01-05-2015, 12:26 AM
Firstly to Robin: let me reiterate, I do appreciate the work that you and David, and all chess organisers for that matter, put in to make these events happen, and I hope this one is a success.
Andy B makes some valid points. The bit about titled players providing norm opportunities in some tournaments but not weekenders is off-topic though. My argument is not about rewarding 'titled' players per se (although free entry is of course appreciated when offered) but, rather, the fact that winning a prize in an Open - whether it contains 'titled' players or not - is vastly more difficult than winning a prize in an U-1850 tournament, which is itself a lot more difficult than U-1450. (The rating bands may differ at other events of course, but the principle is the same.)
It's true that I made reference to titled players in the Open, but this was to emphasise the strength of that section compared to the others, and how much harder it would be to win a prize in it.
As for Mr McNicoll, there are a few things to point out here:
1) I don't buy the argument about taking a cut of the entry fees from another section. The current list of entrants shows 17 in the Major and 11 in the Open. If it's really true that entry fees should only be redistributed as prizes in the same section, then the prize fund for the Major should be considerably higher than the Open. In another congress the proportions might be the opposite. Every congress will see some degree of entry fees being shifted from one section to another, so I don't see this as a valid objection to a slight weighting towards the upper sections.
2) To repeat an earlier point I made, Mr McNicoll's post repeatedly refers to 'titled' players, even capitalising the word at one point. This isn't about titles: it's about recognising a significant difference in skill level. I would argue just as strongly that the respective prizes for the Major and Minor should take into account the difference in skill, and I doubt there are any FIDE-titled players in either.
3) As for my being 'better' than other players, I find this a bizarre remark. Surely, Mr McNicoll, you're not suggesting that I believe a relatively high chess rating makes me a superior human being? If you mean in chess terms am I better than an 1800 or a 1400, then - call me elitist! - yes I am a better player, obviously.
Andy B makes some valid points. The bit about titled players providing norm opportunities in some tournaments but not weekenders is off-topic though. My argument is not about rewarding 'titled' players per se (although free entry is of course appreciated when offered) but, rather, the fact that winning a prize in an Open - whether it contains 'titled' players or not - is vastly more difficult than winning a prize in an U-1850 tournament, which is itself a lot more difficult than U-1450. (The rating bands may differ at other events of course, but the principle is the same.)
It's true that I made reference to titled players in the Open, but this was to emphasise the strength of that section compared to the others, and how much harder it would be to win a prize in it.
As for Mr McNicoll, there are a few things to point out here:
1) I don't buy the argument about taking a cut of the entry fees from another section. The current list of entrants shows 17 in the Major and 11 in the Open. If it's really true that entry fees should only be redistributed as prizes in the same section, then the prize fund for the Major should be considerably higher than the Open. In another congress the proportions might be the opposite. Every congress will see some degree of entry fees being shifted from one section to another, so I don't see this as a valid objection to a slight weighting towards the upper sections.
2) To repeat an earlier point I made, Mr McNicoll's post repeatedly refers to 'titled' players, even capitalising the word at one point. This isn't about titles: it's about recognising a significant difference in skill level. I would argue just as strongly that the respective prizes for the Major and Minor should take into account the difference in skill, and I doubt there are any FIDE-titled players in either.
3) As for my being 'better' than other players, I find this a bizarre remark. Surely, Mr McNicoll, you're not suggesting that I believe a relatively high chess rating makes me a superior human being? If you mean in chess terms am I better than an 1800 or a 1400, then - call me elitist! - yes I am a better player, obviously.