PDA

View Full Version : Prize Money Structure



shaun
09-12-2005, 07:19 PM
Imagine you were entering a big swiss (at least 100 players and possibly 150+). Which of the following prize money structures would you prefer, and why?

(A) The European Style
1st $4000
2nd $2500
3rd $1500
4th $1000
5th $750

6th-10th $500 ea
11th-15th $250 ea
16th-25th $125 ea

with the top 5 prizes pooled and shared where players finish on equal points, but places 6 to 25th decided on tie break (eg if two players finish on 7.5/11 and one is 10th on tie break and the other is 11th, the 10th player gets $500 while no 11 only gets $250)

(B) The Traditional Style
1st $4000
2nd $2500
3rd $1500
4th $1000
5th $800
6th $600
7th $400
8th $200

U/2200 $500
U/2000 $500
U/1800 $500
U/1600 $500
U/1400 $250
U/1200 $250

Best Junior $300
2nd Junior $200

with prizes pooled/shared wherever neccesary.

pballard
09-12-2005, 08:52 PM
(B), because:

1. it gives encouragement/enticement for lower rated players and juniors.

2. I think it's reasonable to expect players going for "open" prizes to finish high up (top 8 in your example) rather than rewarding places 9th-25th. A 2200+ player finishing 25th has probably underachieved and doesn't really "deserve" a prize, at least not as much as a lower rated player who performs well.

Garvinator
09-12-2005, 10:14 PM
Depends on what your rating is when you enter the tournament. If you are one of the top seeds and have an expectation of doing well in the tournament, then A is most likely going to be more preferable for your own interests.

If you are a lower rated player, then B is most likely going to be more preferable.

After a few more posts, I will assume that Shaun will announce where he is trying to head with this thread ;) :cool:

PHAT
09-12-2005, 10:45 PM
POersonally i dontt giv ea stuff. becaus e maonrey does n't buy muck.sO what I want isn"t v imporytant. waht is important isd what willl pull teh punters!!

shaun
09-12-2005, 10:51 PM
For those after data points here is the 2001 Australian Open final standings
(the tournament data of this type I had closest to hand)



Place Name Feder Rtg Loc Title Club Score

1 Djuric, Stefan YUG 2461 2461 gm YUG 9
2 Rogers, Ian AUS 2558 2587 gm NSW 8.5
3-8 Kunte, Abhijit IND 2538 2538 gm IND 8
Lane, Gary ENG 2452 2451 im ENG 8
Volzhin, Alexander RUS 2547 2547 gm RUS 8
Zhao, Zong-Yuan AUS 2341 2237 im NSW 8
Smerdon, David AUS 2315 2325 im QLD 8
Pisk, Petr CZE 2400 2400 im CZE 8
9-13 Johansen, Darryl AUS 2505 2527 gm VIC 7.5
Ezat, Mohamed EGY 2346 2346 im EGY 7.5
Reilly, Tim AUS 2215 2288 fm NSW 7.5
El-Amary, Kamal EGY 2113 2113 EGY 7.5
Tan, Justin AUS 2201 1980 NSW 7.5
14-23 Heidenfeld, Mark IRL 2375 2375 im IRL 7
Sarwat, Walaa EGY 2357 2357 im EGY 7
Boyd, Tristan AUS 2031 WA 7
Bjelobrk, Igor NZL 2137 2134 NZL 7
West, Guy AUS 2372 2401 im VIC 7
Bartlett, Stephen AUS 1875 ACT 7
Bliznyuk, Andrey AUS 2043 ACT 7
Wright, Neil AUS 2127 2127 NSW 7
Kabir, Ruhul BAN 2244 2244 BAN 7
Dwyer, Daniel AUS 2152 2110 fm WA 7
24-38 Bolens, Johnny AUS 2111 NSW 6.5
Smirnov, Vladimir AUS 2091 ACT 6.5
Dozsa, Paul AUS 1998 NSW 6.5
Gluzman, Mikhail AUS 2432 2470 im VIC 6.5
Berezovski, Stanislav AUS 2049 NSW 6.5
Yadao, Israel PHI 2303 PHI 6.5
Sutherland, John NZL 2056 2056 NZL 6.5
Broekhuyse, Paul AUS 2090 NSW 6.5
Tian, Kuan-Kuan AUS 2107 2107 NSW 6.5
Farrell, Roger AUS 2090 ACT 6.5
Safarian, Alek AUS 2079 2079 NSW 6.5
Sztern, Abraham AUS 2190 2129 NSW 6.5
Wright, Ian AUS 2130 2130 ACT 6.5
Lindberg, Gordon AUS 1648 VIC 6.5
Rout, Ian AUS 1896 ACT 6.5
39-50 Oendy, Oscar AUS 1869 NSW 6
Mortensen, Henrik DEN 2089 2089 DEN 6
Partsi, Dimitri AUS 1817 VIC 6
Jones, Brian AUS 2196 2105 NSW 6
Wilkins, Michael AUS 2025 WA 6
Huseyin, John AUS 1808 NSW 6
Yang, Song AUS 1826 SA 6
Jovanovic, Peter AUS 2095 2095 ACT 6
Rafizadeh, Shervin AUS 1879 ACT 6
Ali, Mossadeque AUS 1888 VIC 6
Lee, Edward AUS 1864 NSW 6
Voon, Richard AUS 1928 VIC 6
51-69 Roza, Peter AUS 1957 WA 5.5
Xie, George AUS 2007 NSW 5.5
Guthrie, Aaron AUS 1709 SA 5.5
Szuveges, Narelle AUS 1758 wfm VIC 5.5
Charles, Gareth AUS 1952 NSW 5.5
Davis, Tony AUS 1799 VIC 5.5
Moylan, Laura AUS 2076 2076 wim ACT 5.5
Stead, Kerry AUS 2125 2125 NSW 5.5
Grcic, Milan AUS 1852 ACT 5.5
Harp, Joel AUS 1909 NSW 5.5
Tulevski, Vasil AUS 1878 NSW 5.5
Lakner, Jay AUS 1865 WA 5.5
Gmizic, Peter AUS 1971 ACT 5.5
Nemeth, John AUS 1835 VIC 5.5
Meydan, Arie AUS 1863 VIC 5.5
Cormick, Peter AUS 1770 ACT 5.5
Corker, Kerry AUS 2030 2030 QLD 5.5
Fry, Peter AUS 1860 VIC 5.5
Kordahi, Nicholas AUS 1768 NSW 5.5
70-84 Ramakrishna, Gogulapati AUS 1765 ACT 5
Nowak, Miro AUS 2134 2134 NSW 5
Stokie, Bill AUS 1811 VIC 5
Wei, Michael AUS 1478 ACT 5
Holt, Ken AUS 1845 VIC 5
Korda, Gus AUS 1809 ACT 5
Vander Wal, Fritz AUS 1894 NSW 5
Stojic, Dusan AUS 1487 ACT 5
Fell, Lloyd AUS 1935 NSW 5
Davidovici, Victor AUS 1838 QLD 5
Spuler, David AUS 1974 QLD 5
Stojic, Svetozar AUS 1455 ACT 5
Bennett, Hilton NZL 2088 2088 NZL 5
Bragin, Victor AUS 1776 ACT 5
Richter, Sally-Anne AUS 1167 VIC 5
85-97 Bergmanis, Olgerts AUS 1767 VIC 4.5
Zivanovic, Andjelija AUS 1639 VIC 4.5
Jovanovic, Marija AUS 1613 ACT 4.5
Jones, Nancy AUS 1733 NSW 4.5
Doel, Henk AUS 1883 ACT 4.5
De Noskowski, Adrian AUS 1697 ACT 4.5
Chazan, Adrian AUS 1642 VIC 4.5
Glick, Jeremy AUS 1735 VIC 4.5
Logan, John AUS 1441 ACT 4.5
Lacey, David AUS 1483 VIC 4.5
Ninchich, Milan AUS 1729 ACT 4.5
Davies, Shaun AUS 1778 NSW 4.5
Ilic, Ilija AUS 2021 2021 NSW 4.5
98-109 Davidovici, Michael AUS 1681 QLD 4
Kassa, Peter AUS 1876 QLD 4
Murray, Russell AUS 1632 VIC 4
McCart, Roger AUS 1665 ACT 4
Thomas, Brian AUS 1567 QLD 4
Escribano, Jose AUS 1560 NSW 4
Ghobrial, Adel AUS 1618 VIC 4
Hellman, Oscar AUS 1591 ACT 4
Dickson, Ian AUS 1667 NSW 4
Mitchell, Ken AUS NSW 4
Brockman, Roland AUS 1606 VIC 4
Buciu, Auriel AUS 1468 QLD 4
110-117 Machet, Richard AUS 1442 VIC 3.5
Egan, Bill AUS 1614 ACT 3.5
Lugo, Ruperto AUS 1621 VIC 3.5
Hummel, Mark AUS 1578 ACT 3.5
Fereday, Anthony AUS 1452 SA 3.5
Swan, Timothy AUS 1359 VIC 3.5
Murphy, Peter AUS 1420 ACT 3.5
Forace, Lee AUS 1342 NSW 3.5
118-119 Finlayson, Mark AUS 1284 VIC 3
Levi, Eddy AUS 2258 2227 fm VIC 3
120 Lamberts, Gunnars AUS 1279 ACT 2.5
121 Minol, Leo AUS 1291 TAS 1.5
122-123 Banicevic, Roy AUS 1387 NSW 1
Smith, Wendy AUS 1076 VIC 1
124 Kulpa, Kazimierz AUS 1403 NSW 0.5
125 Zbiljic, Nikola AUS 1579 NSW 0

shaun
09-12-2005, 11:05 PM
Under option (A), everyone who score 7 and above wins a prize, as do the top two players on 6.5.
Under Option (B) players 3-8 (8/11) get a little less than $600 each. Player 13 (7.5) gets $500 (U/2200). Player 19 (7.0) gets $500 (Under 2000). Player 37 (6.5) $500 (Under 1800). 3 players (5.0) in the 70-84 group split the under 1600 prize. Player 84 (5.0) $250 (Under 1400). Player 123 (1.0) $250 (Under 1200).

Garvin has addressed an important question. If you have a high rating the option (A) is probably good, and may attract a stronger field at the top. But the next question is for those who don't benefit from option (A). Is the reduced chance of winning prize money compensated by having the chance to play stronger opponents?

Garvinator
09-12-2005, 11:18 PM
Under option (A), everyone who score 7 and above wins a prize, as do the top two players on 6.5.
Under Option (B) players 3-8 (8/11) get a little less than $600 each. Player 13 (7.5) gets $500 (U/2200). Player 19 (7.0) gets $500 (Under 2000). Player 37 (6.5) $500 (Under 1800). 3 players (5.0) in the 70-84 group split the under 1600 prize. Player 84 (5.0) $250 (Under 1400). Player 123 (1.0) $250 (Under 1200).


If you have a high rating the option (A) is probably good, and may attract a stronger field at the top.

Part of the problem could be with option (A) is that even though the tournament organiser might get quite a few more high rated players, the tournament organiser might not get enough of the 'bunnies' to make the tournament manageable financially.


But the next question is for those who don't benefit from option (A). Is the reduced chance of winning prize money compensated by having the chance to play stronger opponents?
For those who are likely to be 'in the next quartile' so to speak ie the players who probably wont win a prize of any sort but will actually get to play alot of the high rated players, the tournament might be of value.

But for all those who would be lower than this group, I dont think there would be many entries for option (A).

Of course if the point of designing the tournament as option (A) is to get as many high rated players and deter the 'bunnies' then it is ok.

Maybe in the case a minor type tournament would be good for everyone else.

PHAT
09-12-2005, 11:27 PM
If you have a high rating the option (A) is probably good, and may attract a stronger field at the top.

true


But the next question is for those who don't benefit from option (A). Is the reduced chance of winning prize money compensated by having the chance to play stronger opponents?

Not for the botttom half round 1
Not for theb ottom most 3/4 i n round 2.

in other words shaun most of your bread andb utter never get to play the crem so what the fxxx is the point of attracting the cream otherthan to brag to the press (pun maybe intendde :wink: )

PHAT
09-12-2005, 11:34 PM
LOOKEE HERE,

rthere is a huge diff bettwwwn a PRESStigous title and a local phkova. It OUGHT not matter what the prize is for an Australina title. top players if they are fair dinkum wiil show for a tyitle fighter. but for the weekender, top playersw ant money .... I think.

four four two
11-12-2005, 08:58 AM
Option A doesnt have many problems attracting decent size fields in Europe,but then again they have much bigger populations to draw on.

The draw back with option B in Australia seems to be when you have players who are just over 2000,and there is no under 2200 prize that some of the players who are just over 2000 decide not to play,they think they have no chance of prize money to pay for part of their trip.

The question I have is Shaun,is option A a possibility if Canberra is going to bid for the next Australian open? :hmm:

Queenstown of course is using option A,but they have a much larger prize pool to play with. In Australia either option has its pros and cons,option A will give you more players at the higher rated end of the field but may cost you players under 1400. Option B ,which in australian practice usually doesnt have an under 2200 section,normally loses a few players at the top end.
The biggest advantage I can see with option A is that you might get more overseas players,which in turn will give you more international exposure and possibly more sponsorship oppurtunities. ;)

shaun
11-12-2005, 10:46 AM
The question I have is Shaun,is option A a possibility if Canberra is going to bid for the next Australian open? :hmm:


At this stage it is just general market research, although the results may impact on decisions in this area.

ElevatorEscapee
11-12-2005, 02:45 PM
Hi Shaun,

Thank you for your thought provoking post.

Personally I find both options rather distasteful. I would prefer a modified "Traditional" style, with prizes given in recognition of 2nd and 3rd places in each rating group.

As a lower rated chess player, I have always found it very dissappointing that when an Australian chess tournament receives substantial sponsorship from an external organization that the entire amount seems to go to "bulk up" first prize.

Not only was the 2001 Vic Open (with the major prize money won by a "foreign raider") an example of this... but the Ballarat Begonia in 2002 (generously sponsored with $5,000 by VISY) had a very similar prize structure... ie the major prizes were increased, but the ratings groups prize funding was not increased on a relative percentile level, furthermore, extra ratings groups prizes that could have been offered were not. :(

This meant that people who may have finished third in certain ratings groups got diddly squat.

Given that the majority of chess players in Aussie tournaments are in the lower percentile rating grouping, and the entry fees from these players is what normally makes up the prize money, then I think it not only prudent, but also just plain common sense to increase both the number of prizes and the prize money on offer to them.

If you genuinely want to "give something back" to Australian chess, then a prize structure that rewards the "revenue generating" lower rated players can only be mutually beneficial.

I am not advocating taking too much prize money away from First prize, but if you normally have a first prize of $2,000 and you receive an extra $3,000 in sponsorship, then you should be thinking of giving something back to the lower rated players / juniors / etc.

Cheers,

EE :)

bergil
11-12-2005, 03:44 PM
Imagine you were entering a big swiss (at least 100 players and possibly 150+). Which of the following prize money structures would you prefer, and why?

(A) The European Style
1st $4000
2nd $2500
3rd $1500
4th $1000
5th $750

6th-10th $500 ea
11th-15th $250 ea
16th-25th $125 ea

with the top 5 prizes pooled and shared where players finish on equal points, but places 6 to 25th decided on tie break (eg if two players finish on 7.5/11 and one is 10th on tie break and the other is 11th, the 10th player gets $500 while no 11 only gets $250)

(B) The Traditional Style
1st $4000
2nd $2500
3rd $1500
4th $1000
5th $800
6th $600
7th $400
8th $200

U/2200 $500
U/2000 $500
U/1800 $500
U/1600 $500
U/1400 $250
U/1200 $250

Best Junior $300
2nd Junior $200

with prizes pooled/shared wherever neccesary.
First model A has $14,750 in prizes, while model B has $14,000

I would go with model B with a few changes like removing U/2200 and Junior prizes, decreasing rating prizes to $400 and keeping $250 but adding a second prize of $200 and $125. Generally fairer to all who pay to enter.

Something like this:
1st $4000
2nd $2500
3rd $1500
4th $1000
5th $800
6th $600
7th $400
8th $300
9th $200
10th $150
Total $11,450

U/2000
1st $400
2nd $200
U/1800
1st $400
2nd $200
U/1600
1st $400
2nd $200
U/1400
1st $250
2nd $125
U/1200
1st $250
2nd $125
Total $2,500

I'd go further by making 3 placings in all ratings divisons.
1st $300 2nd $200 3rd $100 and 1st $175 2nd $125 3rd $100

PHAT
11-12-2005, 08:05 PM
Shaun,

Help us all out here. What is the subtext. What is the question we are being asked to answer. Is it:

What prize system is fair?
or
What prize system will put the most bums on seats?
or
What prize system will create the highest prestege tournament?

The answer to each of these is different.

Or perhaps you are asking us to juggle all three. If that is the case, sorry to tell you but compomise means nobody is happy. So your choice is not, who you want to please, but who you tell to get lost.

pax
11-12-2005, 08:25 PM
In my opinion, you should give everybody (or almost everybody) something to play for. Somebody rated 1350 who plays out of their skin to score 5/9 should recieve some recognition.

I don't have any problem with big prizes at the top - we should support the professional players by enabling them to compete for serious money that can help them make a living. Most of the top 25 however are not professionals - for them, this is just a hobby like the rest of the field.

Chess is somewhat unusual in that it is possible to have a large open tournament that makes sense and produces reasonable rankings. Most other sports would be split into divisions by age or ability, and possibly even handicapped on top of that. In my view rating prizes make sense in chess as a substitute for the divisional prize that would be available to players in lower divisions.

shaun
11-12-2005, 08:42 PM
Shaun,

Help us all out here. What is the subtext. What is the question we are being asked to answer. Is it:

What prize system is fair?
or
What prize system will put the most bums on seats?
or
What prize system will create the highest prestege tournament?

The answer to each of these is different.

Or perhaps you are asking us to juggle all three. If that is the case, sorry to tell you but compomise means nobody is happy. So your choice is not, who you want to please, but who you tell to get lost.

The original question was not a 'meta' question. It simply asked what prize structure you would prefer if you were entering a big swiss. At this stage I am not asking what you would think other people would prefer, although answers to that question would not neccesarily be ignored.
The obvious aim when organising a tournament 'of this nature', is to get the most bums on seats. Prize money isn't the only variable in this equation, but is (a) probably the most significant and (b) the one most likely to cause second and third order effects (eg A possible hypothesis is: More prizes at the top attract strong players which then attract a larger than normal second tier of players who relish the competition).
Questions about tournament format (Round times, time controls, subsidiary tournaments) and it's effect on entry numbers may follow later.

PHAT
11-12-2005, 10:39 PM
The original question was not a 'meta' question. It simply asked what prize structure you would prefer if you were entering a big swiss.

EASY, B - the traditional. It keeps excitment in the bottom 75% of the tournament. If it isn't yourself looking for a final round win for equal 3rd in the under X, then it is a mate in danger of slipping to 2nd in under Y.

BTW, I don't think many people play harder to win a wheelbarrow full of bills, they play just as hard to win any amount. It is the win per se, and the acknowledgement of that win with a few quid, that excites most people.

Phil Bourke
12-12-2005, 07:35 AM
I have to go with B also.
Whilst it is great to see some top players clash, we can view that anytime on the net, or download some pgn files, or those games usually get written up somewhere.
But for 2 or 3 lower rated players to get the chance to sweat it out for a share of the prizemoney is exciting in itself, as these guys don't often get the chance to go home with some $ in the kick for doing what they love to do, play chess.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-12-2005, 03:21 PM
I think "B" option is better. Value of prize often depends on the number of entries. I'd also increase number of prize spots in case of more players participating, e.g.

70 players - 4 open prizes and three in each rating group
100 players - 6 open prizes and four in each rating group,

etc.

As for sponsorship money, they should ideally be splitted in proportion to existing prizes (e.g. increase for every prize with the biggest increase for the first, second biggest for the second, etc.)

Garvinator
12-12-2005, 04:30 PM
It is no surprise that most respondents are choosing option B as it is the option that gives the majority of the chess community the chance of winning a rating or overall prize.

That being said, the goals of the prospective tournament is what counts most. If it is for the Australian Open, then option A would probably be best. The Australian Open is in part designed with norm chances and overseas players in mind. Option A would be more likely to fit in with attracting the players for this type of field.

So the key question I believe is: what is the goals of the tournament that you are trying to fit a prize structure to?
Is it mass participation by anyone, is it to give norm chances, is it for a particular group of players or maybe to attract a different field from the field you normally get in your tournament.

Garvinator
12-12-2005, 04:32 PM
I'd go further by making 3 placings in all ratings divisons.
1st $300 2nd $200 3rd $100 and 1st $175 2nd $125 3rd $100
Sorry to use your quote Bergil when a few others have made suggestions with this type of structure.

Anyways, why have three prizes in each division? Why not just have more divisions and only one prize in each division?

Vlad
12-12-2005, 07:04 PM
It is clearly an economic question. As many economic questions it is difficult to answer one way or the other. You can find arguments defending any point of view. Let me make a few obvious points though.

1) I am not sure if it is a good idea in this case to base your opinion on what the majority say. The way the ratings are formed is that there is much larger number of low rated players rather than higher rated players. They will definitely say B, because this option is in their interests.

2) When people make their choice they clearly do not take into consideration the future of Australian chess. Just look how many players > 2200 play in weekenders. How would you expect juniors to become IMs and GMs if they have nobody to play with? Do not you think this could be one of the reasons why Australia has only 2 GMs and a small number of participating IMs?

3) B creates some disincentives which extremely harmful for the chess community. If you say rated about 2200 you may consider an option of playing badly in one competition, lowering your rating below 2000 and smashing the major in the Doerbel Cup. At the end of the day it is 1000 and how much 2200 player can expect in the Open, probably 0.

ElevatorEscapee
12-12-2005, 07:40 PM
Hi drug, thank you for your comments. :)

However well eloquently put, I am afraid that I don't necessarily agree with your deductions.


1) I am not sure if it is a good idea in this case to base your opinion on what the majority say. The way the ratings are formed is that there is much larger number of low rated players rather than higher rated players. They will definitely say B, because this option is in their interests.

In your opinion, which would be better in the long term for Australian chess?

i) a tournament that attracts a lot of local players who "agree" with the prize structure, and keep coming back year after year?

Or

ii) a tournament that has one or two foreign raiders who take the major prize money back home with them, and don't return again next year because the same prize money is no longer available?


2) When people make their choice they clearly do not take into consideration the future of Australian chess. Just look how many players > 2200 play in weekenders. How would you expect juniors to become IMs and GMs if they have nobody to play with? Do not you think this could be one of the reasons why Australia has only 2 GMs and a small number of participating IMs?

I don't quite understand what argument you are trying to make here.

Are you saying that all Australian chess players are selfish, and will only compete in a tournament that offers them a genuine chance of pecuniary reward? If so, then does not, as you suggest in part 1) "The way the ratings are formed is that there is much larger number of low rated players rather than higher rated players" encourage more players to attend a tournament if there are more prizes for the lower divisions? And if this point is so, does this not contradict your earlier argument in point 1) about which is better for Australian chess?


3) B creates some disincentives which extremely harmful for the chess community. If you say rated about 2200 you may consider an option of playing badly in one competition, lowering your rating below 2000 and smashing the major in the Doerbel Cup. At the end of the day it is 1000 and how much 2200 player can expect in the Open, probably 0.

This is always the argument against "Ratings Group" prizes, ie a very strong player can always deliberately lose in some tournaments so as to keep his rating low enough to have a chance at winning a ratings group prize.

Seriously speaking, how many "proud" chessplayers do you know of who believe themselves to be of 2200 rating strength who will deliberately lose against lower rated opponents just to get their rating down low enough to compete for lower ratings division prizes in future tournaments?

(Maybe you could employ some of those famous "Scooby Doo" umaksing tactics of yours to reveal them for us! ;) :P )

Kevin Bonham
12-12-2005, 08:13 PM
As a prospective entrant in a major national event B would be in my interests as I would have a shot at the ratings prizes rather than a shot at a weedy prize for 16th-25th that only returns my entry fee or so.

However even if I was an elite contender I would prefer B unless I played chess for a primary living because I just don't believe top contenders should be rewarded for bad tournaments. If I play rubbish in a tournament I was expected to win, I'd rather get nothing, to discourage me from doing the same in the future.

Sandbagging (drug's point 3) is not a major issue in Australia, unlike the US where similar prizes can, insanely IMO, be as high as $10,000.

Vlad
12-12-2005, 08:33 PM
Hi drug, thank you for your comments. :)

In your opinion, which would be better in the long term for Australian chess?

i) a tournament that attracts a lot of local players who "agree" with the prize structure, and keep coming back year after year?

Or

ii) a tournament that has one or two foreign raiders who take the major prize money back home with them, and don't return again next year because the same prize money is no longer available?



You are taking a very extreme and unlikely example. It is almost never profitable for people from Europe or USA to come to Australia unless you make the first prize > 3000, which is never the case. How many examples of what you described have you seen?



I don't quite understand what argument you are trying to make here.

Are you saying that all Australian chess players are selfish, and will only compete in a tournament that offers them a genuine chance of pecuniary reward? If so, then does not, as you suggest in part 1) "The way the ratings are formed is that there is much larger number of low rated players rather than higher rated players" encourage more players to attend a tournament if there are more prizes for the lower divisions? And if this point is so, does this not contradict your earlier argument in point 1) about which is better for Australian chess?



I am an economist and my job is to look at incentives. When do incentives matter? Well, when the choice is on the margin. Say, you are contemplating whether to enter or not and you are indifferent. Additional prize money definitely will not hurt and my make you to choose to enter. This is true for everybody. It does not matter whether you are low or high rated player. Consequently, on average you would expect more high rated players entering and less low rated entering the A type of competition. Note again, I am talking about expected average only. There are players who certainly do not care about money and would play in any case. My experience is though it is not true about everybody.

Regarding your argument about providing incentives only for low rated players to play, I guess that could be one of the arguments why Australian government does not recognize chess - because it is internationally non-competitive.



This is always the argument against "Ratings Group" prizes, ie a very strong player can always deliberately lose in some tournaments so as to keep his rating low enough to have a chance at winning a ratings group prize.

Seriously speaking, how many "proud" chessplayers do you know of who believe themselves to be of 2200 rating strength who will deliberately lose against lower rated opponents just to get their rating down low enough to compete for lower ratings division prizes in future tournaments?



What I have said is that there is an incentive. Some people do not care about money, while some people do. What is unclear here?

Vlad
12-12-2005, 08:46 PM
As a prospective entrant in a major national event B would be in my interests as I would have a shot at the ratings prizes rather than a shot at a weedy prize for 16th-25th that only returns my entry fee or so.


By saying this you confirm my point 1.



However even if I was an elite contender I would prefer B unless I played chess for a primary living because I just don't believe top contenders should be rewarded for bad tournaments. If I play rubbish in a tournament I was expected to win, I'd rather get nothing, to discourage me from doing the same in the future.


I think the main difference in our views is as follows. I think about how to develop chess in Australia and get it internationally competitive while you think what is "fair".



Sandbagging (drug's point 3) is not a major issue in Australia, unlike the US where similar prizes can, insanely IMO, be as high as $10,000.

How can you know this? It is not much an argument when one of the parties just reject the other party's argument by saying "ahh, this is rubbish!"

ElevatorEscapee
13-12-2005, 12:25 AM
How can you know this? It is not much an argument when one of the parties just reject the other party's argument by saying "ahh, this is rubbish!"

How do we know that you are not Dmitri yourself!? :P :owned:

bergil
13-12-2005, 09:30 AM
It is clearly an economic question. As many economic questions it is difficult to answer one way or the other. You can find arguments defending any point of view.
Until someone pays you and then you can support their view only!


1) I am not sure if it is a good idea in this case to base your opinion on what the majority say. The way the ratings are formed is that there is much larger number of low rated players rather than higher rated players. They will definitely say B, because this option is in their interests.

Yeah thats right, don't agree with the paying public in a struggling market and try to ostracize them and become elitist. Reduce you pool of players and potential to grow your game and or tournament.


2) When people make their choice they clearly do not take into consideration the future of Australian chess. Just look how many players > 2200 play in weekenders. How would you expect juniors to become IMs and GMs if they have nobody to play with? Do not you think this could be one of the reasons why Australia has only 2 GMs and a small number of participating IMs?
How many GM's & IM's will you get if can't interest people into playing the game? Or keep without encouragement? :hmm:


3) B creates some disincentives which extremely harmful for the chess community. If you say rated about 2200 you may consider an option of playing badly in one competition, lowering your rating below 2000 and smashing the major in the Doerbel Cup. At the end of the day it is 1000 and how much 2200 player can expect in the Open, probably 0.
Hang on in my version of model B out of $14,000 only $2,500 is allocated to those rating prizes, thats less than 20% of the total pool (should be IMO between 25-33%). So if you are 2200 and don't finish top ten you deserve nothing.

But a few $1,000 tournaments will still not make you a full time professional, so what differance will it make?


Regarding your argument about providing incentives only for low rated players to play, I guess that could be one of the arguments why Australian government does not recognize chess - because it is internationally non-competitive.
There was no arguement to only provide incentives for low rated players just give them some incentive. :hand:

Could be :rolleyes: but not very likely, Chess's growth in participation and wider community appeal/popularity may see it attrack Federal funding.

How can you expect low rated players to continue to fund prize pools by playing in tournaments when there is nothing in it for them? After a while its like banging your head against a brick wall, its good when you stop! :wall:

Garvinator
13-12-2005, 10:45 AM
I think Shaun needs to clarify what the point of his first post was all about because I am not seeing anything yet that wasnt obvious before this thread started.

shaun
13-12-2005, 11:09 AM
Clearly the majority prefer option (B) but I'll leave the polls open for a bit longer.
What I am curious about is the opinion expressed by a number of posters that if a strong player doesn't have a good tournament then they deserve to miss out on prizes.
(A) There seems to be a lack of definition on what a "good" tournament is (for a strong player) and (B) there also seems to be an assumption that what strong players need to do to have a "good" tournament is the same as what lower rated players need to do.
I am interested in hearing an answer to (A) but let me argue against (B).
I seemed to be cursed in a lot of weekenders I play in. Whenever I've been in with a chance of a ratings prize I've almost always copped the evil last round pairing. Usually it is a high rated player who lost to one of their near competitors in an earlier round and have drifted down to play me. What happens then is they take their vengence on me, I don't win a prize, and neither do they. Also what happens is someone else on the same score (or even half a point less) gets the dream pairing of the overachiveing lower rated player who collapses in the last round, so I get overtaken, lower rated player misses out, and due to the luck of the draw only one person is happy. The short of it is, ratings prizes are often not decided by matches between those competing for them. For players battling out for the top places this isn't the case. They often do play their nearest compeititors and consequently their fate is in their own hands. So it appears to me that a higher rated player can have a good tournament (say losing only to Rogers and Johansen) and go home empty handed, due to the prize structure. Is this fair?

ursogr8
13-12-2005, 11:35 AM
Clearly the majority prefer option (B) but I'll leave the polls open for a bit longer.
What I am curious about is the opinion expressed by a number of posters that if a strong player doesn't have a good tournament then they deserve to miss out on prizes.
(A) There seems to be a lack of definition on what a "good" tournament is (for a strong player) and (B) there also seems to be an assumption that what strong players need to do to have a "good" tournament is the same as what lower rated players need to do.
I am interested in hearing an answer to (A) but let me argue against (B).
I seemed to be cursed in a lot of weekenders I play in. Whenever I've been in with a chance of a ratings prize I've almost always copped the evil last round pairing. Usually it is a high rated player who lost to one of their near competitors in an earlier round and have drifted down to play me. What happens then is they take their vengence on me, I don't win a prize, and neither do they. Also what happens is someone else on the same score (or even half a point less) gets the dream pairing of the overachiveing lower rated player who collapses in the last round, so I get overtaken, lower rated player misses out, and due to the luck of the draw only one person is happy. The short of it is, ratings prizes are often not decided by matches between those competing for them. For players battling out for the top places this isn't the case. They often do play their nearest compeititors and consequently their fate is in their own hands. So it appears to me that a higher rated player can have a good tournament (say losing only to Rogers and Johansen) and go home empty handed, due to the prize structure. Is this fair?

hi Shaun

Can I suggest that your 'evil last round' pairing is significantly caused by lack of divisionalisation of the week-enders you enter.
An undivisionalised week-ender, for a top quartile player, gives (warning; anedcotal generalistaions ahead)
> only 3 to 4 competitive games
> increased pairings against the Rogers, Johansen, entrants
> a final round pairing differential that is as you described.
Whereas for a divisionalised w/e SWISS you get ( more warning)
>6 to 7 competitive games
> more pairings against peers
> a fair final round pairing.

Maybe it is not the prize-fund-structure you should be lobbying about.

regards
starter

pballard
13-12-2005, 06:51 PM
I seemed to be cursed in a lot of weekenders I play in. Whenever I've been in with a chance of a ratings prize I've almost always copped the evil last round pairing. Usually it is a high rated player who lost to one of their near competitors in an earlier round and have drifted down to play me. What happens then is they take their vengence on me, I don't win a prize, and neither do they. Also what happens is someone else on the same score (or even half a point less) gets the dream pairing of the overachiveing lower rated player who collapses in the last round, so I get overtaken, lower rated player misses out, and due to the luck of the draw only one person is happy. The short of it is, ratings prizes are often not decided by matches between those competing for them. For players battling out for the top places this isn't the case. They often do play their nearest compeititors and consequently their fate is in their own hands.


In the battle for top place, I agree. But in the battle for minor placings - places 9th to 25th in your hypothetical - it again depends on the luck of the swiss draw in the last round. Imagine two 2000-ish players hoping to sneak into a minor place - one plays well all tournament, is 4.5/6 in the penultimate round, and gets black against Rogers in the last round. Someone else meanders through but gets to 4/6 and gets a relatively easy white in the last round. Guess which one gets a prize? It's an inherent flaw in the swiss system, nothing to do with ratings prizes per se.


So it appears to me that a higher rated player can have a good tournament (say losing only to Rogers and Johansen) and go home empty handed, due to the prize structure. Is this fair?

Well that would be a very unlucky draw to have! But at least they had a chance of a prize. But it would be pretty depressing for a 1400 player to know they had to play the tournament of their life to have any hope of getting any prize at all.

BTW, my opinion would be the opposite if their were divisions - i.e. an Open, Major and Minor like Doeberl. In that case, I say no ratings prizes, there are divisions instead.

I think the tournament is better if every player has some chance of a prize - both divisions and ratings prizes fulfil this goal.

[Also, in your original proposal, I'd remove the junior prizes, because they already have a chance at ratings prizes].

Kevin Bonham
13-12-2005, 10:45 PM
By saying this you confirm my point 1.

I was commenting on which way I would go in terms of my own interests. I didn't say that would actually determine my decision.


I think the main difference in our views is as follows. I think about how to develop chess in Australia and get it internationally competitive while you think what is "fair".

I think your suggestion that prize structure has anything much to do with Australia's position in world chess is unlikely to be accurate. Far more critical factors are our small population, our climate resulting in an outdoor-sport-dominated culture, our culture's general distrust of the intellect, and our relative isolation resulting in limited opportunities to obtain norms. Prize structure in domestic tournaments, if it has an impact at all, would have to be a long way down the list.


How can you know this? It is not much an argument when one of the parties just reject the other party's argument by saying "ahh, this is rubbish!"

Sandbagging is quite a big issue in American chess. There have been cases of people doing it very obviously, so much so that the US rating system had to be altered to attempt to stop habitual sandbaggers. In Australia, although people talk about it as a theoretical issue, I cannot recall a single case where a player was actually seriously accused of doing it, and it is obvious that the incentive to do it here is far less than in the US. If you have evidence of it actually happening here (rather than being something that could happen in theory) I would be interested in seeing it.

bergil
17-12-2005, 01:27 PM
Clearly the majority prefer option (B) but I'll leave the polls open for a bit longer.
What I am curious about is the opinion expressed by a number of posters that if a strong player doesn't have a good tournament then they deserve to miss out on prizes.
(A) There seems to be a lack of definition on what a "good" tournament is (for a strong player) and (B) there also seems to be an assumption that what strong players need to do to have a "good" tournament is the same as what lower rated players need to do.
I am interested in hearing an answer to (A) but let me argue against (B).
I seemed to be cursed in a lot of weekenders I play in. Whenever I've been in with a chance of a ratings prize I've almost always copped the evil last round pairing. Usually it is a high rated player who lost to one of their near competitors in an earlier round and have drifted down to play me. What happens then is they take their vengence on me, I don't win a prize, and neither do they. Also what happens is someone else on the same score (or even half a point less) gets the dream pairing of the overachiveing lower rated player who collapses in the last round, so I get overtaken, lower rated player misses out, and due to the luck of the draw only one person is happy. The short of it is, ratings prizes are often not decided by matches between those competing for them. For players battling out for the top places this isn't the case. They often do play their nearest compeititors and consequently their fate is in their own hands. So it appears to me that a higher rated player can have a good tournament (say losing only to Rogers and Johansen) and go home empty handed, due to the prize structure. Is this fair?
What would you think of a tournament like this? Your 1736 that would give you a potential 11 prizes to aim for! If there was more money I put up the open but for a cheap weekender I think this caters for everyone. With this prize structure if you play to the best of your ability you should win a prize and you can't say fairer than that, can you?

Grand Prix Cat 2

Entry fee $55

7 round swiss 1hour + 10 seconds a move

Prizes
1st $500+Trophy 2nd $400 3rd $300 4th $150 5th $100
U/2000 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100
U/1800 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100
U/1600 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100
U/1400 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100

Open 1st-4th prizes guarantied
Divisions 1st and 2nd prizes guarantied

Vlad
17-12-2005, 07:48 PM
I think your suggestion that prize structure has anything much to do with Australia's position in world chess is unlikely to be accurate. Far more critical factors are our small population, our climate resulting in an outdoor-sport-dominated culture, our culture's general distrust of the intellect, and our relative isolation resulting in limited opportunities to obtain norms. Prize structure in domestic tournaments, if it has an impact at all, would have to be a long way down the list.


Just to support the point I have made I collected some statistics for Australia and Russia. In the most recent list Australia has 2500+ 1, 2400-2500 9, 2300-2400 15, 2200-2300 44 players. Russia has 2800+ 1, 2700-2800 4, 2600-2700 22 and 2500-2600 109 players. Now let us compare these distributions.

All the factors you have specified are responsible for the difference in approx 300 points between top Russian and Australian players. They do not affect relative distributions - for example, how many 2500+ vs how many 2400-2500 players are in Australia.

There are relatively many 2400-2500 players in Australia which is due to immigration from other countries. In fact 4 out of 9 2400-2500 players have arrived in Australia after they reached their maximum rating. Consequently if we subtract immigrants, the first two groups in both countries look very similar.

If we compare further we can see that there are much less players in 2200-2300 and 2300-2400 rating groups in Australia in comparison with 2500-2600 and 2600-2700 in Russia. This is exactly what I was talking about.

I believe the situation even worse because probably half of 2200-2400 players in Australia do not play chess at all, while in Russia I would think most of 2500+ players are playing all the time.

Vlad
17-12-2005, 08:51 PM
Sandbagging is quite a big issue in American chess. There have been cases of people doing it very obviously, so much so that the US rating system had to be altered to attempt to stop habitual sandbaggers. In Australia, although people talk about it as a theoretical issue, I cannot recall a single case where a player was actually seriously accused of doing it, and it is obvious that the incentive to do it here is far less than in the US. If you have evidence of it actually happening here (rather than being something that could happen in theory) I would be interested in seeing it.

I do not think the way you put your question is right. It is quite likely that nobody can give you an example of sandbagging in Australia. This does not prove that it does not exist though.

I was not only talking about obvious cases when 2200 player loses to get his rating lower. I was talking about situations when say 2100 level player whose rating is still under 2000 might wait till the Doerbel Cup rather than play somewhere else. As I mentioned many times before, incentives are important. People do respond to them, quite often subconsciously.

I do understand though the reason why it is important to have rating prizes. It is some kind of marketing. There is much larger number of low rated players rather than higher rated players. Each person pays exactly the same fee. It is easier to get numbers if there are many rating prizes.

What I am saying is that there should be some kind of balance. All the effects need to be taken into account, not only short term ones.

pull_my_finger
24-12-2005, 03:39 PM
What would you think of a tournament like this? Your 1736 that would give you a potential 11 prizes to aim for! If there was more money I put up the open but for a cheap weekender I think this caters for everyone. With this prize structure if you play to the best of your ability you should win a prize and you can't say fairer than that, can you?

Grand Prix Cat 2

Entry fee $55

7 round swiss 1hour + 10 seconds a move

Prizes
1st $500+Trophy 2nd $400 3rd $300 4th $150 5th $100
U/2000 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100
U/1800 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100
U/1600 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100
U/1400 1st $150 2nd $125 3rd $100

Open 1st-4th prizes guarantied
Divisions 1st and 2nd prizes guarantied
If you run a tournament like that I would play!

Garvinator
24-12-2005, 05:06 PM
If you run a tournament like that I would play!
there are many tournaments with different prize structures, most of them similiar to bergil's, with some differences of course.

I do believe that Shaun has a specific idea in mind when he first started this thread, but is either disappointed with the replies he has received or has decided to go off on his own track.

Of course the majority of chess players would prefer all the option b's suggested, but I dont think that Shaun had the majority in mind with his option A.

Alan Shore
26-12-2005, 11:38 AM
I noticed the Aus Senior is merged with the Aus Major.

Will the prizemoney also be merged?