Ayr 2015

[andyburnett]

The 175/150/125 distribution was Andrew Greet's off-hand suggestion to at least show SOME extra reward for the better standard of play required to win an Open.

Adam's break-down makes a lot of sense - and I'm being persuaded slowly but surely that I am being ripped off by the 'minor' section players

[Andy Howie]

and if the Minor section decides not to come along??

[andyburnett]

and if the Minor section decides not to come along??

Then they would be missing out on the chance to see the stars of the modern Scottish chess scene in action

Seriously though, there are arguments in favour of both approaches - and I still stand by my first posting that in the event of sponsorship/extra funding then increasing the top section prizes could be considered.

Without this, I have no real objection to the distribution as is, other than that it would be nice to have bigger prizes in Scotland at the top levels as it might allow the better players to spend more time improving their chess towards international level. We are obviously a long way from this scenario though.

[Adam Bremner]

and if the Minor section decides not to come along??

But you could apply that logic everywhere. In tons of Majors/Minors, there is a grading prize that over half the field is eligible for. That prize is normally say £30 to the 1st prize of £150. What if they all decided they could get a better deal by demanding that as there are more of them, they wanted at least an equal share as 1st prize? After all, they are subsidising the rest of the players in their section. Then they could not come along and hold that section to ransom.

If any section decided to not come along, I would question their motivation behind it. I do tend to think better of people than that though.

[Phil Thomas]

For what its worth if the prize money was zero I would still play weekend congresses.

How about this for a radical proposal. Set the prize fund in the open section to be equal to the sum of the entry fees in the open section.

For the other sections for each game played the players pay a fee to Chess Scotland. Those funds get used to support the elite players when they represent Scotland abroad.

[George Neave]

Reading some of the comments in this thread concerning the equitable distribution of capital irrespective of ability makes me think I must be living in a communist state already except...err...I guess that can't be because if that were so there would be government funding going into chess! Maybe when we anoint Princess Nicola the funding will come? She is promising to magic it up for everyone else after all. Perhaps SNP will grow the number of chess players in same way they will grow the Scottish economy? Or will she just redistribute from Open to Minor by abolishing the free entry for titled players? We shall see. Lets declare independence and make Scotland the newest communist republic and all this unfairness about giving bigger prizes to better players can be declared illegal :p

[wharkins]

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.

[andyburnett]

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.

[Jonathan Edwards]

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.

This may have nothing to do with politics per se, but George's tongue-in-cheek comment is pretty close to the money. If prizes are the same in all sections then chess in Scotland will stagnate... no incentive to improve... no titled players playing... can't improve even with intrinsic motivation as no good players to play/watch... have to go abroad! Think about the incentives for junior players - this is invaluable to the future of chess in Scotland.

What would we do without ratings?

It seems that some people have no interest in the quality of chess on display, domestically. Fair enough, your objectives are different. I realise that those arguing one side are generally in the lower events and those arguing the other side are generally in the open section - of course there's bias here.

When you enter an event, you are investing in the congress, not just your event. If people feel resentment about "subsiding" the top section, then why not just scrap it all together? The other sections will be able to have more money, and I'm sure the majority of people will be happy with that.

Exactly.

What a bizarre discussion. Surely the person who wins the top event gets the greatest reward? I cannot think of any other sport or competitive activity of any description where we would see it otherwise!

I cannot think of any other sport or competitive activity of any description where we see that at all.

Very close to all chess tournaments in the world (bridge, Go etc.), all major football leagues (e.g. winner of SPL gets ~£3m, winner of Div1 gets <£100k), all tennis events (ATP/Challenger)... In all seriousness, prize structures are the way they are (as tournament theory would posit) in order to increase the effort given by participants and improve the overall quality, thus drawing more revenue through spectators and sponsors.

Also, congratulations to Iain Gourlay on his IM-norm at the 4NCL! (btw, the prize structure at 4NCL is: Winner of 1st Div gets £1500, 2nd div gets £750, 3rd £375 )

[Andy Howie]

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)