10-05-2012, 11:49 AM
As an "East" person I accept that the format of the West of Scotland Championship is none of my business, but I would suggest that there is no incentive for the weaker players to take part in a knock-out - why should they pay the same entry fee to play probably one game as the strongest players pay to play maybe half a dozen games? And if the weaker players don't enter, not only do the stronger players get fewer games for their money, but the prize fund also dwindles and the strong players then have less incentive to enter. Below a certain number of entries, the tournament enters a vicious spiral and disappears into a black hole as the MacIsaac and the Nancy Elder have done.
I think the congress format is far better, as everybody gets the same amount of chess for their money, and even those who are not in contention for the top spot can still get something out of the tournament. Stand-alone West and East congresses would still be the ideal, but in recent years the numbers attending have simply not been sufficient to make such congresses financially viable. Maybe some time in the future they can be resurrected, but for now I think the safest course is to continue to incorporate the East and West championships in existing congresses.
I think the congress format is far better, as everybody gets the same amount of chess for their money, and even those who are not in contention for the top spot can still get something out of the tournament. Stand-alone West and East congresses would still be the ideal, but in recent years the numbers attending have simply not been sufficient to make such congresses financially viable. Maybe some time in the future they can be resurrected, but for now I think the safest course is to continue to incorporate the East and West championships in existing congresses.