06-09-2017, 01:38 PM
In no particular order, here are a few of my thoughts on this general topic, speaking as someone with a 2450+ rating who loves playing weekend congresses:
1) I have little sympathy for the 'I must protect my rating' mindset. My experience of weekend congresses (as well as the SNCL) has been that I'll drop points here and there, but I'll win other events with 100%. The rating balances out over time, and I enjoy competing and learning along the way.
2) Balancing out entry fees and prize money is always going to be tough, and I respect the fact that event organisers face a difficult challenge in costing an event while trying to appeal to as many players as possible. That said, I find it much harder to get excited about events where outright first prize in the Open will not be enough to cover expenses. This is especially true when the prize structure is such that the winner of, say, the <1500 section gets the same reward as the winner of the Open, without any financial recognition of the gulf between the respective skill levels.
3) When it comes to selection for Olympiads and other team events, activity should certainly be taken into consideration when two or more players are of similar playing strength. However, making participation in weekend congresses an essential requirement is going way too far. It wouldn't affect me personally as I always manage to play at least one or two weekenders each year, but it makes no sense to disqualify someone like Colin McNab based on this kind of technicality.
4) Lastly, and I find it surprising that no one has mentioned this so far in the discussion: several weekend events have rating caps in the top section! If we're going to think of ways to encourage more players (and especially stronger players) to participate, then actually allowing them to enter would be a good way to start!
For example, I was looking at the calendar a few months ago and wondered about playing in Inverness; I knew the prize money wouldn't be much, but I thought it could be worth taking a financial hit in order to visit a nice place and possibly pick up a few rating points. But no - it turns out that players rated over 2200 were not welcome. Today I checked again and noticed Kirkcaldy. The top section for this one is limited to players rated under 2000, which rules out the top 83 Scottish players on the latest FIDE list. I guess organisers have their reasons for doing this, but it sure makes it harder for the stronger players to participate when so many events are set up in a way that excludes us from the outset.
1) I have little sympathy for the 'I must protect my rating' mindset. My experience of weekend congresses (as well as the SNCL) has been that I'll drop points here and there, but I'll win other events with 100%. The rating balances out over time, and I enjoy competing and learning along the way.
2) Balancing out entry fees and prize money is always going to be tough, and I respect the fact that event organisers face a difficult challenge in costing an event while trying to appeal to as many players as possible. That said, I find it much harder to get excited about events where outright first prize in the Open will not be enough to cover expenses. This is especially true when the prize structure is such that the winner of, say, the <1500 section gets the same reward as the winner of the Open, without any financial recognition of the gulf between the respective skill levels.
3) When it comes to selection for Olympiads and other team events, activity should certainly be taken into consideration when two or more players are of similar playing strength. However, making participation in weekend congresses an essential requirement is going way too far. It wouldn't affect me personally as I always manage to play at least one or two weekenders each year, but it makes no sense to disqualify someone like Colin McNab based on this kind of technicality.
4) Lastly, and I find it surprising that no one has mentioned this so far in the discussion: several weekend events have rating caps in the top section! If we're going to think of ways to encourage more players (and especially stronger players) to participate, then actually allowing them to enter would be a good way to start!
For example, I was looking at the calendar a few months ago and wondered about playing in Inverness; I knew the prize money wouldn't be much, but I thought it could be worth taking a financial hit in order to visit a nice place and possibly pick up a few rating points. But no - it turns out that players rated over 2200 were not welcome. Today I checked again and noticed Kirkcaldy. The top section for this one is limited to players rated under 2000, which rules out the top 83 Scottish players on the latest FIDE list. I guess organisers have their reasons for doing this, but it sure makes it harder for the stronger players to participate when so many events are set up in a way that excludes us from the outset.