If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Hart House had $400 prizes for the winner of each of the U2200, U1900, and U1600 sections and $1200 for the winner of the Open, a 1 to 3 ratio which is by no means unreasonable, albeit I'd likely lean a little more towards Hugh's line of reasoning and reduce that number to maybe 1 to 2. Making the Open Section more top heavy in prize distribution would likely be self-defeating, imho. Those Class C & D players might just start staying away in droves if they had no opportunity for prize money and then where does the money come from for your elite players?
It's not just that it was a 1 to 3 ratio (which is absolutely fine), it's that my section was double the size and thus more competitive from the viewpoint that a higher score was required to win a prize. You needed +3 in my section to do so, only +2 in the top.
You raise an interesting point, sure there is a top-down effect, top players entice players just below them who attract players just below them etc.. etc.. But bottom-up is where the money is coming from! Maybe we should go on strike! Then see how their prize money looks then bwahaha! ;)
If the U2200 was raised up to say $600 that's still not even close to making a living off chess. In fact if you didn't live in the area and stayed in a hotel you'd be lucky to have made any money at all by the end of it. Of course i agree that the open section should have a large prize fund, but saying that amateur players shouldn't be able to make a living off of chess as a reason not to increase the prize fund for their sections is ridiculous because it's impossible to make a living off of chess in Canada unless you're a coach.
THIS
Where's the like button, I'm having a hard time finding the like button, can we add a like button on here administrator?
Last edited by Hugh Siddeley; Tuesday, 23rd December, 2014, 04:27 PM.
One last thing I'd like to add is that I asked Alex last Monday at the Annex if I could pay an amateur fee, of say $20 or $30 to play, but not be eligible for prizes (they used to have this option when I first started playing tournaments in Toronto). Anyway, he said it was too late to think about having that option, which was totally understandable but I thought I'd ask. So you see I really do not think about wanting to make a living at weekenders, Bindi.
But as a player who always pays top dollar to enter ($70 in this case), when half the players are getting a $20 discount for this reason or the other, I DO want a reasonable chance of winning my entry fee back or just a little something if I score 70%.
Last edited by Hugh Siddeley; Wednesday, 24th December, 2014, 05:58 AM.
OK, I lied, this is the last thing. If you get to beat Tyler Longo you should definitely get something because that's not easy to do. For while I prepared for his Colle in round 4, he probably saw in the database Villalobos-Siddeley, Scarborough Chess Club Championship round 4 from March 26, 2009, which began 1. a3 c5 and finished 1/2-1/2 after an interesting game. But after Tyler eschewed 1. a3, I found an improvement, 1..d5!, which discourages 2. b4 as happened in the Villalobos game.
Last edited by Hugh Siddeley; Tuesday, 23rd December, 2014, 04:18 PM.
[QUOTE=Hugh Siddeley;90470 You raise an interesting point, sure there is a top-down effect, top players entice players just below them who attract players just below them etc.. etc.. But bottom-up is where the money is coming from! Maybe we should go on strike! Then see how their prize money looks then bwahaha! ;)[/QUOTE]
You can't strike now, Hugh. Zehn (as well as Jonathan and likely David too if they'd waive that damn $20 fee for a National Master) are now out of your section. You're one of the morning line favourites in the U2200 for the upcoming Reading Week Open come February (:
I kinda agree with Hugh, it's kinda annoying to have to play in such large sections for such low funds (compared to the open, especially with the knowledge that your money is funding the open) but i'm sure there is a good solution. If you give the lower sections more money, your taking it out of the open's fund. With a lower fund less top player's will come and that could discourage some of the other players (that are around 2200+) to come. If you create more sections, say a U1200, a U1700, a U2000, a U2200, and the open all of a sudden you have to come up with another $1000 for the U1200, though i don't think it would be such a bad idea to add a U1200 even if there was a really low prize fund for that section 54 players is a bit too many for one section, i mean the fact that 4/5 is only enough to get a tie for third is proof to the fact that the section is just too big. Also a lot of players played up, and if they decided not to it would take 5/5 to get a tie for first and even then probably a few players would have 5/5 which would just be ridiculous. However with more sections you could decrease the prize fund to $300 for first, $200 for second, and $100 for third. This would partially address the complaint that Hugh has because then there is less players and a decent chance for a prize, and the open would still have a large prize. That said i really enjoyed playing in the tournament, and I thought that the organizers did a good job, and if i can I'll come back in February.
Tangentially, the question might be posed what happened to those larger prize funds? When Zehn (then a 1772 12-year-old) and Pi (then a 1680 15-year-old) finished joint 1st in the U2000 Section of the 2011 Labour Day Open, they EACH received $725. Zehn's joint 1st finish with Jonathan Yu in the U2200 Section of this tournament garnered him $350, less than 1/2 the amount from 39 months ago ):
OK, I lied, this is the last thing. If you get to beat Tyler Longo you should definitely get something because that's not easy to do. For while I prepared for his Colle in round 4, he probably saw in the database Villalobos-Siddeley, Scarborough Chess Club Championship round 4 from March 26, 2009, which began 1. a3 c5 and finished 1/2-1/2 after an interesting game. But after Tyler eschewed 1. a3, I found an improvement, 1..d5!, which discourages 2. b4 as happened in the Villalobos game.
You flatter me haha. From my perspective, the tournament was already a write-off (I had 0 chance at winning a prize), and I just waned to play something interesting and ignore all the prep I was sure you were doing. I think our game was pretty interesting even if I wasn't thrilled with the result :)
I've organized several of the Hart House tournaments myself and I've often wondered what the optimal prize fund/ entry fee structure would be, so I'm glad to see this issue was raised by Hugh. There are several different models in the GTA and I think this is a good thing since it gives variety and brings out different demographics of players. There's no solution that satisfies everyone but I personally think it's more desirable for the prizes to reflect merit and playing quality rather than the number of players in the section. At the extremes, sandbagging can be solved by having one big section (or all prize money given out in the open) and at the other extreme the "subsidizing problem" could be solved by having the same prize in all sections or having prizes proportional to number of players. Neither seems like a great business model. There are several things IMO that make an ideal prize fund structure, both in terms of maximizing player turn out, and satisfying the vast majority of players:
1) players should have some chance of finishing in the prize money OR have the option to pay less and be ineligible for prizes
2) the tougher the section the larger the prizes
3) players should have the option to pay to "play up" (CHOOSING to subsidize the higher section in exchange for experience and improvement)
The idea of an amateur entry fee makes some sense in theory but in practice it seems like a logistical nightmare to give a separate entry fee option and keep track of who is eligible for prizes and and who isn't. Although I'd be interested to know if it would bring in more players to tournaments who couldn't otherwise afford it. As for #2, I've always been very surprised this isn't standard in all tournaments. A tiered prize structure with higher prizes for higher sections provides incentive to improve and is a natural way to discourage sandbagging. It also seems more "fair" to reward players not just for winning in an arbitrarily chosen rating section but to reward them for improving and playing at a higher level.
I also think there SHOULD be a significant jump in prize fund from the top class section (ie u2200) to the open section. The open section is not an arbitrary rating bracket. It is the best of the best. They serve as an inspiration and a reminder of the rewards of hard work and dedication. I also don't think "subsidizing" is the proper word for it. When you pay the entry fee to the organizer, that money is now theirs! The organizer chooses to allot the prize fund however they choose.
3) players should have the option to pay to "play up" (CHOOSING to subsidize the higher section in exchange for experience and improvement)
The idea of an amateur entry fee .....
I recently played in the Washington Class tournament. Sections were every 200 points and people could play up one section only ($25 plus higher sections were more expensive anyway) and juniors could play for a medal only for a reduced EF.
So, the "expert" section had 17 people in it of which 2 were actually experts (the rest being A players) and only 3 paid the full entry fee to be eligible for prizes. (not sure how many prizes but more than one).
The last time I played in this event, I played in the expert section but got mostly A players under a similar scenario - so this time, like all of the other experts who want to play other experts, played up to the master section.
The theory that was floated by me was that all the coaches of these A class juniors tell them to play up a section as it will be "good for them". But the theory only works if the chess world is not mostly full of juniors who all play up a section.
Tangentially, the question might be posed what happened to those larger prize funds? When Zehn (then a 1772 12-year-old) and Pi (then a 1680 15-year-old) finished joint 1st in the U2000 Section of the 2011 Labour Day Open, they EACH received $725. Zehn's joint 1st finish with Jonathan Yu in the U2200 Section of this tournament garnered him $350, less than 1/2 the amount from 39 months ago ):
They EACH received $725?? Wow, that's pretty impressive for a section with 45 players in it. Are you sure they didn't split $725? I've never seen 1st and 2nd equaling $1,450 in a class section before! At least in this neck of the woods.
If you'd like more lower class players to subsidize the upper sections then set an entry fee that allows more lower class players to come out.
Setting a fee at $70 may bring out 50 players but I'm sure a $50 fee would bring out 75-80. It's all a numbers game though.
To me the lower class prizes are too high but based on a high entry fee ,I guess they are reasonable.
When I started playing tournament chess in 1973, there were graduated entry fees and three sections Premier, Intermediate and Novice. Yes I'm sure the post Fischer boom
brought out more players but chess was more affordable then and you just wanted to play and enjoy chess. You did not care about the prize fund and even if you won last prize it gave you at least your entry fee back .
What happened was the new class prizes created a breed of sandbaggers and it was never shut down. Prizes got higher and more players sandbagged.
I'd really like to hear truthfully from those players who no longer come out to tournaments giving their reasons. Maybe give some feedback into what has changed to stop them from playing in tournaments. I'm sure some of this feedback would help tournament directors and organizers try to create a better chess playing venue.
Last edited by John Brown; Wednesday, 24th December, 2014, 06:20 AM.
Reason: changes typos
You can't strike now, Hugh. Zehn (as well as Jonathan and likely David too if they'd waive that damn $20 fee for a National Master) are now out of your section. You're one of the morning line favourites in the U2200 for the upcoming Reading Week Open come February (:
Damn, I better learn something about rook endings then :p
They EACH received $725?? Wow, that's pretty impressive for a section with 45 players in it. Are you sure they didn't split $725? I've never seen 1st and 2nd equaling $1,450 in a class section before! At least in this neck of the woods.
It's right here in black and white, Hugh. And you're rather familiar with the venue (:
Poker tournaments have a variety of entry fees. You aren't likely to see Phil Ivey (a very rich, successful poker player) sign up to play a tournament with an EF of $20, for example, though he certainly could if he wanted to.
It's why imo tournaments should be divided into sections by EF, not by rating. All monies from each section (minus that section's share of expenses) should go the prizes for that section only. So, you might have sections with EF: $100, $50, $25. Let's assume expenses per person (site, TD fees, rating fees, etc.) are $20/person. If each section had 30 players, the prize funds per section would be 30 x ($100-$20) = $2400, 30 x ($50 - $20) = $900, 30 x ($25 - $20) = $150, with say three place prizes in each section. A 2500 might enter the lowest EF section, and probably would have an almost 100% chance of winning that section. He wouldn't win much for the effort, though, and probably his average game wouldn't be very interesting. A 1200 could play in the highest EF section and would probably go 0-5, but can compete for the largest prizes.
That is an excellent idea! Dividing sections by EF, and just as you proposed.
I don't think the "top" players would really like this format though, because when they play under the current format they are playing the best players (what they want) AND receiving the best prizes (very obviously what they want). They wouldn't have the best of both worlds with dividing sections by EF.
But I would very much like to see a chess tournament with this format. It's worth a shot!
Tweet
Comment