Show me the money

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Show me the money

    I welcome the subject of entry fees and refunds.

    I don't think that anybody's judgment should be overly influenced by the meaning of the word "Invitation". In both French and English, labels applied as section names often do not make sense. You often have "Open" sections which might be better named "Premier" (or Premiere or Première) when lower-rated entries are excluded or discouraged. Of course, an ordinary player cannot enter the French Open (of tennis) or the US Open (of golf). The organizers would LOL to anybody who tried.

    More recently we've had the Elite Championship of Québec, an event which included at least one player whose rating began with 18. There may be a couple of provinces where you'd need to include "A" class players in an Elite championship to make the event a tournament rather than a match, but Québec isn't one of them.

    It doesn't end there. "A" class sections often allow "B" class players to compete. "Under-1400" prizes often allow unrated players to be eligible. What do "Closed" and "Reserve" mean? And even when you get a meaningful name, it often goes out of style. There used to be a "BC Woodpushers" tournament (which I won once and only once), limited to players rated under 1800. That disappeared about 40 years ago. Somebody said that the term woodpusher was insulting to lower-rated players and that they'd stay away--yet it was one of the more popular events in the calendar. In another thread, we've seen that players rated 1400-1800, who once made up the bulk of the tournament and rated club play scene, are now under-represented in CFC rated play. Where have the woodpushers gone? What is in a name? A wood rose would smell as sweet !

    Another question that is rarely addressed is: what happens to an entry fee (to an open tournament), often submitted long in advance, when the player discovers that he cannot play, days before the tournament starts, and properly notifies the organizer? In my experience, some organizers refund the fee, and some do not. It would be reasonable to extract a handling or warehousing fee before refunding the entry, but I've never encountered that. Few organizers state their policy in the tournament prospectus. Yet you'd think that those who offer full refunds would so state because it would encourage early entries.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Show me the money

      David, maybe you should ask for invitational fees next time you enter a tournament, it seems you're approaching GM strength in your games. Kerry, honestly I don't know what white old man have against young upstart juniors, I'm assuming that's what you and David are right? Granted, this is a chesstalk forum but does Aman's posts indicate he wants outside opinion from never-weres in the chess community? He just wants to make public an issue that he thinks he was treated unfairly by FQE. Taking sides in matters like these are so childish and inconsiderate. If you guys want drama in your lives, might I suggest Gossip Girl as a show to pass the time? It's filled with unneccessary drama from people who have too much time on their hands.
      Shameless self-promotion on display here
      http://www.youtube.com/user/Barkyducky?feature=mhee

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Show me the money

        Jonathan wrote:

        More recently we've had the Elite Championship of Québec, an event which included at least one player whose rating began with 18. There may be a couple of provinces where you'd need to include "A" class players in an Elite championship to make the event a tournament rather than a match, but Québec isn't one of them.
        More than one whose rating began with 18 - there were 6! However - some of these 6 did have ratings over 2000 at some point in their careers (i.e. ".20" showed up on their FQE ratings); some were juniors under 2000; and at least one was a "regional representative". I believe that all of them were eligible to play (as well us several in the 1900-2000 range) according to the rules of the event.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Show me the money

          Originally posted by Hugh Brodie View Post
          I believe that all of them were eligible to play (as well us several in the 1900-2000 range) according to the rules of the event.
          Naturellement. But the question was whether a player rated 18xx or 19xx or even 20xx would be considered "Elite" in the context of a Quebec provincial championship. Elite in language, rather than in the rules of the event. Hey, my wife and I are about to start a match for the Absolute Championship of the World. :) Questions about details of an event cannot necessarily be answered by referring in plain language to the label of the event.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Show me the money

            Originally posted by Jonathan Berry View Post
            Hey, my wife and I are about to start a match for the Absolute Championship of the World. :) Questions about details of an event cannot necessarily be answered by referring in plain language to the label of the event.
            Why limit yourselves to the world? Would you like to have the match sanctioned by the Inner Galactic Chess Federation? :)
            Gary Ruben
            CC - IA and SIM

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Show me the money

              well, in your part of the world Jonathan, Victoria Chess tournaments are fully refundable. Although we do have a couple of withdrawn players for the GPO who carefully did not ask for their money back. We, in turn, have carefully noted them for credit for next year's event.

              As to the main topic of the thread - the player concerned paid an entry fee for a lessor event. The organizer gave him instead the opportunity to play in a superior event. Hard to believe that that is a bad deal regardless of what anybody else might or might not have paid.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Show me the money

                Originally posted by Bindi Cheng View Post
                Kerry, honestly I don't know what white old man have against young upstart juniors, I'm assuming that's what you and David are right?
                Not sure where you are pulling the race card out of. Also, as I've never met you, I had no idea that either you or the original poster were even juniors. By the way, I once organized the Canadian Junior and served as Canadian Junior coordinator. But, it's probably that I hate young upstart juniors that's the problem, not that the two of you are crazy.

                Granted, this is a chesstalk forum but does Aman's posts indicate he wants outside opinion from never-weres in the chess community?
                Seeing as you have no idea who I am or what my accomplishments in Canadian chess are, I'll take the statement for what it's worth, which is nothing.

                He just wants to make public an issue that he thinks he was treated unfairly by FQE. Taking sides in matters like these are so childish and inconsiderate.
                Your linkedln seems to indicate you are studying business. I find that hard to believe with this kind of ridiculous inability to comprehend basic logic. I suggest in the next case study you do in class, you advise your professor that the case is interesting, but you have no recommendations because "taking sides in matters like these are(sic) so childish".

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Show me the money

                  Well played David... I had to bite my fingers to avoid posting my first reaction(s).

                  I agree with your analysis.

                  Elsewhere Roger Patterson made a good point: that Aman paid for a lower level tournament but was allowed to upgrade to a higher level tournament without penalty!

                  I think that is a refreshing viewpoint...
                  ...Mike Pence: the Lord of the fly.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Show me the money

                    But, it's probably that I hate young upstart juniors that's the problem, not that the two of you are crazy.
                    Fall back.

                    In other news, I registered for a lower-level section for a reason. An "upgrade" in your eyes isn't necessarily an upgrade for me. I understood that I received an invitation to play in the upper section, so I did. Otherwise there was no reason to change my initial intent. Is the verdict that I was to assume that "invitation" for me didn't mean the same invitation that others with lower ratings and no title received?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Show me the money

                      Originally posted by Aman Hambleton View Post
                      An "upgrade" in your eyes isn't necessarily an upgrade for me.
                      From your original post:

                      I then realized I would much rather play in the "Invitational Section"

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re : Re: Re : Re: Show me the money

                        Originally posted by Marc Poulin View Post
                        Let’s be clearer for the benefit of Mr. Hébert.
                        Mr. Calugar, Mr. Sapozhnikov and Mr. Martchenko did not pay an entry fee as they were invited by the FQE. They were selected amongst the candidates who had submitted a request to participate in due time. At the time the FQE made its decisions on who to invite, Mr Hambleton had registered himself in the open section and had pay its entry fee accordingly. Later on, Mr. Hambleton changed his mind and requested to play in the Invitation section. By then, all the “free” spots in the Invitation section we could grant in accordance with our budget had been awarded. Not being a FQE member with 2250+ rating, he was not entitled to an automatic spot in this section. We nonetheless accepted to upgrade Mr. Hambleton to the Invitation section.
                        Mr. Hébert, I hope these explanations on the sequence of events explain why Mr. Hambleton’s case is different from the others.
                        Mr Poulin,
                        Thank you so much for your much needed explanations. But for your benefit I must uncover a secret: when I ask a question it is usually to make things clearer for others. But since that for some strange reason you seem eager to cross swords with me on this matter I will gladly oblige, in the name of even more enlightenment for others.

                        In your explanation above you do not deny having written the following:
                        "We also left a few spots open for norm seeking CFC members and those spots were attributed based on CFC ratings (hence the invitations to Mr. Calugar (2368), Martchenko (2382), Sapozhnikov(2438), Hambleton(2332);"

                        This clearly does not support your after the fact line of argumentation. Unless there are some other piece of written information that we are not aware of, at best the conditions of the FQE invitation to Mr Hambleton were very ambiguous, leading Mr Hambleton to believe that he was entitled to the same basic condition (free entry) as the others mentionned above (and virtually everyone playing in the Invitational section) and that he would get back the money that he had given the FQE for a different purpose. That was a completely reasonable assumption. In such cases, regardless of other factors, benefit of the doubt shoud favor the customer, as you are probably aware of. No business and no organisation would want to risk his reputation and name for a measly 95$.

                        Finally your "all the “free” spots in the Invitation section we could grant in accordance with our budget had been awarded" merely looks like a poor excuse to hold on to an advanced entry fee that was paid in good faith by Mr Hambleton to play in the Open section, probably thinking at the time that the top section was unavailable to him. Spots in the Invitation section did not in themselves cost anything to the FQE. In any case, after the FQE's generous 2000$ donation to our olympic team, it would be somewhat ridiculous to pretend that the FQE's budget is at risk because of that 95$. Wouldn't it ?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Show me the money

                          Originally posted by Jean Hébert View Post
                          No business and no organisation would want to risk his reputation and name for a measly 95$.
                          This is exactly what I thought about Aman Hambleton. Guess we are both wrong.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Show me the money

                            Well said, Jean. I agree. If Aman was allowed to play in the invitation-only section then he was, de facto, issued an invitation and his $95 should be returned to him.
                            "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

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Show me the money

                              Originally posted by David Ottosen View Post
                              From your original post:

                              I then realized I would much rather play in the "Invitational Section"
                              So Aman apparently asked the organizers if he could play in the Invitational Section and they agreed. Why should he not be allowed to play in that section on the same basis as all of the other entrants? His rating certainly justified his participation.

                              p.s. Note, David, by M. Poulin's own admission, that the organizers failed to make it explicitly clear to Aman, prior to the event, that they would retain Aman's $95 notwithstanding their de facto invitation to Aman to play in the elite event. If the organizers had made their fee decision explicitly clear prior to the event, then, imo, Aman's after-the-fact complaint wouldn't have any merit.
                              Last edited by Peter McKillop; Friday, 22nd October, 2010, 09:52 AM.
                              "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

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Show me the money

                                Originally posted by David Ottosen View Post
                                This is exactly what I thought about Aman Hambleton. Guess we are both wrong.

                                That's not what Jean meant. Guess you're too old for your own good. Btw, Juniors are not a race. What did you say your university degree is? You seem to have some privacy issues, has anyone ever filed a restraining order against you?
                                You haven't played any chess in the past two years, and even before that, not much activity. I don't think your past expertise means anything. Just go ask Motorola.
                                Last edited by Bindi Cheng; Friday, 22nd October, 2010, 12:34 PM.
                                Shameless self-promotion on display here
                                http://www.youtube.com/user/Barkyducky?feature=mhee

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X