“Based on” prize funds are supposed to be noted in all pre-event advertising. Is there any regulation that specified the [size=50]font size[/size] used to point out that the full prize fund is not guaranteed?
I think the USCF sets the font size in TLAs. At least they have on every TLA I’ve submitted. As for paid half page type ads, I don’t know, but if it’s going to be listed in the TLA section, it wouldn’t be hard to believe someone would look at the TLA to see what was in the fine print.
I suspect the office would reject a display ad with the “based-on” in really tiny print. As for flyers, despite what it seems to say in the first sentence, I doubt that the USCF has the power to regulate them.
They have the power to pull the privilege of organizing events if the 3rd party advertisements violate USCF policy. No prior censorship - but the power to act after-the-fact.
I prefer to go to events with guaranteed prizes. Before I decide on a “based on” tournament I have to waste time checking out the event’s history (at least the MSA record of an event). Have had bad experiences of showing up for what should have been a good event and found that only 5 or less players were there to play in an open section. I feel bad for the class players who are cheated out of a good tournament experience because of poor planning by an organizer/TD. As a 2200+ player I have grown used to expect organizers to oversell their events, but there are some places I avoid. Chess is getting increasingly expensive and in these turbulent economic times I now find myself having to watch my pennies.
Some of my favorite events have been in places where the organizer increased the prize fund because of a good turnout even when he/she did not have to. I make it a point to talk up these tournaments and encourage friends and students to play there. There are also some events that have provided food, coffee/tea/soft drinks, and/or door prizes for the players as a courtesy. These are special and should be rewarded with good word of mouth publicity.
I know that there are no written rules except for grand prix events, but the organizers who try to exploit the players for their own profit are despised.
The way the first sentence is worded, someone who ran a tournament without any TLA but only gave out flyers would be bound by the restrictions. The problem is that if they don’t use a TLA, barring them from the TLA section is kinda pointless. It’s also far from clear how the USCF would find out about it, short of a secret chess police. The sentiment is laudable but the execution is typical USCF (vote now, think later).
If an affiliate sent a tournament to be rated by the USCF, it should follow all federation rules whether it submitted a TLA or not. Players should have a right to expect that TD’s and organizers are following all appropriate USCF guidelines. When they do not it damages the credibility of the national organization and affects membership.
That’s fair enough, but how is the USCF going to know about it if the tournament didn’t have a TLA? This is the sort of rule that works only as long as everyone tacitly agrees to abide by it.
There is a word for the tournaments that consisently perform, and outperform their advertising,
it is called professionalism. Those that offer this, tend to lend credibility for organizers and
events, and those that don’t, well…
Word of mouth publicity is the best kind, and the contrare to this is also true.
The Liberty Bell Open is an excellent example of based on prize fund, that has been increased because of attendance. I would highly suspicious of a based on tournament run by some organizer who I’ve never heard of. I have no problem with reputable organizers who do based on prize funds. Unfortunately for me in most cases it doesn’t really matter what the prize fund is.
The Boylston Chess Club runs events “based on entries” – no fixed number of either dollars or entrants. The club’s chief TD, Bernardo Iglesias, shared with me the formula that the club uses; it strikes me as perfectly fair, and yet there doesn’t appear to be any way to massage it into a form that would pass muster in a TLA, because it doesn’t guarantee any specific prize amount under any specific condition. Have greedy and dishonest organizers been such a problem in the past that this restrictiveness is necessary?
Do you mean something like “90% of entry fees given back as prizes”? Just stating that, with percentage of money for each place, should convey the message without committing to a specific number of players or quantity of cash.
No, the BCC doesn’t use a fixed percentage, either. It subtracts a flat TD fee, a club fee based on the number of entrants, and the USCF rating fees, then divvies up whatever’s left into a prize fund. The fund ends up being somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of total entry fees, but it floats.
Some players might not want to travel to some far-away place, like Miami, for example, if they weren’t sure that there was going to be a minimum guaranteed prize amount that they could win.
Understandable, but isn’t that the sort of thing The Market™ can sort out? Wouldn’t anyone who had such qualms simply choose not to make the trip based on the less precise TLA?
Mind you, I’m not defending the practice of advertising a guaranteed prize fund, then not paying it out, which I’m guessing is what you’re alluding to by referencing Miami. I’m simply inquiring why advertising that there will be prizes, while not specifying their exact amounts, is forbidden in TLAs.
