://www.chesstour.com/getmost.html
                Open Section: A section open to all.

                Also take a look at https://www.vegaschessfestival.com/national-open/
                Sections & Eligibility

                Open (Championship) Under 1900 Under 1300 with separate under 1000 prize
                Under 2300 Under 1700 Beginners: unrated & under 1000 allowed
                Under 2100 Under 1500

                Open section is open to all players. Under sections are open only to players with ratings lower than the section limit. Players with provisional ratings (based on 25 games or fewer) may not win more than 40% of the top prize in any under section of the National Open; the balance of the prize goes to next players in line.
                Hi Denis,

                It seems a bit strong to judge an organizer's character based on a choice of label for the tournament sections. I haven't yet had a chance to participate in a tournament in Aurora, but I've heard some very positive things and it's still on my list of tournaments I want to play in it. The Aurora team must be doings some things right.

                As for the label, I agree with you.
                Traditionally, not that long ago, the top section would be labelled Open Section. Players would generally know their place and play in their own section, so having the occasional player play up wasn't such a big deal. Times have changed... now everyone thinks they're a grandmaster. There are also some youths who are pushed by their parents or coaches (or push themselves) to play up and hope to rise to the challenge or learn some tough lessons.
                Some organizers adopted an alternative name to their sections, as someone mentioned above. Top Guns, Crown, putting a + sign next to a rating floor.
                The tournament should still be called the Aurora Open, as the tournament itself is open to anyone. A much superior label for the highest section would certainly be better than "open". But realistically, organizers also rename this section to avoid the hassle of having to explain that there is a rating floor, or dealing with posts like these.
                You are right and agree with you that an alternative label would be better for the top section. But at the end of the day, it's just a label.


                Alex F.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                  We could Just stop calling tournaments "opens" and just call them what they are tournaments. ie The Aurora Tournament, The Hart House Winter tournament, The Niagara Falls Tournament. The Guelph Pro - Am Tournament
                  Substitute the word "Open" for Tournament.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                    Call the whole tournament "Open" and label the sections as "A", "B", "C", etc. - defining the rating range of each group in the publicity.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                      Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post
                      Call the whole tournament "Open" and label the sections as "A", "B", "C", etc. - defining the rating range of each group in the publicity.
                      Hi Hugh:

                      I agree that the tournament itself should be labelled "Open" when it is not a "closed" event.

                      I don't have a problem though with trying to spice up the top section by labelling it Premier or Crown or Championship ("A" is pretty drab from a marketing point of view).

                      Bob A

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                        Originally posted by Tom O'Donnell View Post
                        Would you consider a tournament where anyone is eligible but the EF depending on rating has a wide distribution to be Open?
                        Unfortunately I could not retrieve a proposed EF structure for one year tournament from the file revision. In principle it was progressing higher and higher for lower ratings (+$20, +$50, and don't recall). Though it was shot down as not in the best interest for the tournament.

                        While the lower rated players eager to play with much higher rated players, however, much higher rated players do not want to play against much lower rated players. With only five rounds and too many players, the top players might even not play against each other.

                        The current up-fee ($30) is also deliberately made higher to discourage playing up.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                          Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                          Unfortunately I could not retrieve a proposed EF structure for one year tournament from the file revision. In principle it was progressing higher and higher for lower ratings (+$20, +$50, and don't recall). Though it was shot down as not in the best interest for the tournament.

                          While the lower rated players eager to play with much higher rated players, however, much higher rated players do not want to play against much lower rated players. With only five rounds and too many players, the top players might even not play against each other.

                          The current up-fee ($30) is also deliberately made higher to discourage playing up.

                          I agree with making the cutoff fee much higher to discourage it.

                          My opinion is that a tournament is Open if anyone can play in it even if you have a steeply sliding scale. I assume not many players will complain if a lower-rated player is paying many multiples of the EF in order to play. So, for example, if a 1300 wants to play in an event with an EF of $50 for 2000+, I would still consider it an Open event if that player had to pay $250 to enter the "Open" section.
                          "Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                            Originally posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
                            The current up-fee ($30) is also deliberately made higher to discourage playing up.
                            our experience is that $30 has no noticeable affect on the willingness of players to play up. About 75% of those eligible (within 200 points) to play up do so. We have moved to $40 and will see how that goes.

                            Recently, I played in the Washington Class tournament for which the play up fee (up one section) was $60 US and substantial numbers of people paid that fee.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Egidijus Zeromskis : problem

                              Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                              our experience is that $30 has no noticeable affect on the willingness of players to play up. About 75% of those eligible (within 200 points) to play up do so. We have moved to $40 and will see how that goes.

                              Recently, I played in the Washington Class tournament for which the play up fee (up one section) was $60 US and substantial numbers of people paid that fee.
                              Hi Roger:

                              What I think is most important to keep the top section eligible players onside, is a transparent accounting that the "Playing Up" Fees are clearly being added to the top section prizes, not going into the organizers "profit".

                              Bob A

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X