2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

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

John,

I didn't meant to insult you the way you perceived but you looked so embarrassed. You know, sometimes the truth hurts, doesn't it?
In the first place the world "sandbagging" came out from your post. When i sited you as an example, you looked too upset.
When people got upset when being attacked, they tend to react because nobody wants to accept the fact that we are guilty!
Even from the previous responses by Robert Gillanders about promoting "sandbagging", He too had a peak rating of 2140 and went
down as low 1733, that's almost 400 point lower, can we suspect that he was also sandbagging? Not at all, right? There were
several reasons behind the decline in rating. Was it because age is catching on us? or the just the fact that people are playing chess better
and stronger than before because of the the internet? I would like to point out again that TD should clearly specify in
tournament regulations to limit players to a certain level (USCF called it "current floor") to address this promotion of
sandbagging in lower sections. Simply means that a player is not allowed to play in a section below the current floor.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

I am asking moderators to change the name of the thread to more appropriate, e.g., Prizes and entry fees.

IMHO, otherwise the thread "2009 pwc toronto open chess championship" must stay on topic.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

Final game I actually blundered on the second move but my opponent thought I'd set up something.

What were the first few moves?

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

Egis, this should bring the thread back on topic.
I was copied today on an email from Brian Fiedler regarding the prize fund distribution for this tournament. Brian is the chief organizer.

He shares with us his rationale for the prize distribution. It shows that good organizers do give careful consideration to the prize fund distribution, and do attempt the impossible, that is to satisfy everyone. Thank you Brian, your comments certainly are instructive to those struggling with this issue.

2009 PwC Toronto Open – Prize Structure


Total Prize Fund $16,000+ (Guaranteed)

............................................. Open.....< 2000.....< 1600

Tournament Placement Prizes*:

1st......................................... 3,000 .... ...1,000.....1,000
2nd........................................ 2,000 ..........750........750
3rd......................................... 1,000 ..........500........500
4th......................................... 250 ..........250.........250
5th......................................... 250 ..........250.........250
Top < 2200.............................. 500
Top < 1800.................................................500
Top < 1400..............................................................500
Top junior. (< 18)...................... 250...........250.........250
Top senior ( 50 +)..................... 250...........250.........250
Top female.............................. 250...........250.........250

Individual Game Prizes:
Biggest upset in tournament (rating point differential)..... 250
Brilliancy Prize** (for winner)...250
Best Game** (opponents share equally)....250

Special Prizes:
Chess Trivia contest winner...250
Best Dressed**.....250
Others....TBD


* Note: each participant can claim only one tournament placement prize.
** As determined by special judges.


Rationale for Prize Structure

• Guaranteed nature of prize fund reduces uncertainty for participants. They know beforehand what each placing is awarded and don’t have to worry about the fund being reduced based on a lower than estimated number of entries.

• Heavier weighting of prizes for the top 3 positions in the Open section is designed to attract stronger participants (possibly IM’s or even GM’s), who, as professionals should be rewarded for their efforts. In addition, the presence of strong players will attract a greater number of total participants since, as chess fans, they would like to test their mettle against the best, or alternatively observe the best in action. Since the top section is open to all (vs. being available only to those over 2000), every participant has the opportunity to play for the top prizes, if they so choose.

• Spreading the prize fund widely (there are over 30 prizes to be won) allows each participant an opportunity to win some prize (likely greater than 1 in 10). Limiting the prizes to the top 3 places (as they do in some chess tournaments and even other events (such as the Olympics!)) reduces the opportunity to do this.

• Having prizes for rating classes within sections is an established precedent in tournament chess. On the other hand, too much dedicated to class prizes (vs. prizes for the top finishers within each section) would reward mediocrity and possibly encourage sandbaggers, so the class prizes have been limited.

• To encourage participation amongst seniors, ladies and juniors, special prizes have been dedicated to them, just like in the “old days”. (Although it is possible that juniors need no additional encouragement as they already comprise a sizable percentage of participants in any tournament, thanks to the efforts of the Chess N’Math association and many other dedicated coaches and teachers). The reason for the age cutoff of seniors being at 50 rather than 60 is to make it consistent with golf and other sports and acknowledge that, in spite of the efforts of the occasional Korchnoi or two, chess today, like other demanding pursuits, is indeed a young person’s game!

• Having prizes for individual games, in addition to tournament placement prizes, is to recognize two important things. A) While for many of us, sustaining strong play throughout the course of an entire tournament may be a challenge beyond us, playing an individually brilliant game on any given day (especially against a stronger opponent) is an accomplishment that should be recognized. B) Chess is not only played for its sporting and competitive element, but also for its artistic and creative merit. This too should be rewarded.

• Finally, to add an element of “fun” to the tournament, some additional unusual prizes to help instill an improved “chess culture”. The trivia contest will reward those who follow the lives and actions of chess devotees, while the “best dressed” award, in the spirit of the “Charles Graves tie day”, seeks to help raise the general profile of the chess player, in the eyes of venue hosts, potential sponsors and indeed, each other.


Other Reasons to Play

In addition to playing to win prize money, there are other reasons to play in this year’s Toronto Open. They include;

1. Timing. The tournament is held on the first weekend after Easter. This should allow those who want to keep Easter free for religious or family reasons the opportunity to play.

2. Ideal Location. Situated in downtown Toronto (on the South West corner of King and Yonge Streets – it doesn’t get much more central than that). The Hotel is literally steps from the King Street TTC subway station and has a number of parking lots situated within a few blocks. While the hotel boasts an excellent restaurant, there are many restaurants and fast food outlets within 2 blocks from the location.

3. Ideal tournament hall. The Grand Banking hall in which the bulk of participants will be playing, maintains the aura of an earlier elegant era, adding to the prestige of the event. Additional rooms overlooking the main hall (which can be seen through the glass wall) will host overflow, an analysis area for post-mortems etc. the bookseller (Strategy Games has the concession and will have chess sets/boards/clocks and books etc. for sale) and booths for the tournament sponsors.

4. Classical time controls. For those that harken back to the era of being able to carefully consider moves before playing them, these traditional time controls will be used ( a rarity today for all but CCA held tournaments in the U.S. or top level tournaments like Linares).

5. Monroi coverage. Monroi will be providing demonstration board and internet game posting services for the duration of the event.

6. Foreign participation. As marketing efforts are also being directed at potential U.S. participants, there is a good chance of playing new people that you haven’t encountered before in local competition.

7. Strong numbers will show your support for the game and provide encouragement to corporate sponsors that we are also an interesting and economically desirable demographic. Why let the poker players own this space alone!

8. Simply to play chess and have fun (and forget about the state of the economy and the stock market for at least one weekend)!

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

Egis, this should bring the thread back on topic.
I was copied today on an email from Brian Fiedler regarding the prize fund distribution for this tournament. Brian is the chief organizer.

He shares with us his rationale for the prize distribution. It shows that good organizers do give careful consideration to the prize fund distribution, and do attempt the impossible, that is to satisfy everyone. Thank you Brian, your comments certainly are instructive to those struggling with this issue.

2009 PwC Toronto Open – Prize Structure


Total Prize Fund $16,000+ (Guaranteed)

............................................. Open.....< 2000.....< 1600

Tournament Placement Prizes*:

1st......................................... 3,000 .... ...1,000.....1,000
2nd........................................ 2,000 ..........750........750
3rd......................................... 1,000 ..........500........500
4th......................................... 250 ..........250.........250
5th......................................... 250 ..........250.........250
Top < 2200.............................. 500
Top < 1800.................................................500
Top < 1400..............................................................500
Top junior. (< 18)...................... 250...........250.........250
Top senior ( 50 +)..................... 250...........250.........250
Top female.............................. 250...........250.........250

Individual Game Prizes:
Biggest upset in tournament (rating point differential)..... 250
Brilliancy Prize** (for winner)...250
Best Game** (opponents share equally)....250

Special Prizes:
Chess Trivia contest winner...250
Best Dressed**.....250
Others....TBD


* Note: each participant can claim only one tournament placement prize.
** As determined by special judges.


Rationale for Prize Structure

• Guaranteed nature of prize fund reduces uncertainty for participants. They know beforehand what each placing is awarded and don’t have to worry about the fund being reduced based on a lower than estimated number of entries.

• Heavier weighting of prizes for the top 3 positions in the Open section is designed to attract stronger participants (possibly IM’s or even GM’s), who, as professionals should be rewarded for their efforts. In addition, the presence of strong players will attract a greater number of total participants since, as chess fans, they would like to test their mettle against the best, or alternatively observe the best in action. Since the top section is open to all (vs. being available only to those over 2000), every participant has the opportunity to play for the top prizes, if they so choose.

• Spreading the prize fund widely (there are over 30 prizes to be won) allows each participant an opportunity to win some prize (likely greater than 1 in 10). Limiting the prizes to the top 3 places (as they do in some chess tournaments and even other events (such as the Olympics!)) reduces the opportunity to do this.

• Having prizes for rating classes within sections is an established precedent in tournament chess. On the other hand, too much dedicated to class prizes (vs. prizes for the top finishers within each section) would reward mediocrity and possibly encourage sandbaggers, so the class prizes have been limited.

• To encourage participation amongst seniors, ladies and juniors, special prizes have been dedicated to them, just like in the “old days”. (Although it is possible that juniors need no additional encouragement as they already comprise a sizable percentage of participants in any tournament, thanks to the efforts of the Chess N’Math association and many other dedicated coaches and teachers). The reason for the age cutoff of seniors being at 50 rather than 60 is to make it consistent with golf and other sports and acknowledge that, in spite of the efforts of the occasional Korchnoi or two, chess today, like other demanding pursuits, is indeed a young person’s game!

• Having prizes for individual games, in addition to tournament placement prizes, is to recognize two important things. A) While for many of us, sustaining strong play throughout the course of an entire tournament may be a challenge beyond us, playing an individually brilliant game on any given day (especially against a stronger opponent) is an accomplishment that should be recognized. B) Chess is not only played for its sporting and competitive element, but also for its artistic and creative merit. This too should be rewarded.

• Finally, to add an element of “fun” to the tournament, some additional unusual prizes to help instill an improved “chess culture”. The trivia contest will reward those who follow the lives and actions of chess devotees, while the “best dressed” award, in the spirit of the “Charles Graves tie day”, seeks to help raise the general profile of the chess player, in the eyes of venue hosts, potential sponsors and indeed, each other.


Other Reasons to Play

In addition to playing to win prize money, there are other reasons to play in this year’s Toronto Open. They include;

1. Timing. The tournament is held on the first weekend after Easter. This should allow those who want to keep Easter free for religious or family reasons the opportunity to play.

2. Ideal Location. Situated in downtown Toronto (on the South West corner of King and Yonge Streets – it doesn’t get much more central than that). The Hotel is literally steps from the King Street TTC subway station and has a number of parking lots situated within a few blocks. While the hotel boasts an excellent restaurant, there are many restaurants and fast food outlets within 2 blocks from the location.

3. Ideal tournament hall. The Grand Banking hall in which the bulk of participants will be playing, maintains the aura of an earlier elegant era, adding to the prestige of the event. Additional rooms overlooking the main hall (which can be seen through the glass wall) will host overflow, an analysis area for post-mortems etc. the bookseller (Strategy Games has the concession and will have chess sets/boards/clocks and books etc. for sale) and booths for the tournament sponsors.

4. Classical time controls. For those that harken back to the era of being able to carefully consider moves before playing them, these traditional time controls will be used ( a rarity today for all but CCA held tournaments in the U.S. or top level tournaments like Linares).

5. Monroi coverage. Monroi will be providing demonstration board and internet game posting services for the duration of the event.

6. Foreign participation. As marketing efforts are also being directed at potential U.S. participants, there is a good chance of playing new people that you haven’t encountered before in local competition.

7. Strong numbers will show your support for the game and provide encouragement to corporate sponsors that we are also an interesting and economically desirable demographic. Why let the poker players own this space alone!

8. Simply to play chess and have fun (and forget about the state of the economy and the stock market for at least one weekend)!

That's approximately 54%, 23%, 23% prize fund distribution.

[Lucas Davies]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

I don't get it. Is this thread a joke, or are you ACTUALLY serious?

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

I don't get it. Is this thread a joke, or are you ACTUALLY serious?

This prize fund distribution has some similarity with the 2008 Toronto Labour Day Tournament which attracted over 140 participants. At 54%, 23% and 23% prize distribution for the Open, Under 2000,and Under 1600 respectively is similar to the 40% and 20% for the Open and Under 2300 Prizes which is equivalent to 60% of prize fund while the 10%, 10%, 10% and 10% were distributed to the Under 2000, Under 1800, Under 1600 and Under 1400 prizes respectively. So if we combine and reduce 6 sections into 3 sections (Open & U23, U20 and U18, U16 & 14), it's like 60%, 20% and 20% which is pretty close to the 54%, 23% and 23% with a slight percent offset.
Using ratio and proportion and directly relating the scenario into actual situation, It's like eating in a buffet, where we pay equal amounts, however, the players in the categorical sections are limited to eating only the appetizer while the players in the Open were allowed to eat the full meal which includes the appetizer, main and dessert. If this you agree with me, why should you pay the full amount of entry fee or the full amount of the buffet if you will only get that much? If this is the case, then I will be more than willing to pay 30% of the entry fee of $30 since that is the prize allotted for the category section anyway instead of the full $90 entry fee. Why not consider another prize distribution of 40%, 30% and 30%. In this case, the categorical sections can eat the appetizer and the main or the main and the dessert at least. It’s fine to skip the dessert or the appetizer respectively and pay the full amount. Do you think this acceptable to you?

Let’s try another thing. What is the probability of winning a prize from the 1st to the 5th places?
Using Probability and Statistics, if we imagine a projected number of participants playing in the categorical section (say Under 2000) to be over 50 players. Would you believe me that if after the tourney, you returned a decent score of 3.5/5.0 but to your disbelief, does not even qualify for a prize at all? Maybe an impressive score of 4.0/5.0 may not have the potential to get a prize too if the number of participants increase over 75 players? Why and how are these possible? As the number of participants increases, the probability of getting a prize will become smaller because of the possibility of more ties and because of the limited number of prize winners. So, why not increase the prize distribution prize range from the 1st to the 10th places so that if a player returned a decent score, he should at least get a prize, maybe the equivalent of the entry fee or lower to award him for a good effort and job well done?. Somehow, even a small consolation prize can make a man happy because he had done the best he could but may not be enough at that time and has another thought in his mind that there’s always another time and he will do it better next time! In this way, players will get attracted, challenged and keeps coming back for another tourney!
Would you rather play in a tournament where the number of winners are few but prizes are high or where the number of winners are more but the prizes are low. For me, I prefer the later. If i paid an entry fee of $ 90, I will be more than happy to receive $450 (5 folds) as my 1st prize reward rather than getting a $1000 and distribute the rest of the prize fund until the 10th and beyond! One last question? Is the Open Section FIDE rated? At least those players playing in this section will be awarded (as a consolation) with a recognized International Rating.

[Ben Daswani]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

This prize fund distribution has some similarity with the 2008 Toronto Labour Day Tournament which attracted over 140 participants. At 54%, 23% and 23% prize distribution for the Open, Under 2000,and Under 1600 respectively is similar to the 40% and 20% for the Open and Under 2300 Prizes which is equivalent to 60% of prize fund while the 10%, 10%, 10% and 10% were distributed to the Under 2000, Under 1800, Under 1600 and Under 1400 prizes respectively. So if we combine and reduce 6 sections into 3 sections (Open & U23, U20 and U18, U16 & 14), it's like 60%, 20% and 20% which is pretty close to the 54%, 23% and 23% with a slight percent offset.
Using ratio and proportion and directly relating the scenario into actual situation, It's like eating in a buffet, where we pay equal amounts, however, the players in the categorical sections are limited to eating only the appetizer while the players in the Open were allowed to eat the full meal which includes the appetizer, main and dessert. If this you agree with me, why should you pay the full amount of entry fee or the full amount of the buffet if you will only get that much? If this is the case, then I will be more than willing to pay 30% of the entry fee of $30 since that is the prize allotted for the category section anyway instead of the full $90 entry fee. Why not consider another prize distribution of 40%, 30% and 30%. In this case, the categorical sections can eat the appetizer and the main or the main and the dessert at least. It’s fine to skip the dessert or the appetizer respectively and pay the full amount. Do you think this acceptable to you?

Let’s try another thing. What is the probability of winning a prize from the 1st to the 5th places?
Using Probability and Statistics, if we imagine a projected number of participants playing in the categorical section (say Under 2000) to be over 50 players. Would you believe me that if after the tourney, you returned a decent score of 3.5/5.0 but to your disbelief, does not even qualify for a prize at all? Maybe an impressive score of 4.0/5.0 may not have the potential to get a prize too if the number of participants increase over 75 players? Why and how are these possible? As the number of participants increases, the probability of getting a prize will become smaller because of the possibility of more ties and because of the limited number of prize winners. So, why not increase the prize distribution prize range from the 1st to the 10th places so that if a player returned a decent score, he should at least get a prize, maybe the equivalent of the entry fee or lower to award him for a good effort and job well done?. Somehow, even a small consolation prize can make a man happy because he had done the best he could but may not be enough at that time and has another thought in his mind that there’s always another time and he will do it better next time! In this way, players will get attracted, challenged and keeps coming back for another tourney!
Would you rather play in a tournament where the number of winners are few but prizes are high or where the number of winners are more but the prizes are low. For me, I prefer the later. If i paid an entry fee of $ 90, I will be more than happy to receive $450 (5 folds) as my 1st prize reward rather than getting a $1000 and distribute the rest of the prize fund until the 10th and beyond! One last question? Is the Open Section FIDE rated? At least those players playing in this section will be awarded (as a consolation) with a recognized International Rating.

Agreed; the prize distribution is ridiculously unfair. It reminds me of hockey. I have to pay to play hockey, whereas Dany Heatley gets paid to play. How the hell is that just?!

[Lucas Davies]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

People who are better make more money. I really don't see how you can possibly be arguing this. Why should somebody who casually plays every now and then make almost as much as somebody who studies for hours a week? If you want to be able to make more money from winning, then enter a higher section. Pretty simple.

Why should so many prizes be given out? For one thing, there's usually not enough money for this to work at all. Yes, it's ok for tournaments like the World Open, where there are hundreds of thousands of dollars in the prize fund, but for smaller ones that instead only have hundreds of dollars, what sense does it make to give first place just $100 just so that a bunch of other less deserving people can receive small amounts as well?

What it really seems to come down to, is that you seem to think that those who don't perform well should still reap similar rewards to those who do. That's not how things work in the real world, nor should it.

[John Coleman]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

Agreed; the prize distribution is ridiculously unfair. It reminds me of hockey. I have to pay to play hockey, whereas Dany Heatley gets paid to play. How the hell is that just?!

Even worse, when I went to a NHL game, they wouldn't even let me play!

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

... and don't even get me started on the Canadian "Open" in Golf.

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

How about showing a sample prize fund distribution to understand

Prize Fund $12,000 Entry Fee: $90

Open U2000 U1600

40% 30% 30%

$4,800 $3,600 $3,600

1st $1,000 $650 $650
2nd $800 $500 $500
3rd $550 $450 $450
4th $500 $400 $400
5th $450 $350 $350
6th $350 $300 $300
7th $325 $275 $275
8th $300 $250 $250
9th $275 $225 $225
10th $250 $200 $200

Total $4,800 $3,600 $3,600

Now, What do you think of the table?

[John Coleman]

Entry fees, expenses, and prizes

Precy (assuming you aren't a dyslexic Percy), I'm too idle to wade thru this entire thread, but how is the organiser supposed to pay the rest of his expenses? Can you give the entire budget for a tournament, just the main items. The prize fund may be the biggest item in the budget, but it's not the only one.

Given your proposed prize fund of $12,000, even 150 players at $90 each yields only $1500 for all the rest of the organiser's expenses. Not to mention that taboo word "profit".

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

A few questions come to mind:

1. How many entries would you expect ? $ 90 x ?
2. Would you guarantee this prize fund ? $ 12,000.
3. What if your entry distribution was 50%, 30%, 20% for open, u2000, u1600 respectively, would you change your prize distribution ?
4. What would you pay the TD for his services ?

Prize distribution is only one issue. You can't consider it in isolation.;)

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: 2009 pwc toronto open chess championship

A few questions come to mind:

1. How many entries would you expect ? $ 90 x ?
2. Would you guarantee this prize fund ? $ 12,000.
3. What if your entry distribution was 50%, 30%, 20% for open, u2000, u1600 respectively, would you change your prize distribution ?
4. What would you pay the TD for his services ?

Prize distribution is only one issue. You can't consider it in isolation.;)

Robert,

You sent the details of the tournament from the email of Brian the prize fund distribution for this tournament right?

Let me summarize for you:

Open Section has a total of $ $6500 from 1st to the 5th,
U2000 Section has a total of $2750 from 1st to the 5th,
U1600 Section has a total of $2750 from 1st to the 5th.

Add all these amounts and will total exactly $12,000. Simple arithmetic!

Asking about the changes in the prize fund distribution, for 50%, 30% 20%.
It's plain common sense. YES! of course.

Entry fees and TD services were already accounted for because the prize fund was already published. Guaranteed was $16,000 prize fund including bonus prizes!