Have in mind for the tournaments during 2005, being a plus score tournament. A G/30 event with a 4 round swiss open, entry fee of $20 with the plus-score prize of 4.0 = $40, 3.5 = $35, 3.0 = $30, 2.5 = $25.
A top prize of only $40 with an entry fee of $20? Don’t count on many players showing up.
Stay with our “traditional” (in this discussion) payout of $100 - $50 - $25 - $10.
And your last prize is anti-geometric, i.e. the difference between $30 and $25 is SMALLER than the difference between $25 and zero. Two players paired at 2-1 in the last round would be motivated to draw, winning a total of $50, rather than having a decisive result and winning only $30.
I know, I know, a $100 prize looks scary to the organizer of a small tournament, but it really isn’t. It’s only five entry fees. You’ll attract players AND make money for the club.
Or maybe you’re trying to ensure that all prizes, including that for a “barely” plus score of 2.5-1.5, are higher than the entry fee. Don’t get trapped into this line of thinking. There is no way a player only half a point better than break-even deserves a prize as large as his entry fee.
Bill Smythe
So you would say give out 4.0 = $100, 3.5 = $50, 3.0 = $25, 2.5 = $10.
Well the $10 for the 2.5 prize is a little insulting, as finding myself in a number of times in a tie-breaking prize, and win only $12.25 when the entry fee was $20. Do understand that having a prize of $100 for a 4.0 score would bring a number of people to a open tournament. The only problem is my site only able to have 62 people, if as a non-playing director can only have 30 active boards per round. If having parents that do not play, would bring down the limit of active boards as some players would be with a parent.
Could have a tournament with 4.0 = $50, 3.5 = $40, 3.0 = $30. Then the rest would go into the club treasury.
I don’t think I’d play in your tournament with a $20 entry fee and only a $40 prize for a 4-0 score, and I’d sure be happier to get $10 back than NOTHING.
Having run events with a 100/45/25/10 payout matrix (or something close to that, it’s been over 10 years since I last ran one), I can assure you that NOBODY ever refused the $10!
But run what you want, players will vote with their feet and their wallets.
Well a $100 for 4.0, $45, $25, $10. You mean a $100 = 4.0, $45 = 3.5, $25 = 3.0, $10 = 2.5. It would take care of the problems of someone going after the draw, only problem would be that some one expert/master in the community will always be there for that $100 prize fund.
So what’s wrong with someone claiming the $100 prize for a 4-0 score??
As long as the turnout is big enough, the prize fund is more than covered by entry fees, including expenses.
If you don’t trust the word of several organizers who’ve used this format, including me, try simulating it with a varying number of participants and see what the payout would be, or try looking up some events in MSA and seeing how they would have paid out.
For example, look at section 1 of event ID 040103872 and assume it had a $20 entry fee.
16 players, 4 rounds. Total Entry Fees $320
Payout:
2 @ 3.5 for $90
2 @ 3.0 for $50
2 @ 2.5 for $20
Total payout $160, total profit $160
Or look at section 1 of event ID 040109013
1 @ 4.0 for $100
0 @ 3.5 for $0
2 @ 3.0 for $50
3 @ 2.5 for $30
Total payout $180, total profit $140
Want more players? How about section 2 of event ID 040103006
20 players, so $400 in entry fees
0 @ 4.0 for $0
1 @ 3.5 for $45
4 @ 3.0 for $75
3 @ 2.5 for $30
Total payout $160, total profit $240
Or section 1 of event 040321796, also 20 players
2 @ 4.0 for $200
3 @ 3.0 for $75
2 @ 2.5 for $20
Total payout $295, but that still leaves $105 in profit.
When I ran events using this format back in the late 1980’s, the experts and masters would fight like mad in the last round looking for a win and the $100 first prize, I don’t think I ever had to pay it out, though I would have happily done so.
BTW, I found an old flyer from my Plus Score event on Nov 8, 1987.
My advance entry fee was $15, $20 on-site. The prize fund was $100 for 4.0, $45 for 3.5, $25 for 3.0 and $10 for 2.5. I can’t find the crosstable, but I think this one made over $100.
The only problem with the $100 prize is nothing, unless one person that wins the tournament over and over again. It could be the evidence with the tournaments in Ann Arbor, when IM Ben Finegold being the ‘playing director’ won the tournaments. Some times he would break with a draw in the last game with IM Andrei Florean, or if he did lose a game would only lose a game to a master. With the active players over 2200 in the state of Michigan, we are only talking about 11 players (Paul Kanes’ list), and one is his brother. When having a weekend tournament with 15 - 25 players and two are international masters does not leave much room for even a class A player to win much.
Grand Rapids would be different, as a local class A player would be around with the general ratings around 1000 to 1600. Finding that a plus score event is fine, if the players are around the same rating. Very sure IM Ben Finegold will not drive 2 hours every month for a plus score event. As Grand Rapids is not a active tournament site, the local population would be more in the line of ‘provisional ratings’ not the established ratings. With a $100 prize fund would bring in players from Lansing, that is only a hour drive away. With a $100 prize fund would not make the winner of the tournament being the local players, it would make the players from Lansing drive for the prize but the winner would be more in line outside the local area.
It might have to be this system after all. As making sure players from Lansing would show up and the players around Grand Rapids would show up, would need both parties to make a sound tournament. With a $100 plus score tournament, most adult players with ratings from 800 - 1300 only want a shot of taking rating points from the stronger players, knowing they will not win the tournament and understanding they could go home with zero points.
Norms idea with the $100 = 4.0, $45 = 3.5, $25 = 3.0, $10 = 2.5 does make the system works with 60% - 80% going back into prize funds. With rent and rating fees would only need less then 3 people entry fees to cover the tournament. It will not be till mid-November before posting the tournaments for January, Febuary, March and April.
The only problem, as the club is so new without its official first meeting. The tournaments are the only way to build the club, not the club that is building the tournaments.
Note: As the subject has changed, I’ve moved this portion of the discussion over to a more appropriate forum and given it a new title.
So make it an under 2400 section.
Tournament design is as much artform as it is science. You have to take into account your local situation. If there are one or two players that are head and shoulders above everyone else you can either keep them out of the mix or accept the fact that regardless of the format they’re going to finish at the top of the field most of the time. I don’t think that’s a good reason to design a bad payout though.
The plus score format rewards excellence, the purist in me thinks that’s what you SHOULD be doing as an organizer.
We used to get IM Mike Brooks up from Kansas City a lot, he’d drive 3 (each way) for a top prize of $200 or less. He often brought a couple of other players with him, so his presence enriched the field in more ways than one and our local experts and masters took turns trying to knock off Mike. A few draws was about all they got, but they weren’t complaining.
That is so true, knowing a few class B players are in the Grand Rapids area – even the Vice-President of the Michigan Chess Association lives in the city. Not been that many tournaments in the city, the last time the old chess club had any tournaments was back in 2001, with the bulk of the tournaments as quads and mini-swiss. With a plus score tournament a mini-swiss would be wounderfull for the director or organizer as the plus scores over 2.5 would be limited in a mini-swiss.
The only problem with a plus score tournament, since being a member of the federation since 1981 with my withdraw from the years 1987-1997 never been in or know of any plus score tournaments. Never knowing anyone that has been in any of these tournaments, as asking around finding the players are more confused over the idea. It might be the reason they are more common with under 2000 or under 1800 then a plus score tournament.
If a GM travels to your plus-score tournament every time you have one, pretty soon you’ll develop a reputation the players will find attractive. And the GM, rather than proposing a quick draw against the local 2200 in round 4, will fight for a win. Low masters, experts, and A players will flock to your tournaments to have a crack at the GM. Occasionally, somebody will draw the superstar, thrill the spectators, and further enhance your club’s reputation.
When we held them at the Chicago Chess Club, Emory Tate (I think he’s an IM, at least) drove from Indiana a few times, I think for about 2 hours.
I think you’ll find the relationship symbiotic – the club and the tournaments will help build each other.
Bill Smythe
Granted, the plus-score format may take a while to catch on fully in your area. If you get only 10-15 players the first time, odds are your club will still make a profit. Then you’ll get a few more the next time, and more still the time after that.
The first time I ran one at Northwestern, players were coming to me during round 1 saying, “You guys are going to lose your shirt on this format”.
After the start of round 4, players came to me and said, “You guys are going to make a killing off of this format”.
If you calculate the worst-case scenario (for the organizer) at the start of the tournament (based on the number of players registered), and calculate it again after each round (based on the results so far), your initial feeling of despair will likely gradually turn into delight, with each draw among higher-scoring players, and each upset. What started out looking like a $50 loss may well end up being a $100 profit.
Bill Smythe
Mike, These numbers don’t add up: if you are paying out 2x the above amounts, then the total payout is $320 not $160, unless the above split those $$amounts, in which case it’s not a true plus score event.
??
Remember, the payout matrix is:
4.0 pays $100. In the example cited nobody scored 4-0.
3.5 pays $45. Two people sored 3.5 so so the total paid is $90.
3.0 pays $25. Two people scored 3.0 so that’s another $50.
2.5 pays $10. Two people scored 2.5 so that’s another $20.
Bill Smyth’e exerience exactly mirrored mine. The players were ABSOLUTELY convinced they were going to break the bank, and they weren’t upset when they didn’t, either!
(And I was using just a $15 advance entry fee.)
However, I had done a worst case analysis before doing the TLA, and as long as it drew 13 advance entries it was MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to lose money!
I haven’t done the analysis, but with a $20 advance entry fee I think it would be safe to increase the payouts as follows:
4.0 pays $135
3.5 pays $60
3.0 pays $27.50
2.5 pays $12.50
Remember, the whole point of the payout matrix is that a win is better than a draw in terms of the total earned by the two players.
I"ve played around with a variant on this but I never completed the worst case analysis and I haven’t tried running one to see how players would react. (Favorably, I suspect.)
This one would pay something for every win, but a draw is worth nothing.
4 wins pays $100
3 wins in a row pays $40
2 wins in a row pays $20
1 win pays $5.
Someone who wins rounds 2 and 4 gets $10, even though he doesn’t have a plus score. Someone who wins rounds 1, 3 and 4 gets $25.
However, someone who wins 1, 2 and 3 or 2, 3 and 4 gets $40. (That’s basically where the money comes from to pay something to those who win 1 or 2 games.)
With a $20 entry fee, I think this would have a worst case profit at least as good as the plus score format and it has the advantage that most of the players in the event could get something back, if only $5 by winning their last round game.
Take a look at this example of a plus score event in my area:
Oct. 16 Sat Knight Action! 3SS, G/30,
Chess Center at Marshall Chess Club, 23 W 10th St, NYC: 212-477-3716.
EF: $20. 3-0 wins $40, 2.5 wins $20, 2 wins $10. Reg: ends 7:20pm. Rds: 7:30-8:30-9:30.
I don’t recall such an event offered around here in the recent past.
Regards,
AJG
That’s a decent design. 3 rounds limits the top prize, of course.
Worst case analysis with 8 players is a $70 payout and $160 in entry fees.
With 10 players the worst case payout would jump up to $110 but the entry fees are now $200.
Yup, looks a lot like one of my previous suggestions. IE, with a $20 EF:
3SS = 3 +scores
=>2.0 $10,2.5 $20,3.0 $40
4SS = 4 +scores
=>2.5 $10,3.0 $20,3.5 $40,4.0 $80
5SS = 5 +scores
=>3.0 $10,3.5 $20,4.0 $40,4.5 $80,5.0 $160
6SS = 6 +scores
=>3.5 $10,4.0 $20,4.5 $40,5.0 $80,5.5 $160, 6.0 $320
In general:
EF/2, EF, 2EF, 4EF, 8EF, …
with payouts like (assuming no .5 scores)
1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1 => 3SS = 1x$40 + 3x$10 = $70
1 4 6 4 1 => 4SS = 1x$80 + 6x$20 = $200
1 5 10 10 5 1 => 5SS = 1x$160 + 10x$40 + 5x$10 = $250
1 6 15 20 15 6 1 => 6SS = 1x$320 + 15x$80 + 15x$20 = $1820
and club coffers like (sans rating fees or other expenses)
3SS = assuming 8 players: 8x$20 - $70 = $90
4SS = assuming 16 players: 16x$20 - $200 = $120
5SS = assuming 32 players: 32x$20 - $250 = $390
6SS = assuming 64 players: 64x$20 - $1820 = OOPS!
Regards,
AJG
The problem is not the formating of time controls or the rounds: with the ‘time limit of the rental hall’ would be force to make the 4 round event into a G/30. The problem is finding the right ‘plus-score system prize’ for the tournaments after January 2005. Looking to have one tournament each and every month, players will punnish the tournament if the ‘plus-score system prize’ are changed from one tournament to the next. With the tournaments starting in January, understanding they will be small up to spring 2005; during the winter months and the lake effect snow in Grand Rapids: travel could (snow storm during the day of the tournament) be a problem. Then again it is best to start the tournaments in January, as people will be talking of the tournaments in Grand Rapids for the more active months after spring 2005.
With the plus-score events, players will in time understand the Grand Rapids tournament(s); with it being a plus score event, players would know the ‘plus-score prize fund’ better then the prize funding for the standard (top prize, under 2000, under 1800, ect. ) formating. Need to make sure that the “plus-score prize system” would be the same system during the rest of my tournaments. If there is a change in the “plus-score prize system”, could lose 25% to 50% of the players because of the change … if the prizes’ are lowered.
The point is this: the ‘plus-score system prize’ must be the same. If making any change would damage any tournament, need to be on the right system that the membership of this form have formated.
With a $20 entry fee and 3 rounds, unless the expenses are high, I think the organizer could afford 3-0 $80, 2.5 $40, 2-1 $15. With 8 players he would take in $160 and pay out at most $125.
A 3-rounder is probably best run in sections of 8 players each. Then the above structure could be used for the top section, with the other sections slightly lower, say 3-0 $70, 2.5 $30, 2-1 $10. That would pay homage to the concept of rewarding the stronger players, while providing a slightly better cushion for the organizer.
The above is a little riskier than the 4-round format we’ve been discussing, especially if there are extra players (say 10) in one of the sections, creating the possibility of multiple perfect scores.
Incidentally, the organizer’s scheme of $40-20-10 is draw-neutral at the lowest prize point, i.e. two players at 1.5-0.5 paired against each other in the last round will win a total of $20 either way. That’s because the difference between $20 and $10 is the SAME as the difference between $10 and zero, i.e. it’s no longer geometric. Maybe $7 would have been better than $10, to encourage fighting chess.
Bill Smythe
Bill, I see your point, but I must nitpick a wee bit.
The “increasing differences” pattern you invoke does not make for a geometric sequence, maybe you’re thinking of an arithmetic progression?
A geometric sequence comes about when the ratio of any pair of consecutive elements in the sequence is the same as the ratio of any other consecutive pair of elements. So, the sequence {10, 20, 40, 80, …} is in fact geometric (ie: 20/10 = 40/20 = 80/40 = 2).
Sorry, I’m big on defining my terms correctly…
So, sue me! Any Chess Lawyers out there interested?
Regards,
AJG
Will take you’re case against Bill, the legal fee will be a one year USCF membership: if we do go to trial and win, the legal fee will be a life membership.