PDA

View Full Version : "Conditions" for titled players



arosar
20-12-2004, 03:56 PM
. . . titled players want conditions laid out for them instead of having to play well to earn their money.

What's wrong with that?

AR

JGB
20-12-2004, 08:59 PM
. I am starting to get the feeling that MOST, not all, titled players want conditions laid out for them instead of having to play well to earn their money.

I think is pretty sad, Garvin but what your stating is becoming more obvious all the time. Most GM's I know won't even play in a tournament without 'conditions'. The ex-Russian chess players learn the word 'conditions' before 'hello'. :confused: Regardless of the first prize fund. If they have to battle out over a week of competition they want to be 'payed' for the work. I think this mentallity is widening through the chess community to involve players who do not belong to the GM class.

The fact that Chess tournaments are often held in far flung places, cost the player a greater initial funds outlay, making 'conditions' more important.

pax
20-12-2004, 09:55 PM
I think is pretty sad, Garvin but what your stating is becoming more obvious all the time. Most GM's I know won't even play in a tournament without 'conditions'. The ex-Russian chess players learn the word 'conditions' before 'hello'. :confused: Regardless of the first prize fund. If they have to battle out over a week of competition they want to be 'payed' for the work. I think this mentallity is widing through the chess community to involve players who do not belong to the GM class.

The fact that Chess tournaments are often held in far flung places, cost the player a greater initial funds outlay, making 'conditions' more important.

For a lot of players 'conditions' means not much more than free accommodation (and transport if they're lucky), and they still need to play well to make a buck. For a professional chess player at the Australian Open some sort of conditions are pretty essential unless they live nearby (or are willing to consider it a chess holiday). After flights, accommodation and the extra expense of spending two weeks in a holiday village, you would probably need to finish top three to break even (and obviously those travelling from overseas can forget break even without conditions, coaching arrangements or similar).

It's a simple fact of market forces. The professional players will go where they have the best shot at making a decent return (and maybe paying a few bills).

Then of course there are times when they just play because they love it and are willing to pay their own way (e.g the recent Olympiad), but it can't work like that all year round.

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 10:00 PM
and obviously those travelling from overseas can forget break even without conditions, coaching arrangements or similar).
I take some liberties here and say that I dont think any of us are talking about overseas gm's. They are a different situation and yes decent conditions for them is fair enough.

Can a moderator split this thread as I think we are on a different topic now ;)

jenni
20-12-2004, 10:10 PM
can we have a change of thread title please. Conditions for titled players in general. I think we are talking more general than just mt buller.

Anything else Garvin? Maybe a change of forum? It probably shouldn't be in Mt Buller forum if it is general thread - where would you like it moved to. :wall:

Bill Gletsos
20-12-2004, 10:12 PM
It should be under General Chess Chat.

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 10:12 PM
Anything else Garvin? Maybe a change of forum? It probably shouldn't be in Mt Buller forum if it is general thread - where would you like it moved to. :wall:
now now :P

jenni
20-12-2004, 10:13 PM
now now :P
I exist to serve. :)

JGB
20-12-2004, 10:35 PM
In the end, conditions (enough to draw overseas GM's anyway) are not possible without sponsors. And without sponsors Australian chess has a problem drawing the big guns. :(

Garvinator
20-12-2004, 10:38 PM
In the end conditions are not possible without sponsors. And without sponsors Australian chess has a problem drawing the big guns. :(
also one of the biggest balancing acts is to try and judge paying out appearance fees etc and having a large prize pool. One affects the other. If we had our time over again or more time I think we might have had a smaller prize pool and gave more conditions to the im's. We were advised and took the advice that a large prize pool would help attract the titled players. Not to be :doh:

Ian_Rogers
20-12-2004, 10:55 PM
I am not sure that conditions are the only issue for Australian IMs with regard to the upcoming Australian Open.
I suspect it is also partly a question of respect. The Australian IMs had already had the experience of being invited and then univited almost immediately by the original organisers of the Open. The only Australian IM not to have his conditions withdrawn by the original organisers, discovered that they were to be dramatically reduced by the new organiser and declined to play under the revised conditions.
Then, until very recently, Australian IMs were being told that would get no conditions and they should be grateful to play in a tournament where GM norms were possible. In the meantime, the IMs could see considerable funds being spent on foreign GMs (some quite modestly rated).
The logical conclusion - especially since they did not know the reasons why certain foreign players were being invited - was that having Australian IMs in the tournament was not a priority for the organisers
The Australian IMs could also see a prize fund with a few big prizes which the GMs were likely to win and lower prizes which wouldn't even be break even for them. (I must declare a bias here - I had tried to get the prize fund made longer (successfully) and more progressive (unsuccessfully) in July - with the IMs in mind. The organisers understandably wanted a big headline first prize.)
Anyway, it is quite understandable that Australian IMs made other plans for the New Year and that the recent last-minute efforts to offer conditions were always a long shot.

Ian

arosar
21-12-2004, 11:27 AM
The logical conclusion - especially since they did not know the reasons why certain foreign players were being invited - was that having Australian IMs in the tournament was not a priority for the organisers

That's just disgraceful, isn't it?

I mean, hellooo . . . it's our friggin' Open!!

AR

Rincewind
21-12-2004, 12:34 PM
That's just disgraceful, isn't it?

I mean, hellooo . . . it's our friggin' Open!!

Yes, I could understand how you in particular would be gutted by these turn of events, Amiel. Especially considering the stalwart support you have given to the organisers and tournament over the last few months.

arosar
21-12-2004, 12:37 PM
Yes, I could understand how you in particular would be gutted . . . .

Mate, I'm devastated!

AR

Paul S
21-12-2004, 11:16 PM
Mate, I'm devastated!

AR

:liar: :liar: :liar:

george
22-12-2004, 10:41 AM
Hello All,

I offered no conditions to Aussie IM's because I was advised a long prize list would attract Aussie IM's.

As far as respect goes I have nothing but the utmost respect for Aussie IM's .

If the rumour mill got going in Spain and things drawn from private conversations I had with one IM well that is very sad indeed that that IM did not come to me and say early on look this isnt going to work I suggest this. Spitting the dummy is easy being proactive and making an early suggestion as to a better use of $5,000 (6-10 prize monies) would have been appreciated and acted upon.

The only advice I got was make the prizelist long and the Aussie IM's will come!

Monies offered by a previous organiser to all sorts of people COULD NOT be supported by the tournament and had to be modified. To support all the deals done by a previous organiser we would have needed an extra approximately $30 - $40 thousand dollars - under certain scenarios of making staying at Chalet compulsory and increasing entry fees by a large amount - none of which I was willing to commit to the original appearance monies could all have been paid but then how many other players would have come to play.

Kindest Regards
George Howard

Ian_Rogers
22-12-2004, 12:00 PM
George - "The only advice I got was make the prize list long and the Aussie IM's will come!"

This is not the advice which I gave you in Adelaide in July - which was to have a prize list longer than the expected number of GMs, with a last (e.g. 10th) prize big enough to enable an IM to break even if they played well enough to finish in the prize list.
However such an allocation of prize monies would have resulted in a reduction in the top prizes - first prize in particular - and George made the decision to retain the prize structure he presented to me in July rather than my alternative model.
This is not to say that changes to the prize list would necessarily have attracted many more IMs, but it might have helped.
In any case George may yet be proved right. Probably the media don't really care how many Australian IMs are playing but may be more impressed by a $4,500 first prize - the biggest at an Open for more than a decade - than, say, a $3,000 first prize.
The problem is, as I stated in my earlier posts, that the IMs clearly gained the impression that the the organisers also didn't care how many Australian IMs played in the Open. There was no "rumour mill" at the Olympiad in Calvia -the IMs had already made their decision not to play in the Open in Mount Buller and were simply disappointed that they were valued so poorly.

Ian

ursogr8
27-12-2004, 08:47 PM
It is interesting to reflect on what will attract strong players to an event. I have been particularly taken by two recent posts




2. Granted prizemoney is no longer a motivator at some point, but does this serve as a demotivator?

Overall, I think it's Catch-22 in some way: strong players are more likely to enter if there are other strong players who already entered.

This quote caught my eye because it seemed as though Dorophil was about to suggest the conclusion that strong players like a full tournament of competitive chess, and thus enter when the depth of competition is assured.



In any case George may yet be proved right. Probably the media don't really care how many Australian IMs are playing but may be more impressed by a $4,500 first prize - the biggest at an Open for more than a decade - than, say, a $3,000 first prize.

Ian

The quote from Ian takes quite a different tack; suggesting that players just below the top strata are attracted by prize-money or ‘conditions’.
What really caught my eye is the suggestion that we get a media benefit from a high first prize. Is this really a consideration at Mt B. ? How does Mecure (our sponsor) achieve benefits from media exposure; I thought their KSF was room occupancy?


starter

jenni
28-12-2004, 11:02 AM
What really caught my eye is the suggestion that we get a media benefit from a high first prize. Is this really a consideration at Mt B. ? How does Mecure (our sponsor) achieve benefits from media exposure; I thought their KSF was room occupancy?


starter

Well this is an interesting point. When the Mt Buller 2 proposal was debated by the ACF in July, Libby and I sat in as ACTJCL reps. There was a lot about general media coverage and big TV coverage etc and apparently this was important to the Mercure and they were going to organise it.

Libby and I raised the fact that Juniors were not going to stay at the Mercure in big numbers (cost and kitchens). We were told that this was unimportant - the deal was not dependent on bed nights at the Mercure and in fact it was bed nights in general that was important, as one of the sponsors (presumably Grollo?) had interests in lots of other on mountain accommodation. The publicity was important, as it was felt that Mt Buller had been slow in positioning itself as a summer playground and had lost ground to other ski resorts.

Somehow the publicity seems to have died and bed nights at the Mercure become all important. I have asked a couple of times why it has changed, but have not received an answer.....

Spiny Norman
28-12-2004, 11:50 AM
What really caught my eye is the suggestion that we get a media benefit from a high first prize. Is this really a consideration at Mt B. ? How does Mecure (our sponsor) achieve benefits from media exposure; I thought their KSF was room occupancy?

General comment here, not targeting any individual:

When a discussion is had or a decision is made, is it written down? Notes from the meetings perchance? Like minutes from formal board meetings, if it ain't written down it never happened ... and when it is written down there can be accountability for future outcomes. I've gotten into the habit over the past couple of years of carrying a notebook and pen to every meeting. It helps protect everyones interests and it sure helps other people to be more precise in what they say if they can see someone writing things down as they speak.

Ian Rout
28-12-2004, 11:55 AM
Somehow the publicity seems to have died and bed nights at the Mercure become all important. I have asked a couple of times why it has changed, but have not received an answer.....

I've been a little confused by that too. I can see that selling some rooms is useful in offsetting part of the costs of sponsorship but my understanding was that it was the image value of being associated with chess that was important.

Advertising often features chess sets or chess themes, presumably on the basis that someone who plays chess is smart or cultured or whatever and their use of the product is a point in its favour. Thus being the hotel chain associated with chess, even if it costs to get that image, would be of value in the same way as being the airline associated with Australian cricket, the vitamin supplement used by St Kilda etc.

That seems to be how sponsorship normally works - I can't really think of a sponsorship arrangement where the sponsor's aim/requirement is merely to sell its product to the players. For instance Fone Zone sponsors the Canberra Raiders because of the advertising value of seeing its name running round on the players' backs, not because the players buy their phones there.

I think it's good that ACF is looking to make money for chess out of the image of chess, but if the "benefit" obtained from the sponsorship is the right to pay it back in consuming Grollo accommodation then maybe ACF is barking up the wrong tree. Sure the company benefits in being the chess hotel and getting its money back in room sales too, but what's in it for us? Would we better seeking a strategic alliance with, say, an airline or brewery?

Libby
28-12-2004, 02:33 PM
My daughter's athletics club are sponsored by the local butcher and I don't see him keeping track of how many sausages club members buy there. I think he has made a commercial choice to sponsor an activity in his community, receive regular advertising in club literature and hope that will increase his business profile and might generate more customers along the line.

I don't believe the minutes would fully record the discussions which took place at the meeting where Mt Buller were awarded the events. I can support Jenni's recollection of events (we huddled around the same cauldron - oops, phone ;) ).

I was particularly lobbying to remove the Schools event from the main bid. He-who-may-not-be-mentioned was also at the meeting and was able to say, based on the calculations done for his own Mt Buller bid, that the projected bed nights in the Mercure for the Schools event represented only 5% of the total beds across the 3 events. I argued therefore, it was unreasonable to tie the Schools event to the whole deal if it only represented such a small, direct return to the sponsor.

In response, George told us the Schools event was critical to the deal for a variety of reasons - significantly because of media exposure with the Seven Sunrise program broadcasting live from the event. I did point out the Sunrise program is either Mon-Fri (the event being on the weekend) or Sunday morning and finished before our games started so live broadcasts were never possible. George countered that it would be footage from our event packaged within live telecasts from Mt Buller itself - the summer playground.

I would be interested to know if there was any publicity surrounding the schools event in Mt Buller other than that organised at a state level by the schools & local associations. (ACT girls are getting a follow-up article in "Girl Power" early 2005. :) ) We were not made aware of any. The event all went well etc but I now wonder - again - why it was so critical to the overall Mt Buller package.

So I think media exposure was a significant part of the deal at some point. And we were definitely told that beds at the Mercure were not the be-all-and-end-all of things as they have become.

Trent Parker
28-12-2004, 04:04 PM
hmm this Mt buller proposal seems to have more holes than an Aero bar!

I definitely hope it works out though

arosar
28-12-2004, 05:16 PM
hmm this Mt buller proposal seems to have more holes than an Aero bar!

Well . . . hello! HELLOO!!

Like, what have these trolls been saying? Look, it's a joke OK?

AR

ursogr8
28-12-2004, 09:31 PM
Well . . . hello! HELLOO!!

Like, what have these trolls been saying? Look, it's a joke OK?

AR

It should not be too hard to get to the bottom of this issue.

Ian indicated > George was perhaps focussing on a large first prize, to grab media interest
jenni indicated > the issue had drifted from 'media attention' benefits to bed-occupancy objectives from the time of the initial approval to now
Libby indicated that 'media attention' was subsetted to the Schools event in particular.

This seems to dimension the issue.

All we really need is one of the primary characters to give us the 'gen'.
George? Kevin? Bill? An ACF member? GURU? (Well maybe not the GURU).

Which was the payoff in Mecure eyes
1 media attention
1B media attention via the Schools comp.

or

2 Bed occupancy


starter

Libby
29-12-2004, 10:06 AM
It should not be too hard to get to the bottom of this issue.

Ian indicated > George was perhaps focussing on a large first prize, to grab media interest
jenni indicated > the issue had drifted from 'media attention' benefits to bed-occupancy objectives from the time of the initial approval to now
Libby indicated that 'media attention' was subsetted to the Schools event in particular.

This seems to dimension the issue.

All we really need is one of the primary characters to give us the 'gen'.
George? Kevin? Bill? An ACF member? GURU? (Well maybe not the GURU).

Which was the payoff in Mecure eyes
1 media attention
1B media attention via the Schools comp.

or

2 Bed occupancy


starter

This is from the minutes posted previously by George on another thread. Like I said, the substance of the discussion etc is not recorded. Having raised the issue of beds at the Mercure in the (unrecorded) discussion and been told it was not critical - perhaps the "sniping" & "bellyaching" Jenni and I have done has some context since we have heard little about anything else than the beds at the Mercure since. Certainly we expected the Hotel would want people to stay there, we are not completely commercially naiive. But we were up front in saying we didn't think large numbers of juniors would stay there - and they haven't (and not because we have campaigned to put them elsewhere).


GH presented the submission on the revised Mt Buller bid for the Australian Open,Junior and Schools events,referring to the attached documents presented to Council. GH stated that he would modify the composition of the Junior prizes,and specified that he was assured by the Mt Buller administration that they would deposit a $20,000 bond within 72 hours on a joint bank account as a token of their good faith with the ACF. In response to a query , GH also stated that whilst he would be happy to indemnify the ACF from any financial losses, he also thought that it was appropriate in that case that if there was a profit made , there should be a 50/50 split of any profits between the ACF and the organiser.

DC presented the CV bid submission, and stated that the Juniors and Schools finals would be held in Box Hill,and that the Open would be held in the Glen Era Town Hall. DC referred to the attached documents,which contained details of the CV bid.

LS presented the bid for the Australian Schools Finals on behalf of the A CTJCL,and referred to the attached documents that contained details of the ACTJCL bid. The ACTJCL bid would ensure that the School events would be held in December,separate from the Mt Buller Open and Junior Events.

After the presentations there were numerous questions asked of GH,DC and LS by Council Members and Representatives from Associated Bodies.

Motion:"that the ACF Mt Buller bid,with changes and assurances as given ,for the Australian Open,Australian Junior and the 2004 Australian School finals be accepted
Moved:GH
Seconded DM

For - BG,NG,IM,TC,DM,DJ,KB
Against - DC
Abstain - GH,JH,GW
Outcome - Motion carried 7-1

Thunderspirit
01-01-2005, 08:39 AM
I think people forget at times the sacrifices that all titled players make to gain their titles. Australia has 2 GM's and 16 IM's, and so if an organiser does their job well, then there should be an opporunity to spoil our titled players.

With Ian and Darryl both have accepted lower pay on many many occassions over the years to help out organisers, but you still have to be reasonable. I know one organiser who offered both Darryl and Ian $250.00 each to play in an Australian Championship. This is clearly unacceptable. (To be fair the organiser didn't realise what he was doing.)

With the IM's it's a little harder. Most of IM's understand they can't make a living from the game, but they want to feel appricated. If you can offer an IM a billet and $500.00 you will often get 6 or IM's. Some IM's want more than this (and some believe they are worth more), but to be an Australian event with only one Australian IM, is a little disapointing.

With cheer when the players at the Olympiad, we always need to cheer our strong players along. Who else is going to draw 2-2 against England for example.

ursogr8
01-01-2005, 09:13 AM
I think people forget at times the sacrifices that all titled players make to gain their titles. Australia has 2 GM's and 16 IM's, and so if an organiser does their job well, then there should be an opporunity to spoil our titled players.

With Ian and Darryl both have accepted lower pay on many many occassions over the years to help out organisers, but you still have to be reasonable. I know one organiser who offered both Darryl and Ian $250.00 each to play in an Australian Championship. This is clearly unacceptable. (To be fair the organiser didn't realise what he was doing.)

With the IM's it's a little harder. Most of IM's understand they can't make a living from the game, but they want to feel appricated. If you can offer an IM a billet and $500.00 you will often get 6 or IM's. Some IM's want more than this (and some believe they are worth more), but to be an Australian event with only one Australian IM, is a little disapointing.

With cheer when the players at the Olympiad, we always need to cheer our strong players along. Who else is going to draw 2-2 against England for example.

Thanks Lee,

This post of yours is a really good post.
I have learned much from a few posts on this BB that it is hard to learn elsewhere.
The heuristic that you list ($500 + billet for an IM) is the first time I see this on 'paper', and it will help us with our tournament promotion and tourney design in 2005.

What do you expect of the IM in return for the
>$500
>billet
> prize-money opportunity
?

regards
starter

Thunderspirit
02-01-2005, 10:03 AM
'Starter' asked what does an event gain from having say 6 IM's at an event. The most important function they perform at an Open or a Champs is that they give untitled players (and FM's) the possibility of playing for an IM norm.
One of the biggest problems with Ozzie chess is it is difficult though not impossible to gain IM norms in Australia. The Open/Champs is the only event on the calender where a player knows they have the chance to play for a norm.
The other semi regular event is the Australian Masters in Melbourne which is held most years, other than this, IM events are rare.

The other quality IM's possess is prestige and character. A lot of weaker club players (like myself) like the opporunity to play against IM's and GM's. (Though I haven't had the opporunity to play Ian or Darryl yet), and so adds to their event. I do know players who don't like this, but you can't please everyone.

I hope that helps....

ursogr8
02-01-2005, 06:57 PM
'Starter' asked what does an event gain from having say 6 IM's at an event. The most important function they perform at an Open or a Champs is that they give untitled players (and FM's) the possibility of playing for an IM norm.
One of the biggest problems with Ozzie chess is it is difficult though not impossible to gain IM norms in Australia. The Open/Champs is the only event on the calender where a player knows they have the chance to play for a norm.
The other semi regular event is the Australian Masters in Melbourne which is held most years, other than this, IM events are rare.

The other quality IM's possess is prestige and character. A lot of weaker club players (like myself) like the opporunity to play against IM's and GM's. (Though I haven't had the opporunity to play Ian or Darryl yet), and so adds to their event. I do know players who don't like this, but you can't please everyone.

I hope that helps....

Thanks Lee, I appreciate the attention to questions I raised.
Actually, I had in mind just 1 or 2 IMs, not 6.
And what I was musing on from my naive postion in this area is
> do we expect the IM to stick around after his game and go through his win with the on-lookers?
>> do we expect the IM to 'duchess' the sponsors?
>>> do we expect the IM to do any ancillary junior coaching associated with the event.
Besides just giving him $500 + billet + <opportunity at prize>, do we have any other overt or covert conditions expected?


Our local (VIC) events don't seem to be 'into' this norms-business very much... so we can hardly class the IM' s attendance as a plus on this score.


regards
starter

Thunderspirit
03-01-2005, 06:58 AM
Most players regardless of rating will spend some time after their games to analyse with their opponent, but if you want them to give analyse to the fiield had a whole, a little more money maybe needed.

The Australian Champs in Adelaide had this as an option with good players going over their games, and the players giving a gold coin 'donation' (I hate this word it makes the players look like they need charity.) All you need is a seperate room and a demo board.

If you are going to ask the players for coaching as well, you will run into problems. It is already taxing, just playing very few (or none) will like to combine both. You may wish to consider having a non playing IM, for that role. (Having a titled player looks good, but not all titled players make good coaches.)

What type of event and in what format are you planing for, with this in mind I can be more specific with any advice. :)

ursogr8
05-01-2005, 07:59 AM
Most players regardless of rating will spend some time after their games to analyse with their opponent, but if you want them to give analyse to the field had a whole, a little more money maybe needed.

The Australian Champs in Adelaide had this as an option with good players going over their games, and the players giving a gold coin 'donation' (I hate this word it makes the players look like they need charity.) All you need is a seperate room and a demo board.

Thanks Lee,

I read into these comments of yours that the $500 + billet + <opportunity for a prize>, is a sort of base-rate; and after-game forum-analysis is an extra.


If you are going to ask the players for coaching as well, you will run into problems.

And this is another 'extra'.



At which current traditional events in Australia would the base-rate have been operating in 2004?

regards
starter

Thunderspirit
05-01-2005, 08:54 AM
There are actually very few events where titled players can expect appearance fees. All weekender don't offer appearance fees (including Doeberl Cup), which ususally attracts 1-2 GMs and 6 IM's.
The players recieve free entry only, and then the rest is up to them.

Events in 2004-5 which titled players could expect an appearence fee would be: The Australian Open, The Zonal, The New Zealand Championship is pretty good with it's conditions, with Darryl J, Stephen S, and A.Wohl playing there is recent years. And the final event is the Australian masters, Melbourne.

If your planning to run a weekender, you don't need appearance fees, you'll do well if you can run it on the Grand Prix, and make the event a 'category 3' event. Which requires at least $2,500 in prize money, and I think the fee to run an event is $500.00 which is paid to the ACF.

Box Hill does have a better chance than most clubs to try and run an IM event, which has more than enough IM's to run an event. This what an IM event needs.


Firstly you need 3 IM's. Not so hard, as Melbourne has: Guy West, David Smerdon, Lenoid Sandler, Mirko Rujevic, Michael Gluzman and GM Darryl Johansen which not fills and IM's role, but is of course higher rated.

Secondly and this where it may get tricky is you need 4 Federations (countries) represented. This is big problem with trying to run such an event in Oz. Okay we have Australia- that's one. IM Peter Froehlich is still listed as 'German' so if you can him, your down to two. The third and fourth might Igor Bjelobrk who is a NZ'er and finally if FM Erik Teichmann is still in Australia, he is English and so you have four.

Other problems you will encounter are money? You need most of these players, and without one of them the event flops. Not many of these players are actually putting money into the event.

For starters, I don't think the IM's would charge so much for a club event. The opporunity to play other IM's/Darryl would be a good enough.

This is how you do it.... ( I hope...)

Firsty it should be an Olympiad year, so the players can then use the results in the quest to make the team. Invite some/all of the players trying to of course fill the requirements of a norm event. Ideally if the club could secure $1,000 in sponsorship then you say entry is free to all, and then prizes are 1st $500, 2nd $300 and 3rd $200. Your not paying appearnce fees, but you are offering a special opporunity for these players and your club. (You should give Darryl something though)

I don't want you think this is easy to pull off, because it's not. Another good source of info is IA Gary Bekker (one of your fellow club members). He'll give you good advice as well as help with all the FIDE stuff, of which is great at.

Most IM events cost between $3,000-$5,000 depending on cost such as venue, appearance fees, accomodation, DOP fees. But Box Hill could possibily do it for $1,500-$2,000.

It's food for thought.... It would be great if you could pull it off....

"It's a long way to the top, if you wanna rock 'n roll...." :owned: