Posts: 400
Threads: 9
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation:
1
Mike Scott Wrote:Your frequent reference to the stronger chess players as the elite as if it is some form of class warfare is amusing at time but is getting a tad tiresome. My experience is that chess is a wonderful example of community, where those that have benefited in the past from the dedication of others repay that debt in turn by helping the next generation of players, run events or making anonymous donations.
I think this bit was added after I replied to the prior part.
I agree that chess is a community and in fact I believe I suggested that JR offer his experience in helping me improve. It may have seemed facetious but I was being serious any advice is appreciated. You may not like me to draw the distinction between views but I believe there is an existing issue of oversubsidy of the best players at present by the lower graded players.
I also stated that I hated using elite and lowly but it was useful for making the point. I also said in future posts I would try to avoid it unless there was something I felt was ridiculous which I will do.
Anyways, all this chess debate has distracted my attention from the first round of the Irvine Open tomorrow which I better go and do some practice for. =)
Before I go: JR apologies if my prior post is somewhat heated and it was not intended to be personal. I look forward to your reply.
Growing old is compulsory, growing up is optional!
Posts: 1,120
Threads: 70
Joined: Aug 2011
Surely, only games that have a bearing on the outcome of the individual sections should be used on a "live" board basis, the quality or standard of the games in initial rounds is completely irrelevant. If I, as a no bad plodder wished to access congress action at the business end, I wouldn't be all that bothered which section the contestants were in as long as it was exciting and relevant to the places and prize money in their respective groups. In the early rounds more emphasis strictly should probably be placed on the higher sections from a quality point of view, but once the smoke clears, in the later rounds, any section that has the possibility of an exciting finish is the one to watch.
Posts: 576
Threads: 14
Joined: Aug 2011
I see Robin sneaked in with a useful insight to what the non paying public want to see.
The question here is a planning issue - how best to raise money via use of sensory boards.This may not be the same as broadcasting the highest quality moves available.
Could it be the case that future entries would rise if on line spectators saw typical games from the lowest section. If so then there is a valid case for concentrating on low boards in the lowest section. Especially so in the early rounds.
Posts: 72
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2011
Phil, you mean as in they consider us Minor players as cannon fodder and as a result are enticed to enter?
I am sure anybody who looked at my game from the Scottish would have considered me a bunny, so there may be some scope here
I agree with Robin. The tail end of the tournament usually brings games with a bit more spice and pressure, and consequently more interest as players battle it out for their respective sections. These games are usually just as tense, no matter what section they are played in, regardless of the overall quality of the play. That tension can lead to some quality play, just as it can lead to blunders, and all the sections should be covered. It also might give you some insight into your potential opponent's repertoire, given that there are very few games recorded outwith the Open section in databases.
What is CS's ultimate strategy and goals for the boards? Knowing that will help.
Posts: 2
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2011
What a debate! This is an eye opener on so many levels for me as a new Marketing Director, really shows a few areas up.
From a narrow minded point of view based on my role, I don't believe that putting ALL the sensory boards in the Open Events are going to be beneficial to gaining commercial support. My clear aim is by this time next year to have "location tailored" sponsorship on the live feeds for every event in the calendar that wishes to use the sensory board. So I need the largest amount of players tuning into the live feed to make this profitable. (more hits means higher price of advertising!)
Now this is my logic.
Someone mentioned earlier that tennis/football wont show a few Premiership games then go to Sunday League. Well....if we're going to do comparisons, what about boxing which has a Main Event, co-main events, a televised undercard and a non televised undercard. Not to mention the occasional amateur/junior fights that precede that.....
Chess is a complex sport. It's not like tennis where we could relate to a Roger Federer. We COULD imagine hitting those shots and moving that way...even though we can never ever achieve it. It's watchable, its fun.
The problem is that in chess, not everyone understands everything. We all know the same moves but like an art, some players play with such a deep precision and depth whereas some of us are just like boxing sluggers who just go wild for the knockout blow and leave our chins open. Some of those sluggers will never have the time, patience and/or ability to ever get to the precision levels. And the key point....because they will never get to those levels, they won't enjoy a precision game as much as they would a game of their level, or even a level above.
So is it fair to someone of a "Minor" level shall we say to have nothing but "Open" games to digest? In a three-tier tournament for example; show 4 Open games, 2 Major and 2 Minor games and that Minor player has 2 games of his/her level and 2 games a level above. So they are being introduced to what it takes to play well at the next level so you HAVE incentive to get better. (Which was J*R's worry from earlier) I think people at the Open level sometimes forget that while their is a lot of work to get to an Open level, there has to be "stepping stones" clear to someone to make them WANT to learn.
And from my narrow minded Marketing eyes, that's where I have to put my strategy focus.
We don't have a lot of Open players. It's the same old players playing in tournaments. We have tournaments where in some cases the Open section has 20 players, the Minor has 50+ and yet the big prizes are going to the Open. The Minor is varied enough in different players that play in different tournaments but every level up, the variety of players in each tournament diminishes significantly till we get to the Open where it's fundamentally the same faces. Yet the Minor player is paying the same entry fee in most occasions so in effect, they are funding the bigger tournament's extra prize money. For that reason, don't you think they have to be looked after too?
I have to find ways of getting the most people into these live games. When the majority of active players are at a Minor/Major level I have to cater for them as well as showing the elite games as well. There has to be a carrot for someone to work harder and get better. Give them a stepping stone and they can achieve it.
I believe that the best way of doing this is to show a variety of games.
As for the cost, I agree that it should be along the lines of £100 a tournament.....eventually! But for that, there has to be a specific commercial benefit shown to the tournament director. And sponsorship cannot be achieved at a consistent level overnight.
A £50 minimum donation initially should be significant.
Questions/comments fire away
Posts: 408
Threads: 39
Joined: Aug 2011
Any chance of having some form of spread betting on the next move to be played? That would probably work best using games from the minor/major when there is more of a random move selection...
Or some other combination of chess and gambling when the players back themselves with bets.... that would spice up old battles.
Spread betting sounds a fantastic idea, seriously.
And would 'fixing' be such a problem? The only time chess gets in the news is via controversy.......
