+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Money in chess (/thread-937.html)
Re: Money in chess - Jonathan Edwards - 03-04-2014
Never give free entry to anyone (FM/IM/GMs) for any event?
Depends on the objectives of individual congresses.
No free entry / appearance fees / conditions => Fewer titled players => Fewer entries and no/less sponsorship => Smaller budget and less money in chess.
Re: Money in chess - Adam Bremner - 03-04-2014
Jonathan Livingstone Wrote:Never give free entry to anyone (FM/IM/GMs) for any event
I disagree with Kevin and Andy B here. The masters aren't at the events anyhow. There were none at Glenrothes and the bigger congresses have the odd 2 or 3. Your not saving, nor raising any finance if this was implemented. It should also be up to the Congress to decide, I believe one or two have a no free entry for masters policy already, Dundee if I am not mistaken being one. We should be looking at ways to attract the masters to the congresses. It gives opportunity to us mere mortals to get that rare chance to compete against one, it is good experience that is being lost for younger players?
I was having a look at the size of Opens, and Glenrothes was actually a pretty big field compared to the rest this year. I'm not convinced that at congress level, having titled players attracts entries. If anything, it might be the other way round, because a lack of them makes the events more winnable! It is a tricky one, because you should be rewarded for being good at chess, and these guys are fairly handy, to the extent that if they enter, they win money 99% of the time. Maybe consider restructuring of the prizes to give the lower Open players something like a £50 grading prize that is realistically winnable, and watch as more enter? Worth a shot maybe.
Re: Money in chess - D-Oswald - 03-04-2014
Jonathan Edwards Wrote:Never give free entry to anyone (FM/IM/GMs) for any event?
Depends on the objectives of individual congresses.
No free entry / appearance fees / conditions => Fewer titled players => Fewer entries and no/less sponsorship => Smaller budget and less money in chess.
Agree. Plus, if we want young players to break into the Olympiad team, they need a chance to play these guys... getting 4/5 against 21/2200s is good, but you need experience against the 23/24/2500s to make it to the next level.
One idea that may attract CS members to try and get sponsorship is to have a percentage that the individual keeps if he is successful - could be like 10/20%. So if you get sponsorship of £500 then you get to keep £50/100 for your efforts, and CS gets the rest. I've got a similar thing at my football club and it works quite well...
Re: Money in chess - andyburnett - 03-04-2014
I don't believe weekend congresses are the main place young players would be getting experience against the 23/24/2500 players anyway David?
The events you have held, the SNCL, 4NCL and European opens are where most of this experience is gained. Playing 1 titled player every couple of months in a weekender, as good as that may be, won't make the difference.
I prefer it when very strong players enter congresses, but how much of a factor is the free entry, etc. in enticing them, and does a lack of these things really lead to the downward spiral Jonathan suggests? Adam's post gives an example; Glenrothes numbers were up and I was top seed - not a titled player in sight. Some statistical evidence at least would be required to sway me on this one.
The sponsorship ideas are interesting. I understand the economic climate is still poor in this respect, but not desperately so. Not sure how sponsors would view a cut of their money going to those who go out and find it though?!
Re: Money in chess - George Neave - 03-04-2014
The trouble with giving it all to junior chess is what happens next?
:tumble:
...and then ....why did I bother?
Re: Money in chess - PRoberts - 03-04-2014
Here are a few suggestions:
(1) Increased entry fee and reduced prize money in congresses. Instead play for a trophy or have a best game prize. Prize money gets spent/squandered too quickly...Having high prize money in majors and minors also encourages rating bandits who artificially keep their rating too low. Perhaps with less prize money at stake there won't be as many quick draws in the last round.
(2) Something radical - "The Edinburgh Wifi Congress" - employ security guards and scanners to search everyone. No-one, including spectators is allowed in the playing area with a mobile phone.
(3) No free entry for titled players - I agree with this one. Particularly now when you can see online who else has entered. I can think of a few events over the last few years where titled players have entered at the last minute past the notional closing date for entries.
(4) Late entries have to take a half point bye in round one!
How to spend the money:
Hiring a strong player to give seminars/master classes to leading juniors. This can be invaluable in the run up to World and European age group championships. I wouldn't necessarily agree with spending the money to hire a coach to go to these events as the hard work should be done in the month or two leading up to them. Also, some attention can be given to the debrief process in the weeks and months following these events.
As an aside, I've been reviewing one of my 1.e4 defences over the last week. Part of this involves studying some games from 1986 to 1989. Rather worryingly, none of the things I've learnt over the last week were picked up during the junior training events which took place in Glasgow once or twice a year. It's not meant to be a criticism of trainers or of the organisers, rather an observation that, without regular and proper guidance, many things can be overlooked very easily and mistakes can be repeated....
Re: Money in chess - D-Oswald - 03-04-2014
andyburnett Wrote:I don't believe weekend congresses are the main place young players would be getting experience against the 23/24/2500 players anyway David?
The events you have held, the SNCL, 4NCL and European opens are where most of this experience is gained. Playing 1 titled player every couple of months in a weekender, as good as that may be, won't make the difference.
Yes, for sure they aren't the main places, but it would be nice for the young aspiring players to have this option, albeit only once every couple of months.
Re: Money in chess - Jonathan Edwards - 04-04-2014
Adam Bremner Wrote:I was having a look at the size of Opens, and Glenrothes was actually a pretty big field compared to the rest this year. I'm not convinced that at congress level, having titled players attracts entries. If anything, it might be the other way round, because a lack of them makes the events more winnable! It is a tricky one, because you should be rewarded for being good at chess, and these guys are fairly handy, to the extent that if they enter, they win money 99% of the time. Maybe consider restructuring of the prizes to give the lower Open players something like a £50 grading prize that is realistically winnable, and watch as more enter? Worth a shot maybe.
Got bored in the library, so decided to compile some data on variables for congresses going back to 2010.
Ran a regression (with dependent variable being number of entries in Open) and included prizefund, first prize, grading prizes, distance from central belt and number of titled players (FM/IM/GM only) as independent variables. Albeit with a small sample size (n=50), and probably missing plenty of variables, the statistically significant variables are the total prize fund (p<0.01) and the number of titled players (p<0.02). Either players entering opens care about the number of titled players; or the number of titled players is acting as a proxy for another factor.
Re: Money in chess - Kevin Mayo - 04-04-2014
George Neave Wrote:The trouble with giving it all to junior chess is what happens next?
:tumble:
...and then ....why did I bother?
What happens next is the vast majority, after taking all the opportunities given to them, ungratefully decide that they want to do something else and drop the whole notion of chess.
That's life. It's the same thing children do (with a few exceptions) with all their hobbies.
But you bothered for the investment in the tiny minority who retain an interest in chess into their adult lives.
Re: Money in chess - Kevin Mayo - 04-04-2014
Jonathan Edwards Wrote:Adam Bremner Wrote:I was having a look at the size of Opens, and Glenrothes was actually a pretty big field compared to the rest this year. I'm not convinced that at congress level, having titled players attracts entries. If anything, it might be the other way round, because a lack of them makes the events more winnable! It is a tricky one, because you should be rewarded for being good at chess, and these guys are fairly handy, to the extent that if they enter, they win money 99% of the time. Maybe consider restructuring of the prizes to give the lower Open players something like a £50 grading prize that is realistically winnable, and watch as more enter? Worth a shot maybe.
Got bored in the library, so decided to compile some data on variables for congresses going back to 2010.
Ran a regression (with dependent variable being number of entries in Open) and included prizefund, first prize, grading prizes, distance from central belt and number of titled players (FM/IM/GM only) as independent variables. Albeit with a small sample size (n=50), and probably missing plenty of variables, the statistically significant variables are the total prize fund (p<0.01) and the number of titled players (p<0.02). Either players entering opens care about the number of titled players; or the number of titled players is acting as a proxy for another factor.
Or your sample size is misleading small.
Disraeli would approve.