The decline of Canadian chess?

[Neil Frarey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

There's only a few people here capable of engaging in intelligent debate. Sorry Bob, you ain't one of 'em.

I presented an alternative to your idea, and you don't want to even talk about it. Three times I asked, what's the problem with players donating. Three times you refuse to answer. The CFC has had a donation avenue for years, and is now a non-profit. What is YOUR problem?

Donating what? A percentage? What percentage?

50 player tournament 3 sections let's say in total 10 prize winners ... and the some 40 players don't care about what happens to the entrance fees (with the possible exception of a rating fee here or a rating fee there)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, it is possible that 80% of participants in a 50 player tournament will /donate/ to the TD/Org 100% (minus rating fees) of the entrance fees!!!

ROFLMAO!!!

Thanks Paul Bonham ... best idea EVER!!!

Um, not.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

So, you just want to continue your silly posts instead of an intelligent debate on the issue.
Okay, I get the message. I did get to state my case, so mission accomplished.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, I invite you to email me.

Moving on..........

There's only a few people here capable of engaging in intelligent debate. Sorry Bob, you ain't one of 'em.

I presented an alternative to your idea, and you don't want to even talk about it. Three times I asked, what's the problem with players donating. Three times you refuse to answer. The CFC has had a donation avenue for years, and is now a non-profit. What is YOUR problem?

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

As I already said, absolute bloody nonsense!

"Why don't you put up a poll to see what players want?"

Every time someone organizes a tournament, there is a poll. Easy for you to pontificate with no experience? You know what Bonham, the hole you have excavated is already very deep, time to stop digging.

Aw shucks...you're just an idiot......

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

So....

So, you just want to continue your silly posts instead of an intelligent debate on the issue.
Okay, I get the message. I did get to state my case, so mission accomplished.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me further, I invite you to email me.

Moving on..........

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Sorry

That would have been enough.

Otherwise visit a tournament and talk with people who does or play.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Paul, you have NOT taken my reasoning to any logical extreme, you have instead distorted it into something completely different. I am advocating that TD’s/organizers allow themselves a modest TD fee where they deem it appropriate. If they choose instead to donate their time entirely to the prize fund, that is okay with me. Their choice.

In the hypothetical tournament I gave, the prize fund was reduced by $200. Entry fees remained the same at $50 and everyone was welcomed to enter. In your extreme extrapolation, the TD gets 50% of the prize fund and half the players are barred from playing. How are these 2 scenarios even remotely related?

Sorry Bob, your politico obfuscation techniques don't work on me. First of all, the organizer taking 50% of entries for his fee is definitely an extreme version of your chess socialism (taxing the players). Just as today's income tax rates would have been considered extreme back in 1913.....

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxati...ern_income_tax :

"Development of the modern income tax

Congress re-adopted the income tax in 1913, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000."

Yeah... 1% income tax in 1913 compared to what we got today.

Would any organizer actually take 50%? Well, that depends. If chess suddenly entered boom times and demand for events surged, yes, I certainly think they would. It's your opinion against mine. Since you can't prove your assertion that players would not mind the reduction in prizes, you have no justification to ridicule my opinion.

Now, the second thing.... YOU are the one who brought up this idea that taking the top rated players out of the event (by discouraging them from entering, taking away a chunk of their winnings) is a good thing. I even quoted you word for word. Are you now going to deny it? You better go edit that post first!

So.... I took that to an extreme. If it's good to take out the top rated players, then don't be subtle about it. Just bar them from entry in each section. Now you have the bottom half of each normal section (U2200, U2000, U1800, U1600, U1400 etc.) vying for prizes, and according to you, this is good because those players are sure to return next time.

Anyways, what it all comes down to is that you want chess socialism where a governing body (the organizer of the event) imposes a tax for services rendered, and decides unilaterally what that tax amount will be with no regard to the actual value that customers (players) would give to it. Some organizers will be more expensive than others, based on either need or greed, as they see fit.

I suggest (attention John Brown: SUGGEST, not DEMAND) a more democratic direction, asking for donations, where the players decide what to give based on actual service.

Why don't you put up a poll to see what players want?

Like the politico you seemingly want to be, you continue to avoid answering a direct question. For the 3rd time: what have you got against the donation model?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Well, your reasoning can be taken to an extreme....
So Bob, why don't you do this: take 50% of the prize money for yourself and disqualify anyone from entering like this:

Under 2200 Section
- only ratings between 2000 and 2100 allowed to enter
Under 2000 Section
- only ratings between 1800 and 1900 allowed to enter
Under 1800 Section
- only ratings between 1600 and 1700 allowed to enter
etc.

Paul, you have NOT taken my reasoning to any logical extreme, you have instead distorted it into something completely different. I am advocating that TD’s/organizers allow themselves a modest TD fee where they deem it appropriate. If they choose instead to donate their time entirely to the prize fund, that is okay with me. Their choice.

In the hypothetical tournament I gave, the prize fund was reduced by $200. Entry fees remained the same at $50 and everyone was welcomed to enter. In your extreme extrapolation, the TD gets 50% of the prize fund and half the players are barred from playing. How are these 2 scenarios even remotely related?

[John Brown]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

I say have the organizers who want elite to run elite tournaments like what is on chessbase site right now.

Let the majority of organizers run tournaments the way they want and stop telling us what you want. If you don't like what we are doing then run your own tournaments.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Donation model? Absolute bloody nonsense!

In our world, as opposed to your world, you set your price. Or your employer sets your price. In either case, rejection is possible....

http://chess.ca/node/1035

Stop this skit, it's getting too silly!

[Fred Harvey]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Donation model? Absolute bloody nonsense!

In our world, as opposed to your world, you set your price. Or your employer sets your price. In either case, rejection is possible....

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Excellent post Paul. You have perfectly described one of the arguments put forward by some of my friends/colleagues who argue against TD/Organizer fees. I just happen to disagree. Let me explain.

In your scenario, 5 of the 50 players will decide not to enter. Okay. Maybe more, maybe less?
But 45 players do decide to play. If your assertion is true that the 5 are more likely the prize winners, then that leaves a much larger slice of a slightly smaller pie for the 45. So the probability of the 45 returning next year should be greater. How is that for some simple math!

For TD's/Organizers who wish NOT to take a TD fee for whatever reason, I am okay with that. But if you feel a modest TD fee is appropriate and you are not taking it because of Paul's argument, you may want to rethink that. I am telling you that that argument does not hold water. Your tournament will not spiral down into oblivion. Maybe I am wrong!

Well, your reasoning can be taken to an extreme.... even ignoring the whole question of whether you pay yourself or not, you have brought up this comparison of an event with 50 players including 5 highest rated of the 50 players versus 45 players missing the 5 highest rated, and you are concluding that the second event is superior.... because according to your reasoning, it "leaves a much larger slice of a slightly smaller pie for the 45". Quote, unquote.

So Bob, why don't you do this: take 50% of the prize money for yourself and disqualify anyone from entering like this:

Under 2200 Section
- only ratings between 2000 and 2100 allowed to enter
Under 2000 Section
- only ratings between 1800 and 1900 allowed to enter
Under 1800 Section
- only ratings between 1600 and 1700 allowed to enter
etc.

You get the idea.... you disallow the top 50% rated players in each section from entering so that it's guaranteed each section winner, and 2nd and 3rd place, is someone who would likely not have won any prize money at all without these restrictions.

Now you have half the entry fees for yourself, and the other half is all going to be distributed among the types of players who are undyingly grateful that you've allowed them to win money. So you win both ways: pay yourself handsomley, AND get repeat players the next event.

Of course... this goes against the grain of your previous argument, that players don't enter events to win money and wouldn't miss any money you kept for yourself. And yet they will be so grateful for a bigger slice of a (much) smaller pie that they will be sure to come back next event!

Also, taking prize money away from legitimate winners -- the higher rated players -- is only exacerbating one of the problems mentioned in this thread, the fact that Canadian players can't be professional playing in Canada. If all the organizers used your reasoning, the future Eric Hansens and Razvan Preotus and Bator Sambuevs would have even less to win in Canadian events.

I say again, you should be a politician Bob, you know exactly how to make bad logic sound good. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

I ask again: why are you against trying the donation model?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Bob, you and all organizers can decide for yourselves.

But let's say you hope for 50 entrants. Because your flyer says you are paying yourself $200, let's say 10% of players don't enter. That's 5 players at $50 each. That's $250 lost entry fees for the event. Meanwhile, you are still paying yourself the $200 so prizes have to go down even MORE. The next year, when your same event comes up again, players are going to remember that your prizes were very low last year.... maybe this time 8 players will not show, and now you've lost $400 in entry fees, making prizes even LOWER. No matter how low they go, you still take your $200. It could become a feedback loop leading to the downfall of your event. How about that simple math?

And by the way.... the 5 players that don't enter your event are most likely to be from amongst the ones most likely to win some prize money, meaning 5 of the best players. If there's a choice of another event that has no organizer fee, they will go for that one. So your event will not only lose revenue, but its best players as well. People will remember that in the next year's event also.

Excellent post Paul. You have perfectly described one of the arguments put forward by some of my friends/colleagues who argue against TD/Organizer fees. I just happen to disagree. Let me explain.

In your scenario, 5 of the 50 players will decide not to enter. Okay. Maybe more, maybe less?
But 45 players do decide to play. If your assertion is true that the 5 are more likely the prize winners, then that leaves a much larger slice of a slightly smaller pie for the 45. So the probability of the 45 returning next year should be greater. How is that for some simple math!

For TD's/Organizers who wish NOT to take a TD fee for whatever reason, I am okay with that. But if you feel a modest TD fee is appropriate and you are not taking it because of Paul's argument, you may want to rethink that. I am telling you that that argument does not hold water. Your tournament will not spiral down into oblivion. Maybe I am wrong!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Paul, go back and read my post again. In my hypothetical case, the entry fee is $50. If the decision is made to pay the TD’s $200, the prize fund drops from $1,000 to $800. There is no need to raise the entry fee because the TD fees come from the prize fund. I am not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence. I think everyone can follow this simple math.
The fear is that the lower prize fund will lead to fewer players signing up for your next tournament. IMHO, this fear has been greatly exaggerated. I really believe in this hypothetical case that the lower prize fund would have virtually no impact upon future attendance levels. The prize fund is not the key motivator for most players. A modest change in the potential prize will not change any decisions. Players love the chance to win some cash. Winning is the thing, plus or minus 10% is irrelevant.

Let the players decide for themselves! – what! Am I stupid?
The parameters of the tournament are the prerogative of the organizer. This includes time control, sections, paying up options, entry fee discounts, prize distribution, TD fees and more. We get plenty of suggestions, comments, and complaints which filters into our decision making. Democratic? Everyone gets to vote with their feet. You organize the tournament, you make the rules.

Bob, you and all organizers can decide for yourselves. There are no rules against organizers paying themselves. I would only hope that if you do that, you notify potential entrants on the tournament flyer. Trying to hide it in expenses would not be ethical, even if it is perfectly "legal".

You do realize that you can never test your hypothesis? You can't hold 2 simultaneous tournaments, one where you reduce the entry fees to pay yourself and the other where you don't. So you are just imposing your will, and your hypothesis is your way of feeling good about it.

But let's say you hope for 50 entrants. Because your flyer says you are paying yourself $200, let's say 10% of players don't enter. That's 5 players at $50 each. That's $250 lost entry fees for the event. Meanwhile, you are still paying yourself the $200 so prizes have to go down even MORE. The next year, when your same event comes up again, players are going to remember that your prizes were very low last year.... maybe this time 8 players will not show, and now you've lost $400 in entry fees, making prizes even LOWER. No matter how low they go, you still take your $200. It could become a feedback loop leading to the downfall of your event. How about that simple math?

It astounds me that you can say organizers don't do it for the money, while crusading for organizers to pay themselves money.

You say imposing an organizer fee is democratic, people will vote with their feet, and you then say no one will do that, and you have NO way to prove it. The players who don't come are not going to send you a letter, "Dear Bob, I wanted to play in your event but I chose not to because I don't like the organizer fee."

And by the way.... the 5 players that don't enter your event are most likely to be from amongst the ones most likely to win some prize money, meaning 5 of the best players. If there's a choice of another event that has no organizer fee, they will go for that one. So your event will not only lose revenue, but its best players as well. People will remember that in the next year's event also.

Why would you be afraid to even test out the busker model of asking for donations? Are you afraid nobody is going to contribute? And how can you not see that the donation model is more democratic and more sensitive to the customer?

[John Brown]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

Why not do like the Legion does, They run dart events and they offer 50/50 draws. We could take your entry as the 50/50. 50% to Entries 50% for expenses.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: The decline of Canadian chess?

My God, you should be a politician! "Entry fee remains the same", what an insult to everyone's intelligence! The entry fee would go DOWN if you weren't paying yourself and the prizes went down by $200 as you described.

Where did I say anything about working for free? I said LET THE PLAYERS DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES how much to pay you! And it isn't "begging for quarters" as your politico-speak puts it. Just like the musician, everyone knows you are there providing a service, and the open donation case is the way for them to pay IF THEY SO CHOOSE. Begging would be sleeping on the sidewalk with a tin cup, not providing any service at all.

You are insisting on having the ORGANIZER decide what their worth is, before the tournament even begins. I am saying let the PLAYERS decide as the tournament is going on or finishing up. You tell me what is more democratic.

Paul, go back and read my post again. In my hypothetical case, the entry fee is $50. If the decision is made to pay the TD’s $200, the prize fund drops from $1,000 to $800. There is no need to raise the entry fee because the TD fees come from the prize fund. I am not trying to insult anyone’s intelligence. I think everyone can follow this simple math.
The fear is that the lower prize fund will lead to fewer players signing up for your next tournament. IMHO, this fear has been greatly exaggerated. I really believe in this hypothetical case that the lower prize fund would have virtually no impact upon future attendance levels. The prize fund is not the key motivator for most players. A modest change in the potential prize will not change any decisions. Players love the chance to win some cash. Winning is the thing, plus or minus 10% is irrelevant.

Let the players decide for themselves! – what! Am I stupid?
The parameters of the tournament are the prerogative of the organizer. This includes time control, sections, paying up options, entry fee discounts, prize distribution, TD fees and more. We get plenty of suggestions, comments, and complaints which filters into our decision making. Democratic? Everyone gets to vote with their feet. You organize the tournament, you make the rules.