Declining entries

[Craig Pritchett]

Stewarton Allegro entries once again dropping on last year. Most noticeable in the Major with a grand total of 11 entries, less than half in either the Open or Minor.

Still could get in, if you ask nice.

U -14 and U-12 also very scarce and will probably be amalgamated.

Dropping levels of entries are noticeable for the past couple of years now in most of the tournaments I have an interest in which leads to most of them running at a loss.

Obviously this can only be sustained for a short time and, while plans are in place for this season coming, the season after could see a sharp decline in weekend and one day tournaments unless the entries pick up.

I understand the reluctance to pay an entry fee with a 3 in front of it but costs for those events rise year on year and your entry fee doesn't. 

Or do we cut prizes to the bone to attempt to save money, perhaps prize money isn't the draw organisers think it is?

I've seen arguments on this forum indicating that some fees are too high at the moment. That complaint may disappear along with the congress or event to be replaced with a why aren't there more congresses and events.

Some venues where the events I am involved with are into 4 figures for a weekend hire, so something has to give here.

Do entry fees start reflecting the real world for entrants and then possibly suffer even more of a dearth of entrants and fold?

( May come as a relief for some organisers not having to deal with all the hassle of setting one of these things up.)

Do we accept that congresses will fall out of fashion, as it were, because you have to assume that if your entry is going down then the event is less popular then it can be stopped and no one will miss it too much?

Do we go back to the less salubrious venues that are indeed cheaper but have the attendant bars in the next room, or a hen party in the venue? ( I know, 'cause I was there.)

Basically, I suppose, I have to ask if you all want to go back to playing in 1 or 2 weekends a year, if that, and just play in the your club and local league or does meeting people from all over Scotland and beyond appeal to you?

If the second option then you have make the effort to enter as many congresses as you can.

As you can, I said, I am well aware of the other demands on spare time in this day and age so there is no need to categorise why you cannot attend every event in the calendar , try instead to keep it to what could entice you to attend more events.

Just positive things, try it, you might like it.

Interesting post John.

I can give you one reason (sure there are many, we won't find out unless others contribute)....As a regular entrant over the last 30+ years  hardly missing any events, due to the introduction of Fide Rated Weekenders, I have no choice but to miss those events.
I have hopes of the GM title (losing points in weekends will destroy my chances of reaching my goal).  As I work, this means the energy required to gain the little points available are slim, one oversight means instead of gaining slim points, I lose a vast amount of points which is not easy to make up. Alex MacFarlane has confirmed this is another posting.
Due to the inactivity of not playing as often I find myself not having  the desired sharpness required to help me reach my goals.

This year I have missed Perth, Edinburgh and Ayr due to the introduction of Fide Rated events.

I was free for Ayr and would have played.

So there you go John, one guaranteed entry missed.

A statistician's view would be interesting, especially about the probabilities at the core of FIDE (and CS's) rating system in what I tend to call the black box. From memory, these do expect higher-rated players to achieve unrealistically high winning scores (given a rating difference of the 400 points that are assumed by the boundaries of the black box, it is close to 95%). 

These probabilities take no account of colour, far less the enormous increase in available chess information, much of it personalised. Neither has FIDE (or CS), to my knowledge ever undertaken any serious review of the probability spread within the black box, despite over 40+ years of its operation. They have tinkered around the edges, but essentially only with K factors, a different issue

It does seem likely that these probabilities have narrowed over the years but this remains wholly untested. This, too, despite the fact that the black box initially applied only to players over 2200 and effectively to around 2600 - Fischer and for a decade and more after him, was the only high outlier ... but if he'd played any games after 1972, even he'd almost certainly have dropped back much closer to the chasing pack at no more than around 2600.

Would any reputable bookie risk giving odds of circa 95% against a 2300-2400 player continually scoring 5/5 in weekenders playing average field rated 400 points lower? I doubt it. But otherwise the stronger player loses rating points.

Discuss!? And perhaps lobby FIDE!?!?