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.
I would suggest that this should be the standard tournament format for tournaments in Ontario wherein the sections should be limited to 3 sections only. However, the price fund distributions should be distributed proportionately in the 40%, 30% and 30% in the Open, Under 2000 and Under 1600 respectively. I would also suggest that the prizes should be from the 1st to the 10th places to attract more participants. Players tend to participate in tournaments where the potential to get a prize is greater compared to if the prizes were only limited from the 1st to the 3rd places. This suggestion was patterned similar to the Continental Chess Association of United States of America. If you were very observant regarding prize distributions in Ontario, guaranteed prizes were usualy lower compared to the advertised prizes even though the number of entries were exceeded. However if the number of entries were not met, the TDs had all the options to alter the prize distribution. Where did those entry fees distributed? they were appropriated in the Open Section. Hey common, players paid standard entry fees while players playing in the Open Section were either free for GM and IM's and discounted for juniors and seniors. Are we paying entry fees for Open Sections were we were not even playing in that section? Hence, i would suggest that TDs should create a standard excel worksheet to automatically fill in the exact prizes for the 1st to the 10th places in each section based on the tournament price fund. In this way the actual price fund will be appropriated variably according to the prize fund and not according to the TDs discretion.
Let me know your thoughts! I hope you have similar observations too, but it's better to voice it out here if there is a better way of how tournaments should be held. ;)
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.
...
Class prizes were created to promote sandbagging.
At first I was going to try to refute that statement, but on further reflection, you may well be right! Class prizes seem like an afterthought; I often wonder why someone wins a couple of hundred dollars in the U-1800 section while someone who ties for 3rd (say) in the Open section gets 27.50 (after playing several players WAY above 17xx.)
I like the idea of taking the prize money and spreading it down through the top [n] overall finishers (taking into account a balance between the amounts and the magnitude of [n])
I don't see the point of even having any "classes" other than FIDE titles, National Master title (whatever you think that means). If you aren't a master level player, you aren't a master level player - regardless of how you define things.
Reminds me of my Judo master: if your belt isn't black it is merely to keep your pants on... all other colours are meaningless.
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.
That's the reason why the Continental Chess Association (CCA) of United States of America were so successful in staging prestigious chess tournaments namely the World Open (Philadelphia), Chicago Open (Illinois) and North American Open (Texas) to name a few because they divided the prizes proportionately to all sections irregardless of what sections you are playing. The Open and other sections showed no significant differences in the prize fund distributions from the 1st to the 10th places. Also, the promotion of sandbagging was also carefully thought off making sure that players play 1n the correct sections. The only issue i had observed was that, what happened when the number of entries were exceeded since the guaranteed prizes that were advertised were still being used even when the
number of predicted entries were exceeded? That might have been an bonus perks for the organizers but not for the players. Although, they always have the options of altering the prize fund in case the number of entries is lowered compared to the predicted attendants. They are always in the win-win situation! However, the bottomlines that i would like to point out and the two main reasons for their success are 1) The proportional distribution of prizes to all sections and 2) the expanded distribution of prizes from the 1st to the 10th places and it's interesting to notice that the 10th placed usually received the equivalent of the entry fee which is good enough to try again for the next tournament. Not bad wasn't it?
You must also take into account the fact that the CCA keeps their costs to a minimum at a tournament. Generally - they supply no boards, sets, clocks, and other features that you might expect to find at a tournament. (still not as cheap as an Ontario tournament I attended a long time ago in which they charged for the scoresheets!)
You must also take into account the fact that the CCA keeps their costs to a minimum at a tournament. Generally - they supply no boards, sets, clocks, and other features that you might expect to find at a tournament. (still not as cheap as an Ontario tournament I attended a long time ago in which they charged for the scoresheets!)
CCA doesn't charge for scoresheets anymore. Until now, they still do not supply boards, sets, clocks. True, they keep their costs to a minimum. They might even have significant discount in the playing venue (hotel) rental specially when players checked in to the playing venue (hotel). The success of CCA could be a role model for Ontario tournaments since they keep on attracting big tournament participants mainly because of the how prizes were distributed proportionately. As far as i observed, if the current trend of tournaments will continue this way, am pretty sure, chess will definitely be in a downward spiral unless something will change how prizes will be distributed, when some private companies might sponsor big chess tournaments or a rich guy like Mr. Belzberg will create chess tournaments. 30% of entries for expenses or donation to charity fund (city halls as playing venue) and 70% for prize funds might be a good percentage division. Currently, most chess tournaments prize funds were based on entries and prizes were distributed unproportionately. I still do not understand why players pay an entry fee of $70 dollars and allot $300 as the 1st prize money when in fact 30 players are playing in that particular section does not make sense to me! For the love of playing chess? If a player is smart enough to make an estimate to what were lost in the tourney namely, time (playing days), expenses (gas and food), psychological stress and fatigue, you will come to know that it's not worth it!
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.
That's the reason why the Continental Chess Association (CCA) of United States of America were so successful in staging prestigious chess tournaments namely the World Open (Philadelphia), Chicago Open (Illinois) and North American Open (Texas) to name a few because they divided the prizes proportionately to all sections irregardless of what sections you are playing. The Open and other sections showed no significant differences in the prize fund distributions from the 1st to the 10th places. Also, the promotion of sandbagging was also carefully thought off making sure that players play 1n the correct sections. The only issue i had observed was that, what happened when the number of entries were exceeded since the guaranteed prizes that were advertised were still being used even when the
number of predicted entries were exceeded? That might have been an bonus perks for the organizers but not for the players. Although, they always have the options of altering the prize fund in case the number of entries is lowered compared to the predicted attendants. They are always in the win-win situation! However, the bottomlines that i would like to point out and the two main reasons for their success are 1) The proportional distribution of prizes to all sections and 2) the expanded distribution of prizes from the 1st to the 10th places and it's interesting to notice that the 10th placed usually received the equivalent of the entry fee which is good enough to try again for the next tournament. Not bad wasn't it?
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
Many people choose to enter a competition based on having some hope of winning. A 1600 player has approximately 0 chance of winning an open tournament featuring a number of masters, and may choose not to play. Class prizes fix that problem. (This is also the reason for the success of the Michigan Amateur [u2000], and the Michigan-based Bottom-half class championship, with big prizes reserved for U2100, U1900, U1700, and U1500.)
Now about the proposal. If you have 3 sections (separate swisses), and prizes to the top 10 each, that's 30 prizes. How many tournaments have enough players to pay the winners off of entry fees? Otherwise, do you reduce the number of prizes, or do you reduce the 10th place prize to 1/2 the entry fee?
For the love of playing chess? If a player is smart enough to make an estimate to what were lost in the tourney namely, time (playing days), expenses (gas and food), psychological stress and fatigue, you will come to know that it's not worth it!
For the love of playing chess ? YES, absolutely.
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.
Many people choose to enter a competition based on having some hope of winning. A 1600 player has approximately 0 chance of winning an open tournament featuring a number of masters, and may choose not to play. Class prizes fix that problem. (This is also the reason for the success of the Michigan Amateur [u2000], and the Michigan-based Bottom-half class championship, with big prizes reserved for U2100, U1900, U1700, and U1500.)
Now about the proposal. If you have 3 sections (separate swisses), and prizes to the top 10 each, that's 30 prizes. How many tournaments have enough players to pay the winners off of entry fees? Otherwise, do you reduce the number of prizes, or do you reduce the 10th place prize to 1/2 the entry fee?
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?
Has anyone experimented with the following tournament setup (for relatively small Swisses - in order to guarantee no more than one perfect score at the end):
1) Two sections open to all - one for players playing for cash; one for trophies.
2) Entry fee for the "cash" section is double that of the "trophy" section (e.g. $40 vs $20).
3) Prizes (in cash or trophies) for the top 5 or 10 in each section - no class prizes.
The stronger players would naturally drift to the "cash" section; the weaker players to the "trophy" section (or not play at all if they realized they had no chance at money). You might get a master or two wanting to play in the "trophy" section; likewise - you might get some "B" players in the "cash" section. This would eliminate sandbagging.
Would you play in such an event? Which section? Do you think a tournament would lose or gain players with such a setup? I think such an event (if well advertised) would attract a flock of new players attracted by the relatively low entry fee.
There is a major tournament coming up this spring in Toronto, the Toronto Open:
- 3 sections :Open, <2000, <1600
-$ 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 ! ).
Has anyone experimented with the following tournament setup (for relatively small Swisses - in order to guarantee no more than one perfect score at the end):
1) Two sections open to all - one for players playing for cash; one for trophies.
2) Entry fee for the "cash" section is double that of the "trophy" section (e.g. $40 vs $20).
3) Prizes (in cash or trophies) for the top 5 or 10 in each section - no class prizes.
The stronger players would naturally drift to the "cash" section; the weaker players to the "trophy" section (or not play at all if they realized they had no chance at money). You might get a master or two wanting to play in the "trophy" section; likewise - you might get some "B" players in the "cash" section. This would eliminate sandbagging.
Would you play in such an event? Which section? Do you think a tournament would lose or gain players with such a setup? I think such an event (if well advertised) would attract a flock of new players attracted by the relatively low entry fee.
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.
Tweet
Comment