PDA

View Full Version : Unethical Organisers and Tournament Directors



Arrogant-One
01-02-2005, 06:40 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to complain about unethical tournament directors who profiteer from running tournaments. They diminish the game by doing so and lower the morale of all chess players who play for a reduced prize fund as a result. The ACF needs to put clear rules in place to prevent this from occurring in the future. After reasonable expenses such as rent and maintenence, as well as the ACF and CAQ rating fees, the sum remaining should be divided by ten with one tenth going to the TD for his fee and nine tenth going to the prize fund. At the rate its going anyone can become rich just by running several chess tournaments - and some unnamed individuals certainly come to mind. It amounts to a guarenteed first prize for BOTH the winner of the Tournament AS WELL AS the Tournament Director/Organiser. This is a practice that must stop and the ACF should start taking it seriously.

Garvinator
01-02-2005, 06:44 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to complain about unethical tournament directors who profiteer from running tournaments. They diminish the game by doing so and lower the morale of all chess players who play for a reduced prize fund as a result. The ACF needs to put clear rules in place to prevent this from occurring in the future. After reasonable expenses such as rent and maintenence, as well as the ACF and CAQ rating fees, the sum remaining should be divided by ten with one tenth going to the TD for his fee and nine tenth going to the prize fund. At the rate its going anyone can become rich just by running several chess tournaments - and some unnamed individuals certainly come to mind. It amounts to a guarenteed first prize for BOTH the winner of the Tournament AS WELL AS the Tournament Director/Organiser. This is a practice that must stop and the ACF should start taking it seriously.
name names (c) ;)

Alan Shore
01-02-2005, 07:01 PM
name names (c) ;)

You know perfectly well who he's talking about.

shaun
01-02-2005, 07:02 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to complain about unethical tournament directors who profiteer from running tournaments. They diminish the game by doing so and lower the morale of all chess players who play for a reduced prize fund as a result. The ACF needs to put clear rules in place to prevent this from occurring in the future. After reasonable expenses such as rent and maintenence, as well as the ACF and CAQ rating fees, the sum remaining should be divided by ten with one tenth going to the TD for his fee and nine tenth going to the prize fund. At the rate its going anyone can become rich just by running several chess tournaments - and some unnamed individuals certainly come to mind. It amounts to a guarenteed first prize for BOTH the winner of the Tournament AS WELL AS the Tournament Director/Organiser. This is a practice that must stop and the ACF should start taking it seriously.

Shhh. You've let the cat out of the bag. Now everyone will give up their 30K to 50K jobs and become rich by running several chess tournaments a year. Who will be left to tend to the farms, heal the sick or run the country?

Alan Shore
01-02-2005, 07:04 PM
Shhh. You've let the cat out of the bag. Now everyone will give up their 30K to 50K jobs and become rich by running several chess tournaments a year. Who will be left to tend to the farms, heal the sick or run the country?

Hell, I'd leave a 30k job to do it... 30k is jack these days.

Garvinator
01-02-2005, 07:11 PM
You know perfectly well who he's talking about.
do i :eh: im a tournament organiser?

Bill Gletsos
01-02-2005, 07:15 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to complain about unethical tournament directors who profiteer from running tournaments. They diminish the game by doing so and lower the morale of all chess players who play for a reduced prize fund as a result. The ACF needs to put clear rules in place to prevent this from occurring in the future. After reasonable expenses such as rent and maintenence, as well as the ACF and CAQ rating fees, the sum remaining should be divided by ten with one tenth going to the TD for his fee and nine tenth going to the prize fund. At the rate its going anyone can become rich just by running several chess tournaments - and some unnamed individuals certainly come to mind. It amounts to a guarenteed first prize for BOTH the winner of the Tournament AS WELL AS the Tournament Director/Organiser. This is a practice that must stop and the ACF should start taking it seriously.
By your standerds the organiser doesnt get to make any profit even a small one.

However more importantly no one is forcing you to play in these events.
Therefore if you dont like the conditions dont play.
That way if everyone else feels the same as you then the organiser wont make his "massive" profit.

Garvinator
01-02-2005, 07:19 PM
Alex,

are u going to play in the COB starting on thursday at Brisbane Chess Club, i am the dop, so no massive money making scams ;)

Havent we had this argument before and nothing came of it. Dont like the organiser, dont play in the tournament. Maybe that is why you wont play in the COB :uhoh:

firegoat7
01-02-2005, 10:11 PM
I would like to take this opportunity to complain about unethical tournament directors who profiteer from running tournaments. ok whats the complaint and what is your proof that tournament directors are unethical or profiteers?


They diminish the game by doing so and lower the morale of all chess players who play for a reduced prize fund as a result. That may be so but how do they do it, what practices are you talking about?


The ACF needs to put clear rules in place to prevent this from occurring in the future. What is occuring, please tell us.


After reasonable expenses such as rent and maintenence, as well as the ACF and CAQ rating fees, the sum remaining should be divided by ten with one tenth going to the TD for his fee and nine tenth going to the prize fund. Maybe, I still do not understand the extent of the problem, but expenses may be a bit more then that, they may include printing,advertising, clock maintenace, insurance, power etc.
At the rate its going anyone can become rich just by running several chess tournaments - and some unnamed individuals certainly come to mind. Trust me its not a way to become rich, but I do agree that it could be a problem if the tournaments are unrated and there is no competition from other events.
It amounts to a guarenteed first prize for BOTH the winner of the Tournament AS WELL AS the Tournament Director/Organiser. Please explain to us mexicans what is going on in Qld, AO

This is a practice that must stop and the ACF should start taking it seriously. Maybe, but we can't decide based on the information you have given, nor can we give you any help until you clarify the position more clearly. Still it could become a very interesting thread AO

Cheers FG7

pax
01-02-2005, 10:15 PM
It's a troll. Ignore it and it might go back under it's bridge..

Lucena
07-02-2005, 10:53 AM
Hear, hear.

pax
07-02-2005, 12:24 PM
Sheesh, the thread was quietly slipping below the waves and there you go bringing it right back up to the top!

Alan Shore
07-02-2005, 12:32 PM
Sheesh, the thread was quietly slipping below the waves and there you go bringing it right back up to the top!

Haha, nice bump GBC.

Garvinator
07-02-2005, 12:36 PM
Haha, nice bump GBC.
but no one is actually adding anything of quality to the thread ;)

Alan Shore
07-02-2005, 12:42 PM
but no one is actually adding anything of quality to the thread ;)

I could but I'd like to keep my job. :cool:

Arrogant-One
07-02-2005, 03:59 PM
How can you have prove TD's are profiteering by using a good chunk of the entry fees to finance themselves when the TD's don't show you their list of expenditures and then the balance sheets showing total entry fee contributions? That is the practise I was refering to firegoat7.

Arrogant-One
07-02-2005, 04:03 PM
I am not a Troll pax, and I will not go under my bridge. The Trolls are the one's profiteering from running chess tournaments. Though I did not name name's, if you do the math you can work out for yourself who the Troll thieves are. :hmm:

Garvinator
07-02-2005, 04:28 PM
How can you have prove TD's are profiteering by using a good chunk of the entry fees to finance themselves when the TD's don't show you their list of expenditures and then the balance sheets showing total entry fee contributions? That is the practise I was refering to firegoat7.
I dont think its that difficult alex.

After the tournament is over, you know how many played. So you get the tournament entry form and work how much was taken in by entry fees. Then you work out the overheads roughly so you have a ball park figure. Things you are looking at are rating fees, admin fees, rent, electricity, staff wages perhaps etc(if the venue is privately owned ie Gardiner Chess Centre).

Then you keep working out how much prizemoney was paid out including all the chocolates etc that are handed out. Take out of the profit margin the cost of trophies too.

Then you have the dop fees if an outside dop is used, which is common. Perhaps there were titled players as well, which means free entry fees and maybe even conditions.

Maybe the tournament has sponsorship if its lucky (unlikely probably for an ordinary weekender). Then you have printing costs for scoresheets and advertising which can be quite a bit.

After all these overheads are factored in, I would be highly surprised if there is much of a 'true' profit at all.

If you added all these factors up, you may not get an exact figure of profit/loss, but you wont be far off.

Ian Rout
07-02-2005, 06:08 PM
I am not a Troll pax, and I will not go under my bridge. The Trolls are the one's profiteering from running chess tournaments. Though I did not name name's, if you do the math you can work out for yourself who the Troll thieves are. :hmm:
For those who can't do maths (which I must admit I hadn't previously thought of as synonymous with not being a Queenslander) how about a broader hint?

Garvinator
07-02-2005, 06:12 PM
instead of the word troll, i think ducks and drakes fits better here :uhoh:

pax
07-02-2005, 08:06 PM
I am not a Troll pax, and I will not go under my bridge. The Trolls are the one's profiteering from running chess tournaments. Though I did not name name's, if you do the math you can work out for yourself who the Troll thieves are. :hmm:

I'm sorry, is there in some way something morally wrong about making a profit from running a tournament? The organiser is providing a service which costs money. Believe it or not, you, as the customer have the choice of spending your money wherever you like or not at all!

Most organisers make little or no profit at all. If a few are able to make a modest profit to enable them to make a living, then that is good for them, and good for chess on the whole.

adelandre
07-02-2005, 11:17 PM
a good statement pax

Especially for events that are not run on behalf of the ACF, the organiser is offering a package to players, prizemoney, a chess tournament (+ perhaps other benefits) for a certain entry fee. If the organiser meets this, what has he/she done wrong? As pax has said, the organiser is providing a service to you often at no profit or with personal loss to himself. Try running your own event - see what happens.

Fortunately over the years me and my team (Alex, Robin, and Scotty) have got better at money management and planning budgets so we don't have to lose much at all on tournaments. Although in the whole both Robin Wedding and myself would be total around $2000 out of pocket. For some strange reason we all enjoy running these events so keep on doing it :P Not to mention my parents, Robs parents, family friends and parents of club members who provide all our dinner virtually gratis - which would come to an enourmous cost over 4 years of our tournament. Even the adelaide champs we lost money although sensibly our club got SACA to indemnify us.

Cheers, Andrew

Thunderspirit
08-02-2005, 06:14 AM
It disapoints to see people complaining about organisers making a profit, and taking a fee for theํr efforts. This could only be the whinging of someone who has never run an event in their lives.
Running an event even a weekender is not easy. U need to juggle a lot of concerns to make an event run sucessfully. I don't see a problem with organisers making and taking a fee for their efforts, I think it's the amount of the fee that offen concerns.
If an organisers say takes $2-3,000 for a well run Oz Open/Champs than that is okay, taking $10,000 is though a little rich in my opinion. It also serves in the event's best interest if there is the possibility that the organiser can loose money ( an amount of money from their fee), if the event looses money. It prevents sloppiness. The best example of this in recent times in Oz, was Brian Jones's simple but effective Penrith Oz Open.
I think the problem for most people is this: Should someone run an event purely as a way to make a source of income: ie a job? Most would say no, as the motives aren't primarily to benieft chess, but if we (Oz chess) is to move forward than its something to consider. As long as the event is well run, the players like it, and it serves a purpose than it serves CHESS' best interest that everyone gets value for money. The players get value for their entry fee, and the organiser gets value for their time. For the arrogant one: Go forth and run a cat 1, weekender. Organise a venue, prize fund, DOP, advertising, Rating and GP fees, and hope and pray it breaks even...
Young grasshopper, you have much to learn...

Ian Rout
08-02-2005, 08:52 AM
I detect three issues in this thread.

1) Is anybody running tournaments at a profit?

I think it unlikely - considering that there are clubs and organisers running break-even tournaments, and anyway players have the option of simply not playing if they judge an event to be poor value, it would be difficult to include a significant payment to yourself and still be competitive. Even if some profit is made it is unlikely to be a better return on effort than spending the same amount of time serving at Maccas.

I think it more likely that an entrepreneur would run tournaments at break-even or even at a loss to attract custom to profitable sections of a business (books, coaching).

2) Is it unethical to run a tournament at a profit?

Not as such, many of us make a living by providing somebody with services of some sort and being paid for them. It could however be argued that it is possible to run tournaments in an unethical way: for example misrepresenting the prize structure in some way to attract entries, running at a loss to force out competitors and then raising fees, taking kick-backs to recommend particular accommodation, overcharging at the canteen etc. I'm not aware of any instances, and it hasn't been suggested.

3) Is "Arrogant-One" a troll?

On balance, yes. A troll presents arguments not for the purpose of making a point or promoting discussion but to annoy people; it doesn't participate in discussion but enjoys watching everybody else getting excited over something in which it has no intention of engaging.

Here we see someone popping up an anonymous head, making sweeping assertions without evidence and using emotive terminology. Rather than arguing his point he puts his head back down for a week and then not only declines to present any evidence for his case but proudly insists that it would be impossible because organisers don't show their "balance sheets", and that he doesn't need to identify name's (sic) because people can "do the math", as if it is precisely the lack of evidence or argument that proves the case.

It's fair to say that pinning down the true cost of a tournament is difficult and it's probably true that Arry couldn't make his case from a balance sheet even if he had one, since from his use of the term he doesn't know what one is. But his conclusion must be based on some other reasoning or indications which, if he was seriously trying to discuss the topic, he would raise.

firegoat7
08-02-2005, 10:35 AM
Greetings,

While I probably agree with all your points, Ian, I would like to provide some balance for this discussion.

AO is a newbie, who may or may not be aware of net ettiquette, as such we have some responsibility to be patient with AO,in regards to the rules of engagement.

AO is probably, although not neccessarily, young. Therefore some gentleness may be required before attacking AOs posts. IMO it would be a better strategy to mostly ignore any potential "trolling" at the moment. Instead, we ought to try and engage with AO, so that we can all understand a different perspective on organisers.

Cheers FG7
P.S Greetings AO, please talk about your concerns.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2005, 11:20 AM
Based on claims by Bruce and garvin in the Uni of QLD Club Champs thread it appears that the Arrogant One is [Alex].

Ian Rout
08-02-2005, 01:06 PM
I think fg is being too generous. AO's behaviour is equivalent to knocking on doors and running away - children do this not because they don't know that it's naughty but because they know that it is.

Many people read this board (so I'm told) and it would not be healthy if those who have not yet taken up competitive play were to be given the impression that dodgy tournament organisers are the norm.

And if there are a few such organisers then they should be exposed and eliminated. For that reason I agree with fg7's recommendation that AO articulate his concerns - there's nothing wrong with expressing opinions in a sensible manner and backing them up with analysis or facts. However as AO has spent the past week avoiding this path I wouldn't hold my breath.

I note that while BD and GG have identified a suspect AO has claimed to merely be a friend of that person.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2005, 01:21 PM
I note that while BD and GG have identified a suspect AO has claimed to merely be a friend of that person.
True however after the Arrogant One had referred to [Alex] in a post the Admin gave it away I thought when he said "First time I have seen someone refer to themselves in third person.".
I suspect he knew this from registration data.

Ian Rout
08-02-2005, 01:55 PM
True however after the Arrogant One had referred to [Alex] in a post the Admin gave it away I thought when he said "First time I have seen someone refer to themselves in third person.".
I suspect he knew this from registration data.
Yes, it may or may not be true. The admin could have just meant they were using the same IP, which is consistent with either.

Alan Shore
08-02-2005, 02:01 PM
I detect three issues in this thread.

I think it unlikely - considering that there are clubs and organisers running break-even tournaments, and anyway players have the option of simply not playing if they judge an event to be poor value, it would be difficult to include a significant payment to yourself and still be competitive.

Once you sucker in a large number of juniors to the events, cost is no longer an option as it's the parents paying.


Even if some profit is made it is unlikely to be a better return on effort than spending the same amount of time serving at Maccas.

I think it's a much nicer way to earn personally :P


I think it more likely that an entrepreneur would run tournaments at break-even or even at a loss to attract custom to profitable sections of a business (books, coaching).

I'm sure all organisers begin like this. Yet if the opportunity to cash in arises, why not? Perhaps they feel they've earned it after putting in the early hard yards.


Q:1) Is anybody running tournaments at a profit?

Verdict: On the whole, you would think not. Yet there are some that do.


Not as such, many of us make a living by providing somebody with services of some sort and being paid for them. It could however be argued that it is possible to run tournaments in an unethical way: for example misrepresenting the prize structure in some way to attract entries, running at a loss to force out competitors and then raising fees, taking kick-backs to recommend particular accommodation, overcharging at the canteen etc. I'm not aware of any instances, and it hasn't been suggested.

Canteen overcharging, high entry fees, low prize fund, ambiguous prize list minimal organiser expenditure but even worse, next time around increasing that profit margin even more after building up support. Many have remarked to me their displeasure... no one wants to suggest it either though, for as you say, one can simply choose to not participate.


2) Is it unethical to run a tournament at a profit?

Verdict: At a profit? No. At a large profit that takes advantage of players? Why, perhaps yes.


On balance, yes. A troll presents arguments not for the purpose of making a point or promoting discussion but to annoy people; it doesn't participate in discussion but enjoys watching everybody else getting excited over something in which it has no intention of engaging.

I think he is engaging, I know he doesn't have regular net access.


Here we see someone popping up an anonymous head

Not necessarily.


..making sweeping assertions without evidence and using emotive terminology. Rather than arguing his point he puts his head back down for a week..

See above.


...and then not only declines to present any evidence for his case but proudly insists that it would be impossible because organisers don't show their "balance sheets", and that he doesn't need to identify name's (sic) because people can "do the math", as if it is precisely the lack of evidence or argument that proves the case.

I'd say he's being polite because he doesn't want to name names. I would never name names either because I don't think it fair to put other people down as it's their own choice to how they run a tournament - participation is always voluntary.

He's correct - do the math yourself, it is not difficult. Imagine yourself as a TD, compute costs vs. revenue.


It's fair to say that pinning down the true cost of a tournament is difficult and it's probably true that Arry couldn't make his case from a balance sheet even if he had one, since from his use of the term he doesn't know what one is. But his conclusion must be based on some other reasoning or indications which, if he was seriously trying to discuss the topic, he would raise.

If he wants to raise it, he can. I certainly won't. But I know what he's referring to and it's no fabrication.


3) Is "Arrogant-One" a troll?

Depends on your definition of 'troll' but from what you've given above, no.

Garvinator
08-02-2005, 02:18 PM
participation is always voluntary.
while this is technically true, quite a few ppl want to play in the larger tournaments. To do this, they have to accept the organiser and the conditions they offer. Some ppl use the larger tournaments ie QLD open as a good measuring stick of how they are going and improving. They wont want to miss out on the tournament because of a beef with an organiser, so they dont complain even though they may not like the tournament conditions.

Ian Rout
08-02-2005, 04:16 PM
So are you playing Devil's Advocate, Bruce, or do you have something to tell us?

arosar
08-02-2005, 04:37 PM
What's the average entry fee in QLD? And in Mexico?

Personally, I don't believe that there is any kind of rorting as suggested. In fact, I think DOPs ought to be paid more. The less and less we rely on volunteerism in chess the better. Of course, I respect these folks and pledge my appreciation for what they do; I just think that a move to professionalism at all levels is the way to go.

AR

Alan Shore
08-02-2005, 04:56 PM
So are you playing Devil's Advocate, Bruce, or do you have something to tell us?

I enjoy the role of DA but I have nothing more to really say on the matter, in a public forum.


What's the average entry fee in QLD? And in Mexico?

I don't think it's possible to get an average, it varies so much on location, what prizes are on offer, format, time controls, etc. etc. also you can't compare it to otehr states because of different price scaling i.e. things are more expensive in Sydney.

Garvinator
08-02-2005, 05:08 PM
What's the average entry fee in QLD? And in Mexico?
the average is usually about $50 adult for 7 round weekender at 60/10.

Mischa
08-02-2005, 09:14 PM
what is the breakdown for prizes given the ratio of participants? I ask as a parent of a junior. In a tournament where there is a strong junior ratio, is the prize money reflective of this? I have noticed that often the money for the adults, as apposed to the money for the juniors, may not be in direct proportion to the numbers represented by each. Is there some formula for assessing how much the seniors or juniors receive?
It doesn't always seem reflective based on the numbers of juniors and seniors involved in the event. I probably just have no idea how it works, so would be appreciative if one of you out there could help me with this.

shaun
08-02-2005, 09:26 PM
what is the breakdown for prizes given the ratio of participants? I ask as a parent of a junior. In a tournament where there is a strong junior ratio, is the prize money reflective of this? I have noticed that often the money for the adults, as apposed to the money for the juniors, may not be in direct proportion to the numbers represented by each. Is there some formula for assessing how much the seniors or juniors receive?
It doesn't always seem reflective based on the numbers of juniors and seniors involved in the event. I probably just have no idea how it works, so would be appreciative if one of you out there could help me with this.

Actually Juniors get a free ride under any such formula, as juniors can win both the "senior" and "junior" prizes, while seniors cannot. Combine that with the usual discount juniors receive and I think you will find that juniors are on a pretty good wicket.

ursogr8
08-02-2005, 09:51 PM
Actually Juniors get a free ride under any such formula, as juniors can win both the "senior" and "junior" prizes, while seniors cannot. Combine that with the usual discount juniors receive and I think you will find that juniors are on a pretty good wicket.

Shaun
These formulas might vary from District to District.

no idea seems to be proposing a bias towards juniors.

In my locale we operate with no biases to or from
> juniors
> left-handers
> ladies
> Asian continent
> unemployed.

Instead we operate a substantial early-bird discount for all (who are smart enough to read a calendar). And we are not backward at suggesting that prize-winners who are fully employed might like to donate their prize to a junior fund-raiser.

Each local committee has to decide on appropriate encouragement strategy for their tournaments special needs.


starter

eclectic
08-02-2005, 10:10 PM
In my locale we operate with no biases to or from
> juniors
> left-handers
> ladies
> Asian continent
> unemployed

starter

It's so great to hear that the bias (resulting from an obsessive and quixotic pursuit against the "junk" round) towards A division players and against B division players in so called "open" events at Box Hill is coming to an end.

;)

Mark

Alan Shore
08-02-2005, 10:12 PM
what is the breakdown for prizes given the ratio of participants? I ask as a parent of a junior. In a tournament where there is a strong junior ratio, is the prize money reflective of this? I have noticed that often the money for the adults, as apposed to the money for the juniors, may not be in direct proportion to the numbers represented by each. Is there some formula for assessing how much the seniors or juniors receive?
It doesn't always seem reflective based on the numbers of juniors and seniors involved in the event. I probably just have no idea how it works, so would be appreciative if one of you out there could help me with this.

This raises an excellent point noidea. Have you ever wondered why NSWJCL have $100,000 in the kitty? They have junior tournaments with an entry fee of say $10, then no cash prizes for the winners. Only trophies. Interesting stuff... I don't know if this practice has changed recently but it was the norm a few years ago for sure.

In comparison, (when they were run regularly, there still are a few), there are junior tournaments in QLD have free entry, $200 1st prize and a number of rating prizes. It's only recently that there's been, well, more profits being taken.

Cat
08-02-2005, 10:13 PM
Thank God some organisers are able to realise a profit in chess, because otherwise Chess is likely to become a dead duck. Without the ability to see at least some modest return, who the hell is going to be able to assist the infrastructure necessary for survival? The Gold Coast Chess Club is a charitable institution and is primarily concerned with the promotion of chess locally and seeking to serve the interests of the local chess-players. In the last few years we have benefited greatly from our local chess enterprise and this relationship has worked postively in the interests of the Gold Coast Chess-players.

Not only has the standard of Chess improved immensely thanks to our partnership, but also employment oppotunities exist locally which were not concievable a few years ago. Things have not looked better and I think the standard of behaviour, the ethics and recognition of responsibilities has been generally very good.

If there are any grievances about the way events are conducted on the Gold Coast then either myself or Peter Haron would be happy to hear opinion and seek a solution. Only by properly communicating concerns can issues be addressed. I know that Dion has raised the issues of student fees previously - unfortunately I didn't get a chance to raise the issue at our meeting and I'm sorry to say I've been remiss in following that up. If anyone wants to see any changes to the way things are done on the Gold Coast, then I am happy to give it a fair hearing to see what can be done. Feel free to pm me and I'll try to respond.

Bill Gletsos
08-02-2005, 11:11 PM
This raises an excellent point noidea. Have you ever wondered why NSWJCL have $100,000 in the kitty? They have junior tournaments with an entry fee of say $10, then no cash prizes for the winners. Only trophies. Interesting stuff... I don't know if this practice has changed recently but it was the norm a few years ago for sure.Perhaps thats why the NSWJCL can make signifcant contributions to NSW juniors travelling overseas.

In comparison, (when they were run regularly, there still are a few), there are junior tournaments in QLD have free entry, $200 1st prize and a number of rating prizes. It's only recently that there's been, well, more profits being taken.There are many involved in junior chess who believe that juniors should not get significant amounts of prize money but get trophies and goods/vouchers instead.

Alan Shore
08-02-2005, 11:16 PM
There are many involved in junior chess who believe that juniors should not get significant amounts of prize money but get trophies and goods/vouchers instead.

And there's your problem.. instead of listening to what they want, you're telling them what they want. I would guarantee, if you start offering cash prizes, you'll not only get more entries but stronger players participating.

Trent Parker
09-02-2005, 12:59 AM
And there's your problem.. instead of listening to what they want, you're telling them what they want. I would guarantee, if you start offering cash prizes, you'll not only get more entries but stronger players participating.

Bruce........ Most of those who are involved with junior chess in NSW are parents of the children.

Thunderspirit
09-02-2005, 03:13 AM
This a reply to Bill's observation that the NSWJCL has $100,000 in the bank. A few years back the NSWCA tried a weekender with reduced entry fees, and no cash prizes, to see if players were happy just to play, the event attracted 30 players and was never tried again. Players like the chance to win money, however small. Once at ANU, 10 players tied for 2nd Under 1200 on 2.5/7 recieving the impressive sum of $5.00 each, there some players who won oney, who I had never seen win money before who were rapped at their win.
The Maltese Chess Federation has a policy that at least 20% of all entry fees are taken as profit, while the other 80% is returned to the players, this simple mechinism gives the MCF the opporunity and the funds to support other mesaures if needs to, by always having some money in the kitty.
I'm not suggesting that all events must run at a profit, but as a general rule they should...

ursogr8
09-02-2005, 06:51 AM
It's so great to hear that the bias (resulting from an obsessive and quixotic pursuit against the "junk" round) towards A division players and against B division players in so called "open" events at Box Hill is coming to an end.

;)

Mark

Mark

Could you just check your post to see if you got the To and From words the right way round. :confused:

(There is repeated evidence that Bottom-Half players win 50% more games in a Box Hill SWISS than in a normal accelerated SWISS. To me, this is a bias TOWARDS Bottom-Half enjoyment).

Perhaps you need to explain here what you would like to see happen.

regards
starter

pax
09-02-2005, 08:35 AM
In my locale we operate with no biases to or from
> juniors
> left-handers
> ladies
> Asian continent
> unemployed.

Has anyone tried a format like this:
Juniors may choose to pay a much reduced entry fee (e.g $10), but if they do so, they will be ineligible for all cash prizes (except perhaps best junior). This way, the weaker juniors who want to play for the experience can do so without breaking their parents' banks, and the serious juniors who contend for the top prizes can do so by paying the full fee.

Ian Rout
09-02-2005, 08:49 AM
Actually Juniors get a free ride under any such formula, as juniors can win both the "senior" and "junior" prizes, while seniors cannot. Combine that with the usual discount juniors receive and I think you will find that juniors are on a pretty good wicket.
Juniors who are good enough such as Smerdon, Zhao, Xie, Chow, Yu, Rej, Tan to pick a few obvious names, regularly won prizes in open company. Most of those are I think no longer U/18 but no doubt we will see Ly and the next wave doing at least as well.

If you want to see groupings (junior, rating cohort, left-handed, fat, blonde, etc etc) take out in the same proportion as they put in then you need tournaments in which the prize structure is designed to achieve that, such as Matthew Sweeney's Common Man tournament.

An interesting innovation in last year's ACT Rapid Championship was a Best Adult prize because juniors were winning so many of the other prizes.

pax
09-02-2005, 09:06 AM
Juniors inevitably do very well in any "rating division" prizes, due to the fact that they are much more likely to be underrated than their adult counterparts. I don't think that anyone could make a case that juniors are not recieving their fair share of prizemoney in chess tournaments.

Libby
09-02-2005, 09:53 AM
Personally, I don't believe that there is any kind of rorting as suggested. In fact, I think DOPs ought to be paid more. The less and less we rely on volunteerism in chess the better. Of course, I respect these folks and pledge my appreciation for what they do; I just think that a move to professionalism at all levels is the way to go.

AR

Haven't we just had our first ever "professionally run" Australian Junior Championship? Without getting back to the knocking of various people involved, I don't actually see it could be rated as better (and to be fair, necessarily worse) than anything else I've been to.

Professionalism is more than people being paid to do a job. It's about doing the job well, being accountable for outcomes (even the adverse ones) and implies a measurable level of expertise or qualification which chess is most averse to.

To coach at a higher level in softball, I required a nationally recognised accreditation. Not just covering the technical aspects of the game (although a test & training is required for that component) but also training in managing injuries, sports psychology, planning, motivation etc.

This made me eligible to volunteer for representative coaching positions.

To get paid to umpire (as opposed to umpiring as required for free) you had to complete mandatory tests on the rules & interpretations. My husband umpires basketball and did that unpaid for some time as he was rostered by his team but then did his tests etc to get a few bucks per game.

Chess has no such programs other than those who have their IA accreditation. And anyone can set up shop, unchallenged, as "Australia's best chess coach."

Do any of you have a background in other sports? Who do you think gets paid for weekend sports carnivals when people arrive at 7am to set up equipment around the grounds? Who gets paid to organise not one DOP, but an umpire for 8 or 10 (or more) simultaneous matches, plus base umpires or lines men or whatever. And the pre-event stuff to get other clubs or interstate teams to compete, books grounds (which costs money) arranges a canteen, hires equipment, arranges publicity. Deals with official protests & gripes throughout. Packs up the equipment at 6 or 7pm and then arrives at 7am the next morning to do it all again?

Those people are not getting paid - or very rarely. I know they do for the NRL and the Aus Open tennis etc but how about comparing apples with apples. A chess weekender with a weekend softball carnival?

It's not an argument against people being paid but honest-to-God - what do you all think the rest of the sporting world is out there doing?


This raises an excellent point noidea. Have you ever wondered why NSWJCL have $100,000 in the kitty? They have junior tournaments with an entry fee of say $10, then no cash prizes for the winners. Only trophies. Interesting stuff... I don't know if this practice has changed recently but it was the norm a few years ago for sure.

In comparison, (when they were run regularly, there still are a few), there are junior tournaments in QLD have free entry, $200 1st prize and a number of rating prizes. It's only recently that there's been, well, more profits being taken.

ACTJCL has no cash prizes. Chess is the first time in my life involved with junior sport where I have seen children competing for money.

Of course they like it when they win it. I'd just rather they played chess because they liked it - not just because they want to win money. To suggest cash prizes have a major influence on junior entries would suggest a significant majority enter because they expect to win something and many must be delusional in that respect.

ACTJCL has about $10000 in the bank. We make significant profits at our events and return that to our membership by running 2 hours of Club chess for $6. Full days of school holiday chess for $25. Two days of coaching with GMs & IMs for only $50. 8 Full days of coaching for our Development Squad for only $150. We subsidise & support the training of all players and provide direct financial support to representative teams & individuals.

We pay rent, purchase new equipment, run all the inter-school chess @ $6/child (I believe chesskids is $11/child).

I don't disagree with the operation of professional chess businesses. They are a great resource themselves but I don't think the business community, however well intentioned, should control your sport at a state or national organisation level.There do seem to be areas where this is happening for junior players in particular.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2005, 09:55 AM
And there's your problem.. instead of listening to what they want, you're telling them what they want.
I'm not telling them anything. Juniors in NSWCA events are eligible for the cash prizes on offer just like anyone else.

However You specifically raised the NSWJCl and its events.
These events only involve juniors.
The vast majority of those on the NSWJCL Council are parents of the junior players. As such they are determining the entry fee, prizes etc.


I would guarantee, if you start offering cash prizes, you'll not only get more entries but stronger players participating.
Remember we are talking about junior only events here.
I suspect the parents/NSWJCL Council know much better than you or I what works for the junior events. After all they highly successful at it.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2005, 09:59 AM
This a reply to Bill's observation that the NSWJCL has $100,000 in the bank.
It wasnt my observation. It was Bruce who made that comment.

arosar
09-02-2005, 10:03 AM
I'm a bit sceptical about this claim that more money = more junior participants. Trophies are the way to go. I've actually heard of some adults saying that they'd be quite happy to settle for little trophies. They're timeless you see. I mean, two of my most important personal possessions in life are these little trophies I won at Canterbury CC for some u1600 event or something rather. They sit proudly in my lounge room. And all my visitors, who know nothing of chess (thank god), who see these trophies think I'm a bloody genius!

AR

Alan Shore
09-02-2005, 01:57 PM
Actually you've made some good points here, Libby, Bill, Lee. You see, I started chess very late, I only learned how to play when I was 12 and didn't play a real tournament until I was 15/16. By that age, I was quite independent and it was the cash that motivated me to play above the chance of a trophy. However when I think back to my younger days before chess when I played other sports, you didn't think about money then at all and had trophies. So perhaps young junior participation would indeed remain unaffected.

The thing that would be effected is strong junior participation. I know certain ex-NSW juniors that didn't play those junior tournaments because of the lack of cash and these were usually the strongest ones of all.

Therefore I suppose it depends on what you want out of it, more players or a stronger field. I still would be interested to see the results of a cash tournament tested out though.. I maintain you'd still get more numbers out of it.

Ian Rout
09-02-2005, 02:28 PM
Actually you've made some good points here, Libby, Bill, Lee. You see, I started chess very late, I only learned how to play when I was 12 and didn't play a real tournament until I was 15/16. By that age, I was quite independent and it was the cash that motivated me to play above the chance of a trophy. However when I think back to my younger days before chess when I played other sports, you didn't think about money then at all and had trophies. So perhaps young junior participation would indeed remain unaffected.

The thing that would be effected is strong junior participation. I know certain ex-NSW juniors that didn't play those junior tournaments because of the lack of cash and these were usually the strongest ones of all.

Therefore I suppose it depends on what you want out of it, more players or a stronger field. I still would be interested to see the results of a cash tournament tested out though.. I maintain you'd still get more numbers out of it.
There's probably something in this. Older juniors are more likely to be paying themselves either directly or in opportunity cost (it's in lieu of something else) so would like to at least break even overall, and their time is more precious. If they're at the top of the list there's not a lot of benefit in terms of the experience, or the chance to play high-rated players. Unless there's something to play for, like a prize or title, there's not a lot to attract them.

Libby
09-02-2005, 04:42 PM
Actually you've made some good points here, Libby, Bill, Lee. You see, I started chess very late, I only learned how to play when I was 12 and didn't play a real tournament until I was 15/16. By that age, I was quite independent and it was the cash that motivated me to play above the chance of a trophy. However when I think back to my younger days before chess when I played other sports, you didn't think about money then at all and had trophies. So perhaps young junior participation would indeed remain unaffected.

The thing that would be effected is strong junior participation. I know certain ex-NSW juniors that didn't play those junior tournaments because of the lack of cash and these were usually the strongest ones of all.

Therefore I suppose it depends on what you want out of it, more players or a stronger field. I still would be interested to see the results of a cash tournament tested out though.. I maintain you'd still get more numbers out of it.

I don't doubt that there are a section of older, stronger juniors for whom cash prizes are a significant incentive.

My daughter (only an average player, aged 11 ) has more than 50 trophies from chess. At 15, will she be as excited to win one as she was to win her first - I don't think so.

However, why do you run an organisation like the ACT Junior Chess League? Just to run a series of tournaments? That's what my local adult club exists for - a series of club games/tournaments. They raise enough money just for their prizes & rating fees ie just to cover their costs.

ACTJCL has a broader range of responsibilities. Our revenue is almost exclusively tournament entry fees. From that we choose to fund/subsidise the sort of programs I alluded to before.

We provide lots of trophies and find ways for them to be awarded at various levels in the competition. Every child receives a ribbon. But if it's about the prizemoney, where do you get the money for your development work? Or do we think that should be the preserve of private industry and not of ourselves?

And how come kids enjoy other sports without prizemoney? That's right - I think it's because they enjoy the game for itself or the prestige of winning a quality event. Just like all the "mug" chessplayers who enter events all the time without winning a cent. I think they are probably in the majority.

I also think the best, most "winningest" players have had the benefit (in most cases) of the greatest level of financial support and subsidy able to be provided by their club or association. Hoping they will occasionally play your events, inspire and create opportunities for your next generation of players, shouldn't be too much to ask a couple of times a year and shouldn't require a bribe.

Thunderspirit
09-02-2005, 05:14 PM
Sorry Bill, I stuffed up.

Bill Gletsos
09-02-2005, 06:06 PM
Sorry Bill, I stuffed up.
Not a problem.

ursogr8
09-02-2005, 07:45 PM
bump



Mark

Could you just check your post to see if you got the To and From words the right way round. :confused:

(There is repeated evidence that Bottom-Half players win 50% more games in a Box Hill SWISS than in a normal accelerated SWISS. To me, this is a bias TOWARDS Bottom-Half enjoyment).

Perhaps you need to explain here what you would like to see happen.

regards
starter

Spiny Norman
09-02-2005, 08:12 PM
I'm a bit sceptical about this claim that more money = more junior participants. Trophies are the way to go. I've actually heard of some adults saying that they'd be quite happy to settle for little trophies. They're timeless you see.

I never managed to win any trophies as a junior, but I would've like them for sure ... I did win some books though:

Play Like A Grandmaster - Kotov
Both Sides of the Chess Board - Byrne and Nei

Of course, that first one clearly did me no good, but they had stickers in the front of them with the prize details written in and so on ... so they're just as good as a trophy in terms of my ego 'cos I can lend them to other chess players and they get to read the sticker in the front. :oops:

Paul S
09-02-2005, 08:19 PM
I'm a bit sceptical about this claim that more money = more junior participants. Trophies are the way to go. I've actually heard of some adults saying that they'd be quite happy to settle for little trophies. They're timeless you see. I mean, two of my most important personal possessions in life are these little trophies I won at Canterbury CC for some u1600 event or something rather. They sit proudly in my lounge room. And all my visitors, who know nothing of chess (thank god), who see these trophies think I'm a bloody genius!

AR

Hi Amiel

You can win some more trophies if you like!!! :D

Rapidplay starts next Monday and goes for 2 weeks. Actually it was supposed to have started last Monday (2 days ago) but they had a blackout at the Leagues Club which they couldn't fix and the entire Leagues Club had to be closed at 7.30 pm!!

Anyway, come along if you are free next 2 Mondays. BTW, I will soon put up the 2005 Canterbury calendar on Canterbury's webpage on the NSWCA website so that "chess tourists" like you will know what is on there and when!