I have been debating with my former chess coach about chess and money. He believes that big prize tournaments hurt chess and that people need to play for the love of the game. I believe we need big prize money tournaments so that players can recoup some of the expenses while making a profit. I would like to hear some opinions on whether larger prize tournaments hurt chess.
ALL (well, most) tournaments, large and small, big money, small money, and no money, help chess. I don’t really see how any intelligent person could argue otherwise.
Bill Smythe
I have tended to shy away from “Big Money Tournaments” as there are more incidents of cheating and in that sense, it does hurt chess. I would throw myself into the minority where when I do compete, it is for the love of the game, to learn something more about myself and about chess itself. In the past, I have been known to donate my winnings towards charity, because chess and charity go hand in hand.
Respectfully Submitted,
David A. Cole, USCF Life Member, Franklin, NJ
I’d go a step further and say we NEED all kinds. More players makes it better for everyone. The combination of things like Queens Gambit, chess streaming, online events, big money events, all have contributed to the growth we have experienced recently. But you need inexpensive events as well for the novice to learn. Who wants to spend $300 to get smashed several times when you can learn the same lessons for a fraction of the cost?
Keep the responses coming. I like what I am hearing.
In a recent correspondence with Mike Nolan I got the impression the most common events were quads! Inexpensive indeed.
Since US Chess doesn’t collect information on entry fees and cash prizes on events, and it can be challenging to look at a crosstable and decide what kind of event it was, hard statistics are a bit scarce.
So while it is true that the single most common size for a section is 4 players (eg, a quad), that doesn’t really tell us much in the context of this topic, ie, money and chess.
I’ve seen (and run) quads where the entry fee was $10 and something like $30 went to the winner. I haven’t seen ones where the entry fee was significantly higher, certainly no $100 quads.
Trophies have a limited utility in terms of attracting players. I’ve got a closet full of trophies, there’s only one or two I consider ones I care about.
The real issue to me is that organizing can be expensive, especially site costs.
$500/day venues are getting harder to find.
In a cash prize event, players expect a large percentage of the total entry fees to be returned as prizes.
And that affects the budget for the event.
If I’m looking at a $500 site cost and let’s say 80% of entry fees as the basis for the prize fund, then I’ve got an event that has to have $2500 in entry fees just to break even on the site cost. Other expenses, like paying the TD staff, paying the ratings fee, supplies, and promotional expenses increase the breakeven point. And making a profit is a separate issue, whether that goes in the organizer’s pocket or helps fund the organization (like a club) sponsoring the event.
So if I set $100 as the entry fee, then I have to draw 25 paid entries just to afford the site. And that generally means adult players or SERIOUS young players, not many players with a 500 rating are going to pay a $100 entry fee.
An organizer in the metro Atlanta area runs three round tournaments every Friday evening. Some are quads, more often swiss systems with three sections. The EF is $30 early, and $35 at site if they still have space. There are no prizes of any kind, no trophies, no cash prizes. They routinely get 40-50 players, and have been known to max out the space at 60 and have to turn people away.
This topic was automatically closed 730 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.