03-05-2015, 02:07 AM
wharkins Wrote:A more even share of the prize money in chess has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with basic fairness. In the recent Edinburgh Congress of the 200+ participants 59 played in the Premier the other 148 played the lower events, yet, the top section shared 45% of the total prize fund. Therefore, the lower events are subsidising the top section. this seems unfair to me.
As for titled players gaining free entry, they should pay the same entry fee as the rest of us in my opinion. I m not in anyway disrespecting anyone who has achieved a title in chess as it is an achievement that merits respect, but, I don,t believe I should pay for the privilege of sitting in the same hall.
Perhaps, as was the case with Edinburgh, you won't GET to sit in the same hall
We seem to be hitting some extremes in this discussion. For me, the presence of strong players/titled players in Scottish events was the catalyst for my improvement many years ago. I can vividly recall playing the Major event in Edinburgh and heading up to the stage as often as possible to watch Paul Motwani, Colin NcNab, Mark Condie, Graham Morrison and others in action in the Premier event.
It never occurred to me to question if they had paid entry fees or were in line for a 'disproportionate' chunk of the prize fund. They were our country's best players, and I wanted to see them and hopefully one day compete against them!
I realise that this won't be the case for everyone - someone happily playing for 30 years in Minors can no doubt get just as much enjoyment from chess as those striving to improve: competition as such is not the be all and end all. However, for those who do want to improve, there is a definite need for the stronger players to participate. If this requires a wee incentive of sorts (free entry/bigger prizes) then I don't think that's such a huge price to pay.