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.
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?
Elite chessplayers have no logical case for feeling *entitled* to financial support from patzers (business transactions like lessons and book sales aside). If an elite players wants to spend thousands of hours earning elite status in a game in which elite plyers, generally speaking, are not adequately compensated, then that's their decision. Don't come to me after the fact whining that I shoul compensate you for all your hard work.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
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 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.
...
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.
The "ecosystem" model of chess that you've described here is one of the best series of posts I've ever read on ChessTalk. It connects a lot of dots for me, and in a way that isn't at all judgmental of the roles that each member of the ecosystem (~must) play. Thanks very much for articulating it.
I am in agreement with Hugh Brodie. Money prizes should only exist in the Open section, anyone should be allowed to enter the Open section.
Referring to Paul Bonham's chess ecosystem model, which I agree with, why is it, Brad, that we rarely see organizers running tournaments of the type you've described? I have my own opinion but I'm interested in your thoughts.
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
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?
I've always felt this way. I like Hal Bond's Pro-Am model (reducing entry fees and giving non-monetary prizes to the non-elite players).
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?
Hi Hugh,
The difference is in chess the non-elite players largely
provide the prize fund for the elite.
some are using term Elite very liberally.. The world number 1300 can not be called elite in any way. In Comparison with ATP, they have small tournaments, 250/ 500/ 1000/ grand slam level and number of amateur tournaments.
Also.. the discussion is moot.. Every organizer can put any conditions he / she wants and we vote with our wallets.
I've always felt this way. I like Hal Bond's Pro-Am model (reducing entry fees and giving non-monetary prizes to the non-elite players).
Hi Tyler:
And if I understand Hal's system correctly, he satisfies the elite players by promising that ALL their entry fees go to prizes in their own section (no subsidizing of elite prize fund by the lower section).
But...all expenses of the tournament, including Organizer/Adjudicator fees, come out of the lower non-elite entry fees, including their trophies. But for this, they get a lower entry fee than the elite registrants.
This is a pretty simple model to understand, and is pretty transparent (let me know if I've got any of the details wrong).
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Monday, 11th May, 2015, 03:28 PM.
some are using term Elite very liberally.. The world number 1300 can not be called elite in any way. In Comparison with ATP, they have small tournaments, 250/ 500/ 1000/ grand slam level and number of amateur tournaments.
Also.. the discussion is moot.. Every organizer can put any conditions he / she wants and we vote with our wallets.
Voting with our wallets is, indeed, the bottom line.
I recently passed on a tournament I would normally play in because they changed the prize distribution in a fashion that I found unfair and uninteresting. Out of a $2000 prize fund, $1400 was reserved for the open section while the under 2000 sections got a publicized total of $300 per section made up of cash, chess material and gift certificates. Guess what the winners got in section b and c ........................... $90!!! (plus free registration to the Quebec open this summer). The entry fee was $30 for the lower sections and $55 for the open (for those who pay). The turnout was quite good (this is a very well run tournament) but judging from the comments I heard, many were surprised and disappointed with the payout. The organizers felt that a more affordable entry fee in section b and c would encourage participation notwithstanding the meagre payouts. Time will tell.
some are using term Elite very liberally.. The world number 1300 can not be called elite in any way. In Comparison with ATP, they have small tournaments, 250/ 500/ 1000/ grand slam level and number of amateur tournaments.
Also.. the discussion is moot.. Every organizer can put any conditions he / she wants and we vote with our wallets.
I absolutely agree: every organizer can put any conditions he wants. However, any conditions should be written before the tournament, not after that.
I understand, John was not happy with the outcome of his tournament. He didn't want a strong player to show up and win the event. It's OK, but why he didn't do anything about this possible scenario before the tournament? Why a strong player should predict he will be "not desirable person"?
To blame Razvan in this case is ... let say unnecessary. The organizer can blame himself only.
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
If my memory serves me right, Brian Fiedler's 2009 PricewaterhouseCoopers Toronto Open Chess Tournament is IDEAL.
I absolutely agree: every organizer can put any conditions he wants. However, any conditions should be written before the tournament, not after that.
I understand, John was not happy with the outcome of his tournament. He didn't want a strong player to show up and win the event. It's OK, but why he didn't do anything about this possible scenario before the tournament? Why a strong player should predict he will be "not desirable person"?
To blame Razvan in this case is ... let say unnecessary. The organizer can blame himself only.
Hi Victor;
We were quite happy with the out come of the tournament. We gave out more prizes than last year. We have had IM's play in our tournaments before but very few have been last minute Charlies. We knew Razvan would be in the money. We did not like the way that he asked for a discount and then entered at the last minute.
It put a sour taste in my mouth because he could have entered far sooner and maybe even drawn in some competition for himself. Unless he did not want any competition thus our supicison he was coming for a cash grab. But entering at the last minute will now never be to an advantage for any IM any more as next year will not allow anyone over a specific rating to play. If we ever let IM's come back we will not allow them to win a prize greater than $100.
and we may even charge a higher entry fee for them to play. I guess Razvan unintentionally has set limits on IM's playing at our tournaments in the future. Our tournament is for the non elites. We will continue to run it on that criteria.
Why is the tournament ideal? What made it so good? I am willing to listen to constructive criticism.
John Erickson
1. Attractive and Guaranteed Prize Fund for all Sections. The organizer was willing to take risk.
2. Excellent and accessible playing venue.
3. Attracted several US Grandmasters like Nakamura, Shabalov, Friedel and Perelshteyn.
4. Awoke several dormant or hibernating chess players.
5. For what I heard, the venue was not wide enough to accommodate more players and even closed the registration for late registrants.
Tweet
Comment