Organizing Chess Tournament!!

[John Erickson]

To all chess players:

I find this talk about tournaments a little silly. Let's criticize the organizers for not doing everything you want. Let's make it so that they think twice about running tournaments. Let's not advertize and see who shows up.

Last year, at the Niagara Falls Open 2014, we asked the players there if they would prefer a 2-day or 3-day event. It was decided they preferred a 3-day event and the 2015 edition was a 3-day event for the first time.

The prize fund is based upon entries, minus expenses. Could the prize fund be bigger, yes, but as the organizer, I already lose money putting on the event. We could make it so only the top 2 or 3 players get money and no one else does. No fun in that for the rest of us.

If you want the top players to post their scoresheet, then ask them. Being a small event, don't have carbon copy score sheets to collect the games.

If you want everything done right away, then run your own tournament and let us criticize you for not doing things right away or the way we want it. That way, you can do everything you want and say you want.

I have a small group of players who play every year in my tournament. They have given small advice as to how to improve the event, but come back because they know the quality of the tournament. Some come once or twice and don't come back for various reasons. Sometimes, it's the time control, sometimes it's the prize fund or what ever their reason is.

We don't have incremental time controls, as we don't have the clocks. This tournament is not affiliated with any club.

Keep criticizing tournament directors and their assistants and there will be no tournaments left for anyone to play.

In 2013, my dad passed away less than 8 hours after the tournament ended. This year, I had knee surgery on the Tuesday and a lot to get organized before the surgery. Couldn't get on the computer, as I have a desk top, because I couldn't bend my knee. So, if that makes me a bad tournament director for not posting right away, then I should limp around and be in pain all the time, so that I don't make anyone upset in the chess world.

John Erickson
TD
Niagara Falls Open
Maybe the last one

[John Brown]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

I would also like to add that I lost a days pay to help my friend John Erickson. I normally work Fridays but I felt that helping a long time Friend was more important than
a decrease in my pay. So I guess I lost money as well. We run the Niagara Falls Open not to make money, we run it to let the no name players get some enjoyment out of the game they love. I donate cash for CFC memberships when a fellow chess player passes ( more lost money).
When IM's come for a cash grab it tells us that they only want money . It does not tell us that they enjoy the game.
I think Rene had a valid suggestion and I feel very strongly on using that idea next year. Give the money to the people who pay for events.

How the heck do I make John Erickson's Power to 8 he deserves 10 but I can't get him to 8.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

I would also like to add that I lost a days pay to help my friend John Erickson. I normally work Fridays but I felt that helping a long time Friend was more important than
a decrease in my pay. So I guess I lost money as well. We run the Niagara Falls Open not to make money, we run it to let the no name players get some enjoyment out of the game they love. I donate cash for CFC memberships when a fellow chess player passes ( more lost money).
When IM's come for a cash grab it tells us that they only want money . It does not tell us that they enjoy the game.
I think Rene had a valid suggestion and I feel very strongly on using that idea next year. Give the money to the people who pay for events.

How the heck do I make John Erickson's Power to 8 he deserves 10 but I can't get him to 8.

John Erickson and John Brown, may I offer you the strongest words of encouragement in what you are doing. I don't have time for chess tournaments any more, but if I did I would make your tournament my number one priority every year. I absolutely LOVE what you both are saying about the running of this tournament, that you do it for the base of the chess pyramid and not for the elite.

The problem you are up against is not Rene or Razvan, nor Tom nor Egidijus. It is that chess in North America is all about the elite. It has to be, because the predictable nature of who are the winners and losers in chess -- predictable more so than in any other sport -- means chess cannot achieve the richness in funding and prize monies that a much less predictable game like poker can achieve. This means that the elite MUST make their money off of the patzers. There's just no other way for standard chess to survive. After all, chess does not attract paying spectators from the general public.

And what this means is that all the attention and praise and funding in chess in North America goes towards nourishing the elite. You notice even here on ChessTalk, all the attention is heaped on a few players: Hansen, Zhou, Razvan and a few others.

But what you guys are doing is bucking the trend, and I think that's very courageous and commendable. The base of the pyramid doesn't get support from many people at all. The more of you there are, the longer organized chess can survive.

Of course you are right about the IM cash grab thing. Rene and Razvan are only doing what they must in this environment, so don't blame them. Perhaps when Razvan is older and comes to understand the politics of chess, he will become a force for change. He may come to see what a stale, static and dying thing organized chess is becoming, because it is failing to adapt to change. The first rule of evolution is 'adapt or perish'.

It is my goal to become a force for change myself, not as a player obviously but as an idea person. Just like you, I have to contend with a world that has blinders on. But I'm working on it, and you'll be hearing something in the next few years about new opportunities for average chess players. Meanwhile, please go on doing the work you are doing, and find young people to whom you can pass on your principles. I love your ideas about prize money, with upset prizes. I've long championed the concept of brilliancy prizes with the idea that even a ho-hum player can still occassionally play an amazing string of moves, and that should be rewarded. After all, what we all want to see is fighting adventureous chess, not drawmaster chess that we most often get at the elite level.

I was just watching last night on Youtube an hour-long video, the story of the Seinfeld comedy show that became the "Greatest TV Series of All Time" according to TV Guide magazine. When Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David started that out with a pilot show, NBC executives tried to tell them how to change it to fit the existing format for half-hour sit-coms. They let the executives say their piece, and then replied "No, we're not going to do any of that, and if you don't like it, we would be happy to continue on doing standup." That courageous stand based on their principles and their gut instinct ended up getting them independance to do what they liked... and the rest is history.

I know you don't aspire to such goals, but your independent spirit is still something to be proud of. Don't give in, but DO go on!

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

The problem you are up against ... Tom ... !

Whoa, how did I get dragged into this? You think it is unreasonable for people who get access to nation-wide free advertising, where they can post their event info, updates, venue changes, etc., to a very specific sub-set of individuals to have to write a couple of paragraphs about their tournament when it's over? My comment has nothing to do with elite chess or anything of the sort.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Whoa, how did I get dragged into this? You think it is unreasonable for people who get access to nation-wide free advertising, where they can post their event info, updates, venue changes, etc., to a very specific sub-set of individuals to have to write a couple of paragraphs about their tournament when it's over? My comment has nothing to do with elite chess or anything of the sort.

His post said "... nor Tom..."

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

His post said "... nor Tom..."

Thanks, Kerry, that is correct. I was not including Tom as part of the problem. And Tom, to answer your question, no it is not unreasonable for Larry to expect a little something in return for offering this medium for organizers to advertise their events. Perfectly ok. I guess what is unreasonable is that if the report gets delayed for whatever reason, fingers get pointed at the organizers and assumptions get made that they are somehow lazy or don't care (again, you Tom are not part of that I'm sure).

Organizers do have life outside of chess, let's respect that and respect the dedication and hard work they put into chess.

I know that isn't the Jean Hebert Theory of Organized Chess, since in previous posts Mr. Hebert has stated that if organizers can't put out a product that meets his specifications, they would be better to not organize at all (and Mr. Hebert's specifications are very stringent, since he is an elite player). Some might argue that point is taken out of context, because Hebert was referring to elite events such as Canadian Closed, but in the heat of the discussion, I recall that Hebert did criticize weekend Swisses on the whole as being not properly organized, and that most organizers do not meet his minimum standards and should not be involved in organizing events at all.

But what that theory fails to understand is that the elite feeds off of the base, the base feeds off of the work of the organizers who mostly do their work unpaid or for very low pay, and the organizers feed off of the appreciation of the players, whether elite or base.

Organized chess is an ecosystem, and any ill-planned disruption to it (such as 'throwing out' organizers whose events fail to meet minimum specifications, or publicly criticizing organizers for not being timely with event reports) could destroy it.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

....Organized chess is an ecosystem, and any ill-planned disruption to it (such as 'throwing out' organizers whose events fail to meet minimum specifications, or publicly criticizing organizers for not being timely with event reports) could destroy it.

I just saw Digeng Du's post in the other Niagara Falls Open thread
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...4599#post94599

The policy of the NFO to not give free entry to IMs / GMs is not normal, and if EVERY organizer tried to make EVERY event like that, then that could be a disruption to the ecosystem severe enough to damage or destroy the system. After all, the elite players do feed off the base, and this is one way they do it. It is necessary, and so I would not advocate for every organizer to do this.

But I do like the fact that SOME organizers can hold SOME events that do not have this free-entry policy. Sure, they aren't going to attract the elite players to their events, but does every event have to have at least one elite player? Why can't there be some events that get known for being pro-base events, and give out the majority of their prize monies to the non-elite players, and offer upset prizes and brilliancy prizes?

Let's not criticize such events. Enough organizers are going to want to attract elite players, this isn't going to become a mass movement. But the base should be allowed a few events that are just for them.

[John Brown]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Paul Rene only asked for discount not free entry. I think that subject is closed.

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Let's cut down (or even cut out) class prizes. An upcoming event in the Montreal area will have a U2000 first prize of $1100, and a U1700 first prize of $1000 - but an Open first prize of only $1300!

[Peter McKillop]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Let's cut down (or even cut out) class prizes. An upcoming event in the Montreal area will have a U2000 first prize of $1100, and a U1700 first prize of $1000 - but an Open first prize of only $1300!

In your world, Hugh, would the class players still be expected to fund prizes in the premier section via their entry fees?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Let's cut down (or even cut out) class prizes. An upcoming event in the Montreal area will have a U2000 first prize of $1100, and a U1700 first prize of $1000 - but an Open first prize of only $1300!

No, let's not. More class prizes! Excellent. :)

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Lower entry fees in the lower sections (maybe $20-$25 max). Trophies, or other such rewards for prizes. To win money, you would have to play with the "big guys".

[John Brown]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Lower entry fees in the lower sections (maybe $20-$25 max). Trophies, or other such rewards for prizes. To win money, you would have to play with the "big guys".

Hi Hugh;
With the system today you could not play up unless your rating allowed it.
I still like $1000 first prize and the next 20 finishers get a prize.

[Mark Biong]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

Hi Hugh;
With the system today you could not play up unless your rating allowed it.
I still like $1000 first prize and the next 20 finishers get a prize.

Am a practical player and if I know that if I have a very slim chance of landing in the top 5, just to break even with my expenses not mentioning the number of days spent playing the game. I might as well spend my money (CFC membership + Entry Fee) to buy chess products from Strategy Games of my choice than your top 19 finisher's prizes. Or if you award trophies or medals, I will just buy my own trophy and engrave with the best caption to the plate that I am more than proud to brag to my friends. Why should I play for uncertainty when I can get it without working on it? Their is only fun when you win which is the ultimate goal of a chess game. Top players worked their ways into the top and even make them as their careers and they deserved it! They should be fully compensated accordingly because they spend an awful lot of time learning and mastering the intricacies of the game, hence they should be awarded with intrinsic (NM. FM, IM and GM) and extrinsic (MONETARY) rewards. I once played at the World Open in 2008, which I thought offered practical prize funds for my section, but those guys showed be that was just a patzer of the game. Patzer I was. But had I won it, that's practical since I was playing with players which I thought were as weak as I was. I like the CCA system because you play chess like gambling! I gamble but its within my control not by the house (casino).

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Organizing Chess Tournament!!

What other sports/games offer such high cash prizes (percentage-wise) to non-elite players? Should we expect tennis players not ranked in the top 100 be eligible for "top below 100th ranking" prizes almost equal to what the winner of the whole event would get? Do minor-league hockey/baseball/etc. players get paid as much as major-league players do?