31-08-2011, 11:28 PM
David Deary Wrote:Mike Scott Wrote:Your frequent reference to the stronger chess players as the elite as if it is some form of class warfare is amusing at time but is getting a tad tiresome. My experience is that chess is a wonderful example of community, where those that have benefited in the past from the dedication of others repay that debt in turn by helping the next generation of players, run events or making anonymous donations.
I think this bit was added after I replied to the prior part.
I agree that chess is a community and in fact I believe I suggested that JR offer his experience in helping me improve. It may have seemed facetious but I was being serious any advice is appreciated. You may not like me to draw the distinction between views but I believe there is an existing issue of oversubsidy of the best players at present by the lower graded players.
I also stated that I hated using elite and lowly but it was useful for making the point. I also said in future posts I would try to avoid it unless there was something I felt was ridiculous which I will do.
Anyways, all this chess debate has distracted my attention from the first round of the Irvine Open tomorrow which I better go and do some practice for. =)
Before I go: JR apologies if my prior post is somewhat heated and it was not intended to be personal. I look forward to your reply.
You don't have to apologise for anything ;P I enjoy when debates get a bit more heated, that's the way it used to be years ago when I was much more active on the forums. The term lowely rated was not meant to cause offence, so sorry if you took it the wrong way.
I don't think I have an elitist attitude towards everything, for instance I have always said I do not think titled players should be paid appearance fees and that our top players should not expect it all on a plate.
I think what annoyes me a bit is that many people do not seem to understand how much effort it takes to become a 2200+ player and maintain that standard of play. It takes a lot of time and investment to get to that level and if you want to get even better (IM level) it takes even more. Players who regulary win the major's/minors can make a lot more money than 2000+ players who have to tough it out in the open against the best in the country, which is why I always said I think prize money in the open events must be higher. There needs to be some incentive to become a better player, otherwise what's the point?
On the issue of the sensorary boards I was probably being a bit provocative. If people want to watch the top boards in other events besides the open then fair enough. It is a unique concept, but maybe it might work...
On the issue of raising money to pay for them, why not raise the yearly membership fee by £1 for the next two years. Also Charge non-CS members an extra £1 per event to enter. That way non-members are also paying something towards it.