An Open Letter to all TDs - No More "Mixed Doubles"

[Edward_D_Collins]

@eastside

… CCA events that introduced mixed doubles prizes did not increase their entry fees or reduce their prize funds over previous installations that didn’t have those prizes.

Ah, but they have reduced the prize fund. At least for my tournament. Again, that’s my whole point. I wouldn’t be bringing this up, otherwise.

This past weekend, the 22nd Western Class Championships in Agoura Hills had a $1,400 1st Place prize in the Expert, Class A, and Class B Sections.

The Master Section had an $1,800 1st Place Prize.
The Class C 1st Place prize was $1,200.00.
The Class D 1st Place prize was $1,100.00.

(Prizes based upon 230 paid entries.)

This tournament offered a Mixed Doubles Prize.

Just two short years ago, in 2013, the same tournament held at the same location offered a full $1,500 1st prize in the Expert, Class A, and Class B sections.

The Master Section had a $2,000 1st Place Prize.
Class C 1st Place prize was $1,400.00.
Class D 1st Place prize was $1,200.00.

Prizes in this tournament were also based upon the same number (230) of paid entries.

This tournament two years ago did not have a Mixed Doubles Prize.

Note the entry fee was the exact same for both tournaments. ($115.00 online, up to a few days before the event.)

That’s $800 less right there, in 1st Place Prizes. And I’m not even adding in the 2nd and 3rd Place prizes, which were also less for all sections this past weekend, than there were two years ago.

I contend the prize fund was much lower this past weekend, than it was two years ago, with the same entry fee and based upon the same number of paid entries, because of the addition of the Mixed Doubles Prize.

[Edward_D_Collins]

@Akzidenz

The only thing I don’t like about the mixed doubles prize is I haven’t won one yet.
Mr. Collins, I’m likely playing the Chicago Class in July. How about you? I need a mixed doubles partner.

Thanks, but Chicago’s a bit far from me, here in Southern California. I don’t believe I will be able to attend that one. But thanks anyway!!!

[Mulfish]

And how much was the mixed doubles prize in Agoura Hills, Mr. Collins?

Don’t you think it’s more likely the prize fund is reduced because the costs increased? Maybe the hotel is charging a lot more, perhaps because the room-nights weren’t as high as expected.

[Edward_D_Collins]

@Mulfish

And how much was the mixed doubles prize in Agoura Hills, Mr. Collins?
Don’t you think it’s more likely the prize fund is reduced because the costs increased? Maybe the hotel is charging a lot more, perhaps because the room-nights weren’t as high as expected.

Mixed Doubles Prizes: $600 for 1st Place, $400 for 2nd Place and $200 for 3rd Place.

No, actually I think it’s more likely the Mixed Doubles Prizes came directly from the reduced prizes.

It’s certainly possible that the prizes were reduced because of increases costs, of course. (And that is probably what they would like you to believe.) I don’t know so I can’t say for sure one way or the other. But a realtively new $1,200 Mixed Doubles Prize and at the same time a $1,200 reduction in overall player prizes gives a pretty good indication where the Mixed Doubles Prizes are coming from. At least to me. At least for this tournament.

Instead of Mixed Doubles, I’d love to see a Biggest Upset and a Biggest Upset - Cumulative Prize in each section. This is something everyone will be eligible for… not just 20% of the entrants.

[Mulfish]

Given that set of facts, I’d say your conclusion is reasonable.

[eastside]

@Edward D Collins

@eastside

… CCA events that introduced mixed doubles prizes did not increase their entry fees or reduce their prize funds over previous installations that didn’t have those prizes.

Ah, but they have reduced the prize fund. At least for my tournament. Again, that’s my whole point. I wouldn’t be bringing this up, otherwise.[…]

Actually, the prize fund for the Western Class was not reduced at all. It was $20,000 b/230 with 80% guaranteed in 2013, 2014 and 2015, as the archived TLAs at http://www.westernclass.com clearly show. The event still gives away the same amount of money as it did before the advent of mixed doubles prizes, and players don’t pay any more than they did before then, either. This is the same pattern I mentioned in an earlier post regarding two other CCA events. I strongly suspect that all CCA events have the same pattern - because Bill Goichberg is generally very consistent in the way he approaches such things, regardless of the event.

CCA events get reconfigured from time to time (new sections, new formats, redistributed prizes, etc.). All that’s happened is that the prize fund was reconfigured - NOT reduced - in the hope of attracting new/more entries. Every player is eligible for the mixed doubles prizes - a player just has to find a gender-appropriate partner.

In a very real way, I’m arguing against my own personal best interests. When I run a CCA event, I now have more work because of them - I have to register the teams and report their results on a round-by-round basis. I can also attest that directors don’t get any extra pay for the additional work these prizes create. However, I don’t see them as inherently unfair. Again, I remain quite doubtful that mixed doubles prizes will be removed any time soon (as I also mentioned previously, they now have the imprimatur of Delegate approval).

Finally, I note that, as opposed to mixed doubles prizes, a “best game” prize will definitely cost an organizer money (someone has to play through the games and render a judgment, and this person will want compensation). That cost would almost certainly be passed along - if I had to guess, through increased entry fees.

[tmagchesspgh]

Upset prizes discriminate against high rated players in a section because they have no chance to be eligible for the prize. Upset prizes can also lead to manipulation of results in later rounds. A high rated player doing poorly might throw a game to a low rated friend to allow him to win a prize. We should not be promoting cheating.

I think mixed doubles prizes is a good idea. It is a means to encourage more women and girls to play tournament chess. Most of the prize winners I have seen were in lower class sections. It is a fun addition to the tournament scene.

If you cannot find a partner, then you should bring your own to a tournament. Teach your wife, girl friend, or a child to play and buy them a USCF membership. Don’t whine that you are such a victim. The organizer is experimenting with a new idea to make more money. You sound like the old fogies who complain about all of the kids who are playing and taking away “their” prizes.

[Mulfish]

You proved his point, Boyd. The $20,000 prize fund included the mixed doubles prizes.

[eastside]

@Mulfish

You proved his point, Boyd. The $20,000 prize fund included the mixed doubles prizes.

His point was that the prize fund was reduced when the prizes were introduced. I think the year-over-year total prize fund comparisons proved that was not the case. YMMV.

[fpawn]

@eastside

@Mulfish

You proved his point, Boyd. The $20,000 prize fund included the mixed doubles prizes.

His point was that the prize fund was reduced when the prizes were introduced. I think the year-over-year total prize fund comparisons proved that was not the case. YMMV.

Strictly speaking, it is a 6% prize fund reduction unless you’re fortunate enough to have a competitive partner of the opposite gender. And if you’re in the C section, the decrease is a whopping 15% (from 2013 to 2015).

Michael Aigner

[Mulfish]

@eastside

@Mulfish

You proved his point, Boyd. The $20,000 prize fund included the mixed doubles prizes.

His point was that the prize fund was reduced when the prizes were introduced. I think the year-over-year total prize fund comparisons proved that was not the case. YMMV.

Then you totally failed to understand his point. He argued that the mixed doubles prize was funded at the expense of the regular prize fund. The fact that the mixed doubles prizes were added and the total prize fund remained unchanged proves that these weren’t just extra prizes.

[eastside]

@fpawn

@eastside

@Mulfish

You proved his point, Boyd. The $20,000 prize fund included the mixed doubles prizes.

His point was that the prize fund was reduced when the prizes were introduced. I think the year-over-year total prize fund comparisons proved that was not the case. YMMV.

Strictly speaking, it is a 6% prize fund reduction unless you’re fortunate enough to have a competitive partner of the opposite gender. And if you’re in the C section, the decrease is a whopping 15% (from 2013 to 2015).

Strictly speaking, I see two equivalent prize funds. I also see that, since anyone in any section is eligible for the mixed doubles prizes, players in each section actually have access to a few hundred dollars more in prizes now than they did before.

Another point, which I articulated in PMs on the subject but not yet in the thread: if mixed doubles helps the attendance go up, then it does help raise the entire prize fund. (Especially true if the event is not drawing its based-on figure.)

I get the gist of the contrary position (though I don’t think it’s been explained with great attention to detail). I just disagree that it’s an issue. I suppose, if enough players concur, attendance will drop, and changes will result.

[eastside]

@Mulfish

@eastside

@Mulfish

You proved his point, Boyd. The $20,000 prize fund included the mixed doubles prizes.

His point was that the prize fund was reduced when the prizes were introduced. I think the year-over-year total prize fund comparisons proved that was not the case. YMMV.

Then you totally failed to understand his point. He argued that the mixed doubles prize was funded at the expense of the regular prize fund. The fact that the mixed doubles prizes were added and the total prize fund remained unchanged proves that these weren’t just extra prizes.

I understood the point. My disagreement is about what it costs the players. I think there is no additional cost, and actually helps the available prizes in each section on two fronts, as elucidated in my previous post.

Upon re-reading some of my prior posts, I see where I was quite unclear about the above. My intent was to demonstrate that male players are not being shorted. I still don’t see where a contrary position holds.

[Edward_D_Collins]

@tmagchesspgh

Upset prizes discriminate against high rated players in a section because they have no chance to be eligible for the prize. Upset prizes can also lead to manipulation of results in later rounds. A high rated player doing poorly might throw a game to a low rated friend to allow him to win a prize.

I agree that a high rated player could throw a game to a low rated friend to allow him a better chance to win an upset prize. Of course, he could do that even if there were no upset prizes at all. For example, maybe he is a sandbagger and wishes to intentionally lose some rating points.

However, I don’t agree that upset prizes discriminate against the high rated players of a section. There is nothing preventing these high rated players from playing up an entire section if they wish. If they do so, THEY would find themselves on the low end of the entire section.

[Edward_D_Collins]

@eastside

I also see that, since anyone in any section is eligible for the mixed doubles prizes, players in each section actually have access to a few hundred dollars more in prizes now than they did before.

The keyword here is “anyone.” And technically you’re correct. Initially, anyone is eligible, but not everyone is eligible.

Once the last girl joins a team, no one else is eligible anymore.

[Edward_D_Collins]

@eastside

Finally, I note that, as opposed to mixed doubles prizes, a “best game” prize will definitely cost an organizer money (someone has to play through the games and render a judgment, and this person will want compensation). That cost would almost certainly be passed along - if I had to guess, through increased entry fees.

Yes, “best game” prizes are always tough. I’ve never been a huge fan of those prizes. Not only does someone have to play through the game, as you pointed out, but “best game” is subjective anyway.

[mlanger]

It’s the Delegates who didn’t understand that the Mixed Doubles prizes will be funded from reducing the main prizes rather than from the increased entries the Mixed Doubles prizes were supposed to bring.

I find it disingenuous for Boyd to say he is arguing against his own personal interest when he is defending his employer (CCA). The extra work Boyd does of figuring out Mixed Doubles prizes has been created by CCA. It’s up to CCA to provide adequate staffing for this work.

Michael Langer
2015 Delegate - TX

[brennanprice]

I like going to a tournament and finding that not all of the attendees look like me.

Mixed doubles prizes help accomplish that, and I am willing to have the prize structure adjusted accordingly, even if it means less potential return for me (I go into each event presuming no return).

If mixed doubles prizes are so offensive to people who fail to see a tournament as anything more than a chance for a return on investment that those people stay away, well, that’s another good thing in my view.

[eastside]

@mlanger

It’s the Delegates who didn’t understand that the Mixed Doubles prizes will be funded from reducing the main prizes rather than from the increased entries the Mixed Doubles prizes were supposed to bring.

I find it disingenuous for Boyd to say he is arguing against his own personal interest when he is defending his employer (CCA). The extra work Boyd does of figuring out Mixed Doubles prizes has been created by CCA. It’s up to CCA to provide adequate staffing for this work.

This post really doesn’t deserve the dignity of a response. I’m going to provide one anyway, as no response might lead a reader to actually believe what Mr. Langer has written here.

First, Mr. Langer assumes his lack of understanding is shared by the entire Board of Delegates. Given that many Delegates are directors and/or organizers themselves, this seems presumptuous at best. The expression of approval for mixed doubles prizes at last year’s Delegates Meeting did not include any framing of the prizes as not coming from existing prize money. They were presented as a novel way of encouraging more women to participate and generating interest in the tournament. It’s up to organizers to find ways to implement such ideas in at least a profit-neutral manner (assuming they care about not losing money; not every organizer does).

Second, I find it disingenuous for Mr. Langer to talk about CCA as my “employer”, or to attempt to frame the matter as though I’m somehow protecting my self-interest by arguing in favor of mixed doubles prizes. Technically, I’m employed by any organizer who asks me to run an event - but I’ve previously stated that I earn less than 5% of my annual income from directing chess tournaments. Between travel expenses for events (not all of which get reimbursed), covering travel/equipment/entry fees/lessons for my son, and burning vacation days, running tournaments COSTS me money.

The point is that I’m not beholden to CCA, any more than I’m beholden to USCF, PSCF, Millionaire Chess, or any other organizer for whom I’ve directed events during my career. If I disagree with something an organizer has done, I’ll say so. If I agree with something an organizer has done, I’ll say so. If the organizer decides that I should no longer work for them, so be it - the money is immaterial to me. Review my posting history - I’ve criticized all those organizers at one point or another.

Third, my arguments in favor of mixed doubles prizes come because players at the events I’ve run with them seem to almost universally like having them. Saying that they create extra work is just a fact. I happen to think the extra work is worthwhile. Why? Because players like it. I run events for the benefit and enjoyment of the players. If they didn’t like having mixed doubles prizes, I’d be lined up with Mr. Collins in arguing for their removal.

Another example of extra work that I support: CCA has recently added Saturday night blitz tournaments at virtually all its events as well, even the smaller ones. As most directors who have worked with me know, I abhor running blitz or bughouse tournaments. And, again, I don’t get any extra pay for running these side events at regional CCA events. Yet, I find those to be a good thing on balance too. Why? Because players like them.

[eastside]

@Edward D Collins

@eastside

I also see that, since anyone in any section is eligible for the mixed doubles prizes, players in each section actually have access to a few hundred dollars more in prizes now than they did before.

The keyword here is “anyone.” And technically you’re correct. Initially, anyone is eligible, but not everyone is eligible.

Once the last girl joins a team, no one else is eligible anymore.

I hear you. I’ve seen a lot of players trying to get partners at events (including some GMs!). I think the best solution for now is to find a partner before the event. (I’m working on an alternate solution - I have an eight-year-old stepdaughter who wants to learn the game. )