Ayr 2015

[William Hulme]

I've always saw a Chess Congress as a whole - not separate sections with self supporting prize funds.
So why not change to one big Open where (perhaps no one will object to) the majority of funds going to 1st, 2nd, 3rd and some Grading prizes (which have to be less than the first three!) matching the Major, Minor sections.
Next we will be arguing over where the division of sections (major, minor, etc) should be! If the sections were altered someone could enter a lower tournament and have a better chance of prize money...!
Personally, I would find it embarrassing if say I won a Major and collected more prize money that someone winning the Open section.

[harrymarron]

If there was no money involved then I would be in support of the "one big event" idea.

Remember though that for a competition to be competitive it requires everyone to have at least a chance of doing well if not winning. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a procession and demoralising for those losing most of the time.

If you are asking competitors to contribute over and above the basic costs of staging the event then you need to provide them with a chance of a return.

This is where sections within an event are a great idea. There is more doubt as to the eventual result, individual games are closer and more exciting and those competing can gain a greater sense of achievement.

An original point in this thread was the sense of entitlement that some players have. In my opinion these players need to think about contributing more to grassroots chess rather than just taking from it.


Everyone should pay an entry fee regardless of ability, unless organisers agree with them that they provide free coaching as part of a deal.

[Clement Sreeves]

What I don't understand is why a 1499 regularly has chances to win a congress, while a 1950 ALWAYS has to play the Open and will very rarely win.

[Mike Truran]

I know that Andrew and others will disagree with me, but I have a (completely subjective and unprovable) belief that prize funds should be the same across all sections and that there should be as few cross-subsidies as possible.

That's the way the new 4NCL FIDE rated congresses are set up. Prize money differs across the divisions in the main 4NCL, but entry fees also differ between divisions (although I accept that mathematically it's not an entirely equitable split between entry fees and prize money).

An inadequate response to Clement's point is that: (a) grading prizes help to mitigate that effect to some degree; (b) life is inherently unfair, and chess as a subset of life is no different.

[Adam Bremner]

What I don't understand is why a 1499 regularly has chances to win a congress, while a 1950 ALWAYS has to play the Open and will very rarely win.

This. You are actively punished for improving. The logical thing is to sandbag and keep winning events. It's a very weird system.

An inadequate response to Clement's point is that: (a) grading prizes help to mitigate that effect to some degree; (b) life is inherently unfair, and chess as a subset of life is no different.

(a) Grading prizes are pennies compared to the main prizes. (b) If you agree it's unfair, then why not change it for the better

[Alex McFarlane]

Sorry but I don't understand this thread about players in the Minor subsidising the Open.

Doesn't everyone know that it is the arbiters and organisers that do the subsidising?
Each arbiter will spend about 25 hours at a weekend congress. The Entries Secretary could spend about 150 hours. So with three sections and an arbiter to each section that will be over 250 hours (including other officials at the event). At a reasonable £10 per hour this comes to £2,500. Subtracting fuel and sustenance given (<£300) that leaves £2200 which is actually more than many prize funds!!

:-* :p :ymdevil:

[Alan Tate]

At a reasonable £10 per hour

Somebody's voting Green then...

[Mike Truran]

If you agree it's unfair, then why not change it for the better

So what would you suggest?

[Adam Bremner]

If you agree it's unfair, then why not change it for the better

So what would you suggest?

First regard the Open as the main event. Looking at the split of entries, there is perhaps a case to make the events that run alongside U1700/1650 and U1300, or at least something to try and rebalance the numbers, because you want the most entries in the Open event. Notice I mean the Open event, not the top event. There is a subtle difference. You could even accelerate the pairings to stop any big mismatches in r1 if that was a potential pitfall. It should be made so that you can still win a decent chunk for winning the grade bounded events, but also obvious that if you work hard enough to improve there is the chance to win more. There would be absolutely nothing stopping a player playing up, or trying to improve, for the chance to win more. People who are content with their current level, and are not playing to win events for money should see no real change. Using vague numbers because it varies with budget, something like £250/£150/£100 as top prizes in the sections, but bump up the grading prizes in the respective sections. Any sort of set up where improvement was encouraged and rewarded is welcome, otherwise what is the point in trying?

[Mike Truran]

How does any of that answer Clement's question about players whose grades are right at the top or the bottom of the relevant section? (i.e. the question I was answering when I made my grading prize and "chess, like life, is unfair" comments?)