Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

Thanks Tony. Yes! it was the World Open.
Have a look at these U1600 results and prize money:

http://www.chesstournamentservices.c...-1600-section/

the winner of the U1600 section got the same monetary prize as GM Joshua Friedel who was alone in 2nd place in the Open section:

http://www.chesstournamentservices.c...-open-section/


3 people tied in the U1300 section and each got $1127.34

(the links to all the results are on this page: http://www.philadelphiaopen.net/ )


No wonder there is a lot of emphasis on anti-sandbagging measures in the USCF.
I am all for better prizes in general of course, but seriously??

[Tony Li]

Re: Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

I cannot recall which tournament exactly, but a recent US Open? tournament featured what I thought were 'massive' prizes for lower rated sections like U1800 or U1600.
I wish I could find that now, but I remember being astounded that the winner of the U1600 section (I think) won much more than several of the GMs who tied for 2nd place.

To me that is just ridiculous. That is also why I am working on getting my rating as low as possible - yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;) Just kidding.

Even the business of allowing 'playing up' seems wrong to me - set the sections and the rating requirements and stick to them. Of course, it is a bit of a zoo when there are FQE, CFC, USCF, FIDE and even providional ratings to consider and a pecking order that has to be enforced to decide which rating is pre-emptive.

I believe you are thinking of the World Open.

Personally, here is what is stopping me from playing more tournaments:

- Dearth of 1-day tournaments. There seems to be a saying "Active chess is not real chess". But it's difficult to free up time to play in a weekender. And perhaps the trade-off is quickish tournaments. With 5 rounds a day, 45 5 is feasible.
- Same sections, same opponents. The majority of tournaments that run 2-3 times a year have the same sections for each edition. I look at the Ottawa tournaments with the section overlaps as a good model. One can play in the lower section after a busy summer, and in the higher section after practising on internet all winter.
- Swiss grind. There is only one tournament that I get really excited about - the KW Team tournament - because of its different format. Perhaps there is room for knockouts?

Probably none of the above applies to the serious chess player in the open section but it could certainly help keep borderline players like myself.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

I cannot recall which tournament exactly, but a recent US Open? tournament featured what I thought were 'massive' prizes for lower rated sections like U1800 or U1600.
I wish I could find that now, but I remember being astounded that the winner of the U1600 section (I think) won much more than several of the GMs who tied for 2nd place.

To me that is just ridiculous. That is also why I am working on getting my rating as low as possible - yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;) Just kidding.

Even the business of allowing 'playing up' seems wrong to me - set the sections and the rating requirements and stick to them. Of course, it is a bit of a zoo when there are FQE, CFC, USCF, FIDE and even providional ratings to consider and a pecking order that has to be enforced to decide which rating is pre-emptive.

[Alex Ferreira]

Re: Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

Hi John,


Maybe in your case, the prize fund is an issue. However I think Walter & Bob probably represent more accurately the adult pool when it comes to prize funds (I am in their pool). Most (older?) adults don't like to play against children for different reasons (losing points to possibly underrated kids, some kids can be... well kids, ego crusher, etc... ).

Personally as a player I couldn't care less about prize fund.
John, you're weak. So am I. We are weak chess players. Maybe I am being elitist but I am of the opinion that players below IM level (IMs & GMs being strong chess players) have no business trying to make money from (playing) chess. There seems to be heaps of money in teaching though. If our goal is to make money, we really should be doing something else (like working minimum wage anywhere, would already net more than a class prize most of the times, and would be guaranteed money). Chess is a game, a hobby, a passion, or at least that's how it started for just about everyone, even for those who eventually became professionals and may now have an added dimension to it. I don't agree with promoting mediocrity by bumping up prizes for lower classes (which would even include a U2400 in my personal opinion). They do this in some tournaments in USA and it causes a ton of problems. Winning a modest symbolic prize in a below-top class section is a nice bonus, but not something to strive for to my mind. One of my favourite tournament formats is the model adopted (developed?) in Guelph. Money prizes in top section, trophies in class sections, free coffee/tea and snacks for everyone.


Alex F.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

FWIW, the structure of the prize funds in lower sections has had no impact on my decisions on when/where to play.

I have to agree with Walter.

Prize fund distribution has nothing to do with my decisions when/where to play, or whether to play up or not.

Bob A

[Walter De Jong]

Re: Entry Fees and Prize Funds in lower sections

I have thought about why older adults do not want to come out and play low rated Juniors in lower sections.

Although playing lots of (knee-high, underrated) juniors has not yet deterred me from playing in lower sections, in part because I feel some responsibility to let kids thump me just like I once thumped adults when I was a kid, I do prefer playing adults. Chess, at least for me, is also a social activity, and the pre- and post-game interactions with an adult opponent are much more satisfying.

I was somewhat envious last week when I saw that Kitchener was hosting over-50 and over-65 events. I wish there were more events like those. And that Kitchener wasn't such a long drive :)

FWIW, the structure of the prize funds in lower sections has had no impact on my decisions on when/where to play.

[John Brown]

I have thought about why older adults do not want to come out and play low rated Juniors in lower sections.

I know that Juniors ,women and Seniors 60 usually get a discount to play.

I also have seen an increased number of juniors winning the lower sections.

I suggest that if the juniors are getting a discount then they should either get a discounted prize fund
or play with their entries less any TD deductions.
The adults in U2000 and lower sections would also play with their entries and their prize fund would be similar.

I'll use $100 entry and discounted $80 entry for an example.

Usually U 1600 Prize fund is around $700.
With the divided prize funds Adults could have $200,100,50 Juniors $160,80,30 Top Senior $60
Top woman $60 or you could bump up Prize fund so you get money back if you win Top Senior or Woman. I do not believe that anyone in an under 1600 section is good enough to win a Big prize of $400 for first. You spread out the prizes to more and give anyone an opportunity to win something and your numbers should go up. It is only a theory as you have to try it once to see if the results are justified.
There would also be a top senior prize and a top woman's prize in the other sections.

Now the adults and the juniors can play in the same lower section but there would be two prize fund structures. One for the top juniors and one for the top adults.
This way the adults and juniors are playing for their own prizes and joining in pairings. So even if you lose to a junior or adult you still have a chance at a prize in your own age group.

The Open or over 2000 sections would not use this system of prize structure as juniors with higher ratings deserve the big money they have shown their worth.

I think this may attract some adults who have given up O.T.B. competition because of the increased numbers of lower/underrated juniors.