Hamilton Stars Barred (and Stars Barred sections in general)

[Hugh Brechin]

Am I alone in thinking that the idea of tournaments with a rating ceiling is a slightly unfair one, since they ensure that a good number of players simply can't participate in any section at all? I'm not having a go at anyone here - it's the organisers' right to set up whatever sections they choose to - but I'm curious to hear others' views.

[Andy McCulloch]

Well I think that Mike had to do something after last year's equivalent event.

I've just looked it up and the numbers in the sections were:

under 1400 Minor 28

under 1800 Major 32

Open 8

In the Open, only four of the eight entrants had a grade of over 2050 and are effectively 'barred' this season.

The small entry and the last round withdrawal of one person from the Open resulted in a rather untidy last round, causing much grief to arbiters and the players affected.

[Hugh Brechin]

I can understand why that's an argument for lowering the threshold at the top of the Major, but not for introducing a ceiling...

[Alan Jelfs]

... but then the 1700-rated players find themselves in a tournament with little to play for.

[Mike Scott]

Do I understand it correctly - the solution to last year's problem of too few entrants is to prevent players from taking part this year??

[Mike Scott]

but then the 1700-rated players find themselves in a tournament with little to play for.

Surely the vast majority of players play for fun?

[Alex McFarlane]

Running a chess tournament is all about balancing the books in the eyes of most organisers.

We’ve already had arguments for and against different prizes in different sections. Without getting into that again the ‘logical’ thing to do is to allocate prizes as a proportion of the entry fees per section. Adopting the policies of the beloved Maggie Thatcher means that an organiser then drops the section that loses the most money.

Let’s do some simple maths £20 entry fee. 1st Prize £150, 2nd £100, 3rd £50
100 entries Total income= £2000. Expenditure with 4 sections prize fund=£1200 Grading £250 Hall hire £500. Incidental costs £150 = £100 loss

But drop the top section lose 10 entries and suddenly the maths makes sense!
Income £1800 Expenditure Prize fund £900 grading £225 and you’re making a profit with 10 fewer players.

But what if you reduce the rating band of the second tournament (as suggested above), won’t that help balance the numbers per tournament? Actually no. Despite the fact that most players do so for fun part of the fun comes from having a number of tough/close games. The lower rated don’t enter in the same numbers because they are on a hiding to nothing, the middle players don’t enter because of the yo-yo effect (lose to a high grade/beat a dud/lose to high grade/beat a dud/finally play a game) and the strong players don’t enter because they have no competition. Result – an even smaller entry.

The solution – lots of players and narrow grading bands. Now if only I knew how to achieve that!!

[Hugh Brechin]

In an ideal world, we could have one section with significantly beefed-up grading prizes, but the problem (well, a problem) with that is that 5 rounds then becomes insufficient to isolate winners.

My response to Alan's 1700s would be twofold: a) get over it; b) welcome to my world. =)

[Phil Thomas]

On a personal note I have considerable experience of waiving arbiter expenses in order to help the TD balance the books.

Balancing some books is a numbers game.
Running a top section which excludes half of last year's entry is the decision taken. It is unfair on those 4 players. But I'd consider it to have a near neutral effect upon the other 58 Scottish players above 2050 who declined to pay last year.

The grading cap should make the event more attractive for some players from amongst these

112 players in the 1600's
100 players in the 1700's
76 players in the 1800's

and generate mixed views from the 62 players players between 1900 and 2050

The assumption made (I understand) is that more than 8 players from those 350 will enter.

Which is 2.3% of the target audience .... seems a reasonable assumption to me.

[David Deary]

After last years entrants the organisers rightly changed the makeup of the tournament in my view. (as a participant in the Congress)

The number of entrants in the Open last year was unsustainable and I believe the prize money was topped up by CS in order for there to be a prize! Can someone else confirm this?

As Phil & Alex pointed out the books need to be balanced.

Hugh - I can appreciate your concerns and I would advise any players unhappy to contact the organisers and they may revamp the Congress again next year. Unfortunately due to the poor turnout last year the status quo could not be maintained and this change as Phil alluded too affects the fewest number of players.

Mike - There have been Stars Barred tournaments before. If you don't like them contact the organiser. I'm sure if there was a big enough swell of opinion the traditional tournament setup could be back next year.
I am interested to know what you would have done differently if you were the tournament organiser?

In truth, I'm more miffed the Major isn't an Under 1655!