01-05-2015, 11:23 AM
In reply to Mr Greet's 3 points,
1) Whether you buy it or not, in my experience of being involved in congress organisation for decades it was almost the norm and expected that the more numerous sections subsidised the inevitably less well populated top sections. It has only been relatively recently that the prize fund, which mostly comes from the lower sections, has distributed mostly to where it came from though the top section still ends up with a subsidy. It's normally not a "slight " weighting either.
2) Well, looking at Mr Greet's original post the last 2 paragraphs seem, to me, to be all about the titled players, so to say it isn't about titles seems a little disingenuous.
3) No, I'm suggesting you may wish to have some of my hard earned cash because you have worked hard to achieve your level of expertise. Which does seem to me that you don't think that the untitled work at their game to achieve whatever level they have achieved at this time. So I am not suggesting your being elitist due to your being a better chess player, I am suggesting you are elitist for your apparent view that the titled have done the hard work which suggests you think the untitled have not done hard work to achieve their current level of skill. While it is possibly true of most, there are undoubtedly some who have worked just as hard if not harder to get to where they are. So if level of work and taking skill into account as determining where prize monies is distributed do we start taking something like the average difference in rise of grade in the last year as that would seem to be a measure of skill and skew the prize monies in that direction?
1) Whether you buy it or not, in my experience of being involved in congress organisation for decades it was almost the norm and expected that the more numerous sections subsidised the inevitably less well populated top sections. It has only been relatively recently that the prize fund, which mostly comes from the lower sections, has distributed mostly to where it came from though the top section still ends up with a subsidy. It's normally not a "slight " weighting either.
2) Well, looking at Mr Greet's original post the last 2 paragraphs seem, to me, to be all about the titled players, so to say it isn't about titles seems a little disingenuous.
3) No, I'm suggesting you may wish to have some of my hard earned cash because you have worked hard to achieve your level of expertise. Which does seem to me that you don't think that the untitled work at their game to achieve whatever level they have achieved at this time. So I am not suggesting your being elitist due to your being a better chess player, I am suggesting you are elitist for your apparent view that the titled have done the hard work which suggests you think the untitled have not done hard work to achieve their current level of skill. While it is possibly true of most, there are undoubtedly some who have worked just as hard if not harder to get to where they are. So if level of work and taking skill into account as determining where prize monies is distributed do we start taking something like the average difference in rise of grade in the last year as that would seem to be a measure of skill and skew the prize monies in that direction?