02-05-2015, 03:52 PM
I initially didn't want to post my views on this, mainly because David's event looks fantastic, and it would be a shame if this discussion detracted from that. The venue looks top class, and I hope that anyone considering entering does. However, as there have been a lot of posts on prize money structure, I would quite like to outline a view on why I am in complete agreement with Andrew Greet. I don't expect to be popular for that though...
Imagine you are starting the concept of a chess event from scratch. You put together one big event where every player is treated equally, the only difference being the relative skill of the players. Next you spot that it would be nice if the players who realistically won't be winning the event could also compete for something, so you introduce grading prizes to play for. Obviously these are less than the main prizes, because the skill require to win is lower, and the option to win the main prizes are still open to them. But you still notice that some games will be too one sided, and players who would get beat think it would take the fun away, so there is a box to tick that says "I only want to play players up to a certain level". Then what you have essentially done is create the current congress set up, where you regard the sections as subsections of the one big, main event. You would never make the grading prize the same as the top main prize, so why should the subsections get the same as the main Open? There is also the point that if you are entering the Major/Minor then there is nothing stopping you from entering the Open to play for the prizes there, whereas I am stuck to just having to play the one section out of my skin to get something. The fact that players are currently rewarded for not improving is a very strange situation.
When you enter an event, you are investing in the congress, not just your event. If people feel resentment about "subsiding" the top section, then why not just scrap it all together? The other sections will be able to have more money, and I'm sure the majority of people will be happy with that.
Imagine you are starting the concept of a chess event from scratch. You put together one big event where every player is treated equally, the only difference being the relative skill of the players. Next you spot that it would be nice if the players who realistically won't be winning the event could also compete for something, so you introduce grading prizes to play for. Obviously these are less than the main prizes, because the skill require to win is lower, and the option to win the main prizes are still open to them. But you still notice that some games will be too one sided, and players who would get beat think it would take the fun away, so there is a box to tick that says "I only want to play players up to a certain level". Then what you have essentially done is create the current congress set up, where you regard the sections as subsections of the one big, main event. You would never make the grading prize the same as the top main prize, so why should the subsections get the same as the main Open? There is also the point that if you are entering the Major/Minor then there is nothing stopping you from entering the Open to play for the prizes there, whereas I am stuck to just having to play the one section out of my skin to get something. The fact that players are currently rewarded for not improving is a very strange situation.
When you enter an event, you are investing in the congress, not just your event. If people feel resentment about "subsiding" the top section, then why not just scrap it all together? The other sections will be able to have more money, and I'm sure the majority of people will be happy with that.