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.
BAHAHAHA ohhhh yeeeeaaaahhhh!!!! You probably didn't know I was one of the organizers of that event. And having LARGE class prizes was one of our initiatives. Yakos Spiliotopoulos, a co-organizer, was very adamant about this prize format, and I was 111% in favour of it as well.
My first CFC tournament, the 1997 Toronto Class Championship had an amateur entry fee (for the lower sections only mind you). About half of the 56 players in my section went for that. I'd think it would have attracted a lot more than usual! 56 players. Not bad for a tournament with SIX sections in it! Or was it five? Still good anyway.
I totally agree with your bigger prizes for the higher sections, the concern I raised is the steepness of that slope. Going from 38% (of entry fees returned as prizes) to 274% from one section to the next seems kind of steep to me.
I believe what happened at the Hart House Holidays Open was just an oversight, and let me explain why. USUALLY the Open section is quite large, everyone wants to play with the big boys, and the U2200 section is a lot smaller, more of an after-thought of a section really. BUT, with this $20 to play up rule, you had seven players rated 2100+ who would normally play up sit in their proper section. The prize fund distribution, however, remained the same, but the section sizes weren't what they usually are, they were the exact opposite! It threw the numbers right out the window and the prize distribution wasn't recalculated accordingly.
I have to disagree somewhat with your "The open section is not an arbitrary rating bracket. It is the best of the best." It is NOT the best of the best. Toronto, the chess mecca it is NOT. It would be more accurate to describe this Open section as "The BEST of a bad lot." LOL :) In some chess centres 2600 GM's are a dime a dozen. And of course there is the newly established class of 2700 super G's, not to mention the now handful of monster G's circa 2800. THEY are the best of the best. So no, I don't think there SHOULD be a SIGNIFICANT jump in prizes from the top class section to this Open section. A jump, yes, but not a significant one.
Can you imagine in some backwoods town the chess community there with players ranging in rating from 800-1400, the 1400's saying "Hey, hard word and dedication, you could be just like me" "I deserve higher prize money because I'm rated higher than you..." I'm just being facetious of course, but I hope you get my point. I am curious, however, about something at the other end of the rating spectrum, a tournament like Wijk aan Zee for example. They have multiple GM round robin sections. Does the GM "A" group have higher prizes than the weaker GM "B" group have higher prizes than the weaker GM "C" group?
I wouldn't say "subsidizing" is a bad word, it doesn't have a bad connotation. I don't think I could really find another word which sums it up so succinctly. :)
When I pay the entry fee, yes, that money is now the organizers! But when I am always paying $20 more than half the players I suddenly feel a more vested interest where that money is going. But if I'm paying an amateur entry fee, then they can do whatever the hell they want with it, I don't care :)
btw, excellent work with the Black pieces this weekend! You took down Noritsyn and had Humphreys on the ropes! Not sure if you had a 3rd Black, or 3 Whites.
Last edited by Hugh Siddeley; Wednesday, 24th December, 2014, 08:05 AM.
I should finally conclude that in the hundred or so tournaments I've played in I've never given the "tiered" prize distribution a second thought, or even a first one for that matter. But just this weekend when I looked at the posted prize distribution I went hey, this doesn't look right, alarm bells were going off in my head. First time in a hundred tournaments...
As I stated in my previous post, I believe it was just an oversight, with the organizers having to worry about a zillion other things, like filling up the water stations! Awesome! That was very refreshing!
I've always liked the graduated distribution:
open $1,000
2200 $600
1800 $500
1600 $400
But the organizer should take into account the number of players in each section. As no grid of prizes were announced in advance the organizer could have added 1 or 2 or 3 more prizes to the largest sections. And the fourth or fifth prize (or top bottom half) can be equal to the $90 entry fee. Just winning any prize amount is recognition of one's accomplishment. Organizers can also offer non-cash prizes like a free entry to the next event, discount at Strategy Games, or a free lesson from Bindi.
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.
....
so you believe that there are scores of players who deliberately throw games in order to keep their ratings low so they can win class prizes. So many in fact, that a typical tournament has a number of such players - or that something like 5 or 10% or more of chess players sandbag.
My reaction is, I don't believe you. You can probably find isolated cases of such behaviour but as a general rule? No.
so you believe that there are scores of players who deliberately throw games in order to keep their ratings low so they can win class prizes. So many in fact, that a typical tournament has a number of such players - or that something like 5 or 10% or more of chess players sandbag.
My reaction is, I don't believe you. You can probably find isolated cases of such behaviour but as a general rule? No.
Of course, get enough sandbaggers together and the purpose is defeated! If there were that many, i.e.
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! ;)
I think someone should go to the Millionaire Chess Open website (millionairechess.com) and write down the prize amounts given out in the Open section and then do the same for the section below that. Then figure out the ratio between them.
I tried to do that today, but the site is down for maintenance.
Why do this? Because the Millionaire Chess Open organizers proclaim that their tournament is ushering in a new age for chess, and their primary argument behind that is that they are giving more prize money out to lower sections. They are, presumably, leveling out to some (small) extent the bottom-up approach that organized chess has been seeing for decades. Many elite and near-elite players did write to them and complain that they were giving too much money away to lower level players. They ignored that and forged ahead anyway.
It wasn't enough, because only about 1/3 of the break-even number of players needed actually registered and the organizers lost a lot of money. They are still planning on a second event in 2015, probably hoping that all the good reports from the first one will boost entries significantly.
Hugh, since this is of great interest to you, I encourage you to do this and report back here what their payout ratio was and what you think about it.
This attempt to lower the payout ratio between elite and non-elite is not the right path, imo. You can't take a pure-skill game like chess and expect tournaments that rival something like the World Series of Poker Main Event, which regularly has 7,000 to 8,000+ entries at $10,000 a shot. The elite of chess have invested years and years to get where they are, and they will protect it from change. Look at where chess960 has gone: nowhere. All that opening knowledge they use to their advantage against lesser players must NOT be thrown away. And that goes for any other such change.
Chess organizers pander to the elite, and that is the only way it can be done for a pure-skill game. The second ingredient needed is some kind of reverence for the elite by the non-elite so that the latter continue to subsidize (the right word) the former's earnings from chess. This is why you never hear (except from Wayne Komer's postings here) of just how badly the elite play these days, as exposed by the TRUE elite, the Houdinis and Stockfishes running on off-the-shelf hardware. To show the Emperor has no clothes is to threaten the very Empire itself.
For the non-elite to 'go on strike' is highly preposterous, but the 'death of a thousand cuts' is a very real ongoing threat (pay attention, Vlad Drkulec!). Hugh, you might eventually quit chess (depending on your love of playing) in reaction to the time and money investment needed, and others may join you in a growing number, but it won't happen en masse.
The key is that any real change will not come from within chess, not even the Millionaire Chess Open. The disruption must come from the outside, something totally separate from FIDE.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
so you believe that there are scores of players who deliberately throw games in order to keep their ratings low so they can win class prizes. So many in fact, that a typical tournament has a number of such players - or that something like 5 or 10% or more of chess players sandbag.
My reaction is, I don't believe you. You can probably find isolated cases of such behaviour but as a general rule? No.
I concur. Sandbagging as a widespread phenomena is an urban myth. Would a player(s) really sit down for a 3-4 hour game, with the intention of "blundering", just to drop some rating points, and repeat the process again and again? And would it really be worthwhile doing so?? I also don't believe this. If anyone can give me a concrete example(s) of a player(s) sandbagging I'd really like to see it.
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 (:
Just for the record, I've played in Open sections of tournaments (where I've had the option of playing in my own section) several times. In fact some of my best results (by performance rating) have come from playing in these Open sections. For instance this, a 66% score netted me $300. And sadly that's the most I've ever won in a tournament before... so maybe I'LL play UP next time :D
Other tournaments my only legal option is to play in the Open section... in which case I consider myself to be among the best of a bad lot :p
Thanks Hugh. Yep, 3 Blacks, I had black vs Aman as well. I'm fully aware of how weak we Top Guns are but thanks for the reminder =p. What I meant by the best of the best is that the top section is not an arbitrary rating bracket but simply the best players who show up, whether it be 2300s, 2500s or 2800s. Class prizes add some extra incentive to do well and may bring out more class level players but they're generally given out to whoever happens to be the most underrated, whoever was lucky enough to have their rating fall at the top of an arbitrary range, whoever sandbagged their rating the most, whoever is wildly incosistent in playing level etc etc. Perhaps higher class prizes or improving the entry fee/prize ratio in class sections may bring in more players overall but the titled players will likely drop off and probably a lot of players don't care about that but a lot of players do.
On a more personal note, I've been stuck in the 2200 -2350 range for about 3 years. I'm working hard to improve my chess and although I don't have delusions of being a high roller from chess tournaments, finishing in the money regularly is one of my goals and motivators. I managed to put together a 2550ish performance last weekend but finished in a tie for 6th, outside the money as usual. It's been a long time since I've seen an entry fee as more than just a sunk cost ;) It does seem unfair to subsidize the top section if you're not playing in it, but the alternative of having one big section where everyone competes for the same prizes is unrealistic. Imo the entry fee should be thought of as a sunk cost and class prizes as a nice perk that doesn't make much sense but they're fun and may help overall numbers. The only alternative that makes sense to me is lowering entry fee for all but the open section and doing away with class money prizes, giving out trophies instead, a la Hal Bond
Last edited by Geordie Derraugh; Saturday, 27th December, 2014, 02:12 AM.
Thanks Hugh. Yep, 3 Blacks, I had black vs Aman as well. I'm fully aware of how weak we Top Guns are but thanks for the reminder =p. What I meant by the best of the best is that the top section is not an arbitrary rating bracket but simply the best players who show up, whether it be 2300s, 2500s or 2800s. Class prizes add some extra incentive to do well and may bring out more class level players but they're generally given out to whoever happens to be the most underrated, whoever was lucky enough to have their rating fall at the top of an arbitrary range, whoever sandbagged their rating the most, whoever is wildly incosistent in playing level etc etc. Perhaps higher class prizes or improving the entry fee/prize ratio in class sections may bring in more players overall but the titled players will likely drop off and probably a lot of players don't care about that but a lot of players do.
On a more personal note, I've been stuck in the 2200 -2350 range for about 3 years. I'm working hard to improve my chess and although I don't have delusions of being a high roller from chess tournaments, finishing in the money regularly is one of my goals and motivators. I managed to put together a 2550ish performance last weekend but finished in a tie for 6th, outside the money as usual. It's been a long time since I've seen an entry fee as more than just a sunk cost ;) It does seem unfair to subsidize the top section if you're not playing in it, but the alternative of having one big section where everyone competes for the same prizes is unrealistic. Imo the entry fee should be thought of as a sunk cost and class prizes as a nice perk that doesn't make much sense but they're fun and may help overall numbers. The only alternative that makes sense to me is lowering entry fee for all but the open section and doing away with class money prizes, giving out trophies instead, a la Hal Bond
One of the biggest misconceptions of my initial post is that I am against subsidizing the top section. This is not true, I am for subsidizing (having a tiered prize structure), it was just the degree to which I had issue with in this particular tournament.
So you think class prizes are a "nice perk that doesn't make much sense" due to the money going to "whoever happens to be the most underrated, whoever was lucky enough to have their rating fall at the top of an arbitrary range, whoever sandbagged their rating the most, whoever is wildly incosistent (sic) in playing level etc etc"... Hmmm, maybe I should organize a tournament where O2200 are not allowed to register. That way my section can be the top and I will be the best of who show up, and then I can tell the sections below me their prizes don't make much sense, bwahahaha ;)
Hmmm, maybe I should organize a tournament where O2200 are not allowed to register.
Go ahead and do it, if you can. I figure if you do it right you'll get a good turnout and a successful event. Doing it right includes treating players right and fair prize fund.
There must be a lot of players who are tired of watching the same high rated people taking the big prizes most of the time.
Tweet
"I deserve higher prize money because I'm rated higher than you..." I'm just being facetious of course, but I hope you get my point. I am curious, however, about something at the other end of the rating spectrum, a tournament like Wijk aan Zee for example. They have multiple GM round robin sections. Does the GM "A" group have higher prizes than the weaker GM "B" group have higher prizes than the weaker GM "C" group?
Comment