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.
There is a major tournament coming up this spring in Toronto, the Toronto Open:
- 3 sections :Open, <2000, <1600
-$ 16,000 prize fund GUARANTEED, including $ 3,000 1st prize
- prizes for top 5 in each section and class prizes within each section
What do you think the organizer should charge for this tournament?
The entry fee is $ 90.
The other day a regular weekend tournament player argued with me that the entry fee was too high. Can't have high prizes , and many of them, unless someone pays for them ( the players ! ).
Bob
-
The entry fee doesn't really matter as long as the potential of getting at least a prize is bigger. The projected participants for an entry fee of $90 will be close to 180 players with $16,000 guaranteed prizes. I could see that the $3,000 first prizes will be for the Open section only but different for the 2 other sections. I haven't seen the details of the prize distribution yet. But if the prizes will be allocated for the top 5 in each section, the percentage of winning a prize becomes slim. That might be potentially be the reason that players may not consider playing even with a substantial prize funds. Am still waiting how the prize distributions will be divided. If they will change from 1st to the 10th places, that will be good. The major thing will be how they will allocate the prize distribution. Will it be 40%, 30% and 30% for the Open, Under 2000 and Under 1600 respectively? Or 50%, 25%,25% or 60% 20% 20%. You see this percentages have significant differences in terms of playing in tournaments. Let wait and see what they will come out with.
PM: "...prizes were distributed unproportionately..."
Why reward talent or diligence when prizes could be distributed evenly instead?
Perhaps chess is not your game? Why don't you take up something where everyone has the same chance? You could put your entry money in lottery tickets for example.
Because we players have different talent, capability, aptitude and everyone of us is unique. All i am asking is that the prizes should not be too wide a gap. Have you seen how CCA distributed prizes in each sections? Can you imagine playing in a tournament where we all pay equal entry fees and the prizes will be distributed something like 50%, 10%,10%,10%,10%,10% for the Open and rest will be for the other sections. This is a gross rip off! Will it not be better if it would be something like 30% 25%, 25%, 20%. If i put my money on lottery, i will be more that happy to know that the 1 million first prize is shared by ten people rather than a single person. This way more people became happier than just a single one.;)
It seems to me that if you think that your ideas are so good then why not proceed with Organizing these ideas. All you need is a site. You seem to think that the rest will come if you offer more prizes so go for it. If it succeeds then you will be the king of chess organizers.
John R. Brown
This is not an idea but this is what was actually happening (facts) to successful chess organizations. We need a benchmark (a role model) to create successful tournament formats. We can start imitating but later on innovate to make it even better and more attractive.
;)
My experience from large tournaments is that they advertise big prize funds to draw more players but they always use the lower group player entries to pay for expenses . If there is any money left over after they leave the Open prizes alone then the lower sections get the leftovers.
Your idea will only work on paper because Chess Players complain too much that Prizes are not high enough.
I like the idea of taking the money you have left and giving it to the top ten finishers period.
Class prizes were created to promote sandbagging.
Regarding sandbagging concerns, the TD can always and have the power to limit players to play in a particular section. O yeah, I remember you were allowed to play in the Under 1600 and topped that section during the 2008 Toronto Labor Day Open. Congratulations! however, your peak rating was 1970. How did you manage to play in that section? am just curious?
Is that what you mean to promote sandbagging in class prizes?
Fortunately most tournament players are there for the love of the game, the opportunity to win money is just icing on the cake. If your sole motivation is to win back all your "expenses" and make a profit, then you ruin it for everyone and end up becoming a sandbagger.
You should regard chess as an inexpensive pasttime. For the cost of the entry fee, gas and food, etc. you get many hours of enjoyment. It's all a matter of perception. Why list food, weren't you going to eat anyway?
As for the distribution of prize money, it is best left to the discretion of the tournament organizers. Their prime motivation is to maximize entries and they need the freedom to experiment with different formulaes.
Every chess players were there not only for the love of the game. There are several reasons beyond those interest. I enjoyed playing as anyone else but losing everytime is not ideal. What profit are we talking here? The TD is obviously the big winner here. That's the reason why the frequency of organizing chess tournaments are quite frequent. The discretion of the TD gives all the power and freedom to get most out of the playing public by experimenting different formula. Nobody ever questioned how the TD came out with the prize distribution or whatever it was. At the end of the tourney, winning players just claimed their prizes without ever knowing why he received that much prize or without even knowing how the TD came out with that figure. I would be more appropriate and I would suggest that a standard way of distributing prizes (an excel kind of formula) will be used to avoid kind of experimentation by the TD to make sure that players will be knowleageable enough to know the expected winnings at the end of the tournament with the clarity in mind what to expect. Regarding sandbagging issues, it's too easy to implement limitations, say if you a player who reached a peak rating of say 2000, this player should not be allowed to play 100 points below, which means that this player can only play in the Under 1900 section and over ;)even if his current rating is 1300. This is very simple to implement, however this regulation is should be clearly noted in the tournament details. See, when everything is clear, anything is fair!
Quite surprised with the number of responses about chess tournaments being held in Ontario. Interestingly enough, these should posed a major concerns about tournament organizations. First in foremost, what makes a tournament so successful that players tend to play in such tournament? We should have a reference, a model of a chess tournament organization. I have mentioned Continental Chess Association as an example. What makes their chess tournament successful? Appearances of titled players? Nope!!! The prize distribution is the main attractions. You can google "Continental Chess Association and check the prize distributions according to sections, to name a few will be the Chicago Open, World Open and North America Open. Does the Open and other sections make a differences? Nope, almost similar whether you play in any section! Most players have the talent, diligence, patience and have other positive values and the time to spent must have a corresponding return or pay out. We invested our time, efforts and even your whole life studying chess and got nothing in return or because of the love of chess? I could not imagine people playing several chess tournaments ending up bringing home nothing! CCA allocated prizes from the 1st to the 10th places but in the actual case their will be a lot of ties which brought down the actual prizes beyond 20th places. I would rather take home a $ 35 (with an entry fee of $250) consolation prize for landing on the 20th or over rather than coming home empty handed. Even a consolation prizes could make a player comes back next time around. If the question is about participants, no doubt about it, CCA did it why not! It's the chances of winning in expanded format that make a tournament succeed.
You know what, if we start with a great cause with a great heart!
I could challenge any chess organizers to allocation 30% of entry fees to support donations to charitable institutions provided they will provide free playing venues and 70% as prize funds where in 40%, 30% and 30% will be allocated from the 1st to the 10th places for the Open, Under 1900 and Under 1600 respectively. I do not mind paying $200 or higher for the entry fee. Do you think this will attract big participants?
The Peel Chess Club provides a Free Playing Site and gives back 100% in Prizes. I'd doubt you can beat that.
This is not an idea but this is what was actually happening (facts) to successful chess organizations. We need a benchmark (a role model) to create successful tournament formats. We can start imitating but later on innovate to make it even better and more attractive.
;)
Like I said
When you run the same format here in Canada then I'll believe you. Until then it is just your idea that something in the USA will work in Canada.
Precy Mckoy, Have you ever organized any chess event for more than 60 chess players?
At the last Toronto tournament, organizers published a financial statement (you may see it here). The TD got 250$. Three day work ~ 10$/h. Yeah, better than nothing
Regarding sandbagging concerns, the TD can always and have the power to limit players to play in a particular section. O yeah, I remember you were allowed to play in the Under 1600 and topped that section during the 2008 Toronto Labor Day Open. Congratulations! however, your peak rating was 1970. How did you manage to play in that section? am just curious?
Is that what you mean to promote sandbagging in class prizes?
Actually my Peak rating was in 1996. So that is what 12 years ago.
Tell me how many players do you know that still play as well as they played 12 years ago??? Twelve years ago I was studying 6 hours a day and I had one job. If you see my rating slowly dropped with lack of practice and struggling with making ends meet with juggling two jobs. So practice does make perfect.
I play where my rating puts me at the time. If I had been in the U1800 before the Labour Day had started I would not have lost games to get into the U1600. If you had checked my ratings before the Labour Day you would have seen I was gaining games and points but I just lost one too many in Kitchener before the Labour Day. Had I'd done better there I'd probably been in the U1800. I don't need to lose games to play in a section.
Actually my Peak rating was in 1996. So that is what 12 years ago.
Tell me how many players do you know that still play as well as they played 12 years ago??? Twelve years ago I was studying 6 hours a day and I had one job. If you see my rating slowly dropped with lack of practice and struggling with making ends meet with juggling two jobs. So practice does make perfect.
I play where my rating puts me at the time. If I had been in the U1800 before the Labour Day had started I would not have lost games to get into the U1600. If you had checked my ratings before the Labour Day you would have seen I was gaining games and points but I just lost one too many in Kitchener before the Labour Day. Had I'd done better there I'd probably been in the U1800. I don't need to lose games to play in a section.
There have been several suspicions of sandbagging but really what ever the truth was. The credits should go to the lower rated player who beat a higher rated player. but doing so instead, you will be suspected of such conviction in losing to a lower rated players. Players in the olden days were far different from players today. Taking note that chess can be lost in a single bad move, a blunder caused by several factors are very common. In your case, it's definitely not your fault that you played in the Under 1600 section, the TD
overlooked. TDs must impose strict compliance to limitations where a player is supposed to play. Truth is that your 1996 rating 12 years ago might be equivalent to 300 points lower today. However, i think you are not supposed to play in the Under 1600 section considering the fact that you reached that peak 12 years ago. Victor Korchnoi still plays competitive chess at his age and still playing at his current rating doesn't he. So age really doesn't affect performances. You just need a good rest and sleep before a tournament to get back at your peak performance. Tell me if i am wrong if you will not sleep the whole night and play chess the next day, you will be playing like a 1000 rated player. but if are fully rested, you can even play at the level of a grandmaster, right? Sandbagging issue can be easily resolved if TDs impose limitations according to peak ratings.;)
Actually my Peak rating was in 1996. So that is what 12 years ago.
Tell me how many players do you know that still play as well as they played 12 years ago??? Twelve years ago I was studying 6 hours a day and I had one job. If you see my rating slowly dropped with lack of practice and struggling with making ends meet with juggling two jobs. So practice does make perfect.
I play where my rating puts me at the time. If I had been in the U1800 before the Labour Day had started I would not have lost games to get into the U1600. If you had checked my ratings before the Labour Day you would have seen I was gaining games and points but I just lost one too many in Kitchener before the Labour Day. Had I'd done better there I'd probably been in the U1800. I don't need to lose games to play in a section.
John,
Take a close look of the tournaments you won :2008 Toronto Labour Day Under 1600. The total prize fund in your section is $650 divided as 300, 200 and 150 for the 1st to the 3rd respectively. There were 39 players in the under 1600 and the entry fee was $70 dollars. 39 x 70 dollars = $2730 right. The total number of entries in the tournaments was 144 player. so 144 x70 =$10,080 less expenses of 30% = that 7,056 as the prize fund. 650/7056x100= 9% of the prize fund was alloted to your section. This was a gross rip-off considering you paid equal entry fees. This is what a call unproportionate prize distributions! Also, $2730 - $650 = $2080 where did this amount go? Sorry to tell you that it went to the open section where you didn't even play! With the 30-25-25-20 prize distribution, you should have won a bigger prize right? But the tournament was meant for the Open Section Prizes and also used for the FIDE rating fees. That's the reason why several and previous tournament players don't want to join any longer and they echo similar reasoning. Do you plan still plan to join next time around with your own accord considering the rip-off or you are thinking twice of joining again? Oh yeah for the love of chess still? Remember that was summer time, i would rather sit my a$$ enjoying the summer days of the year!
Well am just a pratical chess player but does this makes sense to you. We could not be contended with the leftovers right? we also want a good slice ;)piece of the cake not only the icing!
The ProAm tournaments in Guelph run by Hal Bond have featured cash prizes for the Open section, and trophy prizes for class sections for years. It took a little time for the concept to catch on, but these tournaments are well attended.
The Chessca tournament this year in Elora run by Mei Chen Lee gave players an option to play for cash or trophies (lower entry fee). I believe the choice was appreciated. I sure did, as I won a trophy.
There are many other factors that contribute to a successful tournament. A pleasant playing venue, refreshments, starting on time, good officials, good advertising, etc etc, we must not overemphasize the prize fund.
There are good TD's out there trying new ideas to attract more players. Some will work, and some will not. I applaud their efforts.
Did the ideas really worked or effective to come up with an standard format? Or continue with experimentation? There had been significant decreases in chess players attendance in regular swiss tournaments. Why was this happening? Did the players realized that something is not right? What matters most is what makes a tournament successful! I guess it's time for a major changes in the Canadian Chess Circuit. TD should focus more how to attract back previous chess playing afficionados. Not that easy but there should be a way! I mean a benchmark! There were several chess players who echoed similar reasons why they don't want to play chess any more because there is no money in chess in Canada. In the practical point of view, it was true! But for the love of playing;) chess, false! Can we not create a solution that will make both true?
Take a close look of the tournaments you won :2008 Toronto Labour Day Under 1600. The total prize fund in your section is $650 divided as 300, 200 and 150 for the 1st to the 3rd respectively. There were 39 players in the under 1600 and the entry fee was $70 dollars. 39 x 70 dollars = $2730 right. The total number of entries in the tournaments was 144 player. so 144 x70 =$10,080 less expenses of 30% = that 7,056 as the prize fund. 650/7056x100= 9% of the prize fund was alloted to your section. This was a gross rip-off considering you paid equal entry fees. This is what a call unproportionate prize distributions! Also, $2730 - $650 = $2080 where did this amount go? Sorry to tell you that it went to the open section where you didn't even play! With the 30-25-25-20 prize distribution, you should have won a bigger prize right? But the tournament was meant for the Open Section Prizes and also used for the FIDE rating fees. That's the reason why several and previous tournament players don't want to join any longer and they echo similar reasoning. Do you plan still plan to join next time around with your own accord considering the rip-off or you are thinking twice of joining again? Oh yeah for the love of chess still? Remember that was summer time, i would rather sit my a$$ enjoying the summer days of the year!
Well am just a pratical chess player but does this makes sense to you. We could not be contended with the leftovers right? we also want a good slice ;)piece of the cake not only the icing!
Do you ever read the posts you Quote??? Or do you just like hitting the quote button.
I said that the TD's take from the lower groups to pay the expenses that is why the lower section Prizes are always lower. The lower sections provide the biggest number of entries therefore the TD has the best chances of recouping his losses there. He keeps the other prizes high to attract a higher level of players to get quality games and get a more professional atmosphere at his events.
Complainers like you would be given your money back after the first round if I ever ran one of these big events.
We are all there to play chess some professionals may be there to make money but most of them would go to your World Open venues.
Do you think that the USA tournaments got their ideas to run the tournaments the way they do now overnight? I'd doubt it.
Regarding me sandbagging and getting sleep.
For your information I should have only one 3 games in the U1600 tournament out right. Two I should have lost and the Final game I actually blundered on the second move but my opponent thought I'd set up something. So I was Lucky to get a draw in the final games as two experts went over the game and I was truly beaten had I continued. I was not playing at a 1970 level.
I had plenty of rest for that tournament but I had the will to be aggressive in my games and it paid off.
A sandbagger is someone who continues to win a section then move up to the next section and get destroyed and then move back to the lower section and win First again. I don't really see that in my results unless you are seeing something that shows that I don't see. I play for the enjoyment of chess and I play wild and crazy openings that is what reflects my rating now. Most of my games are either lost won or drawn in under 50 moves.
So don't insult me anymore with regards to sandbagging.
John R. Brown
Tweet
Comment