03-05-2015, 08:51 AM
I personally don't have a view either way, I can see both sides of the argument. Lets play devils advocate for a moment.
I would love to find the time to study chess and improve my game as I love chess, especially endgames (by far the best part of the game IMHO).
To do that I would stop organising and arbiting. So because I am putting more into the game, essentially the elite players are saying that I should not be allowed an equal chance of winning the same money as my development has been held back.
Is that fair? I would argue that my fellow arbiters, organisers etc are putting more into the game that the elite players so why should we be punished when we decide to play because we are normally working instead of playing?
People can come back and say, its my choice, it is, but what if David, Alex, Lara, me etc etc decide well sod it , we want to improve, become better players and take on these elite players. (don't worry, it won't happen)
I would love to find the time to study chess and improve my game as I love chess, especially endgames (by far the best part of the game IMHO).
To do that I would stop organising and arbiting. So because I am putting more into the game, essentially the elite players are saying that I should not be allowed an equal chance of winning the same money as my development has been held back.
Is that fair? I would argue that my fellow arbiters, organisers etc are putting more into the game that the elite players so why should we be punished when we decide to play because we are normally working instead of playing?
People can come back and say, its my choice, it is, but what if David, Alex, Lara, me etc etc decide well sod it , we want to improve, become better players and take on these elite players. (don't worry, it won't happen)
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"