Now there’s a straight line if I ever saw one. Where IS that “I’m biting my tongue” smilie?
This tradition of having entry fees fund prizes for amateur and open sections of tournaments goes back many decades. Elite round robins depended on sponsors or benefactors to provide the appearance fees, hotel rooms, prizes and pocket money. Even these major tournaments scrambled to gather enough cash to fund them and often solicited the public to provide money. Like it or not, in the US, this is how the system has worked. If high rated players want to s-u-c-k up all of the prize money only to themselves, then they should cozy up to more generous benefactors rather than whine about the money class players earn. The images of lampreys and leeches come to mind. Most higher rated players don’t typically think in such a parasitic fashion and play under the conditions offered.
First, chess isn’t a sport.
Second, I don’t know of any sport where only the best players get paid. Can you imagine what baseball would be like if only the teams that made it to the American and National league playoffs got paid any money? Even minor league team members get paid.
The biggest problem chess has is that we’ve never succeeded in making it a good form of entertainment for spectators. In sports, it is spectators who provide the funding that allows players to get paid. But in chess, it’s the players who provide the funding through entry fees.
It’s not clear to me that chess can’t be made entertaining for spectators. The movie Searching For Bobby Fischer, for example, does a pretty good job of making Josh Waitzkin’s (admittedly fictitious) championship game accessible to movie audiences. The audience members, even if they aren’t experts on chess, understand what a blow it is when Josh loses his queen, and what an upset it is when his opponent later blunders and Josh is able to take advantage of it to even things up again. And the audience members, even if they don’t know the nuances of endgame, can enjoy the race at the end to queen a pawn, in which both players get queens, but Josh’s opponent is left in check, has to move his king out of the way, and loses his queen, giving Josh the victory.
Bob
In other words, blunders are exciting. Good play, well, maybe not so much. 
Actually my blunders are irritating. It’s my opponents’ blunders that are exciting. 
In other countries there is a clear definition of what is considered a sport, as there is a government ministry that oversees them. I believe, chess is included as a sport in most of them. In the US, I am not aware of a clear definition, and it’s reasonable to have different opinions about it. Mine is that chess is a sport.
You have to agree with me that Class B players are not in the same league as Grandmasters. Ben didn’t say low rated player shouldn’t get any prizes. If the prize proportion between low rated players and grandmasters is about the same as between major league and minor league players in baseball, it will be more than he could hope for.
Only a small percentage of the professional chess players in the world live in the US. The chess professionals who leave outside the US get their money from well-to-do people who enjoy watching chess as a sport and as an art and are willing to pay a lot for it. There is also a symbiotic relationship with governments that understand that a few rich people paying to enjoy high level chess allows others who cannot afford it to also enjoy it for free, so the governments provide some incentives.
Even in the US, I would have to argue that the majority of the chess professionals income does NOT come from winning prizes in open swisses paid for by entry fees. I would argue that the pool of class players who go to big money swisses in hopes of winning a jackpot is ever-shrinking. The ever-increasing percentage of the players in CCA events are kids flying through the ranks, who have parents pay their entry fee and who don’t care about the immediate prize money as much.
I agree that the US is not there yet, but I envision that it will see the light eventually, where for roughly the same entry fee, the prizes for the lower rated sections will become much smaller. Instead, that entry fee cash will be spent on improved playing conditions and tournament atmosphere (chess sets and clocks provided, more TD’s, running commentary of top level games, etc). Also, more people like Rex (or at least cheaper imitations) will come forward.
Chess is recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee. It is a contest of skill where talent, practice, advance preparation, training, knowledge of one’s opponent and endurance all play a role, and there is no element of luck.
Right. It doesn’t mean chess is a spectator sport, in the same way as NFL or tennis is. Chess spectator appeal is limited to people who want to be considered intellectuals. Yet, I believe this segment of society is expanding and is becoming more affluent.
Spectator vs non-spectator is also weighed heavily in how something is presented and how an audience can be engaged. We don’t do a good job of either of these in terms of chess…
I have a strong suspicion that “the light” looks much different to players in those lower rated sections than it does to players of Mr. Langer’s strength and above. I rather think the majority of these players would look at paying $500-$1,000 between travel expenses and entry fees to play in, say, the World Open, see a greatly reduced prize fund in their class, and simply decide to do something else with their time and money.
I could be wrong, of course. However, I believe there’s a reason the class model of major Swisses has been the only sustainable one in the US for the last 40+ years.
I don’t have experience in soliciting major (read: five-figure-plus) sponsors, so I will simply say that I hope this is true. However, what I believe I can say with some authority is that the sponsorship model for major tournaments is extremely difficult to sustain.
Sponsors of major US events or chess activities who have stuck around more than a few years have typically been people who have some strong personal connection (Piatigorsky, Statham, Church, Cuchi, Sinquefield) or professional connection (Crane, Samole) to the game. They are to be commended and celebrated for their generous support of our common avocation, and I wholly support any effort the USCF makes in that regard.
The sponsors, however, are not perpetual. The search for them is - hence the trouble with the sponsorship model in the US. If you don’t have the numbers to provide at least some potential ROI, most sponsors close their checkbooks.
Sponsors don’t look for ROI, partners do.
The use of the term ‘sponsor’ in other sports (basketball, etc) is not really sponsorship, it’s a partnership. I’m giving you money for eyeballs and hopes of influencing the purchasing decisions of the people whose eyeballs are doing the watching…
Well, it could be argued that every lost game involves a blunder. But it’s easier for the general public to understand a blunder that results in an immediate checkmate or the loss of a major piece than it is for them to understand a blunder that gives a player a pawn advantage in middle game that he is able to exploit in endgame to get a queen.
Bob
One of the best illustrations of this is the game of soccer. In many countries, soccer is the big sport - the sport crowds flock to stadiums to watch and the sport that is heavily televised. But in the U.S., this isn’t true (at least, not yet). And I gather that it’s a chicken-and-the-egg problem: Because soccer is popular in those countries, it gets televised. Because it’s on television, kids want to play it. Because they played it as kids they want to watch it as adults. And because they want to watch it as adults, it’s popular.
Bob
Back when I was involved in a state-wide sports organization which raises over $500,000 every year, we understood that a SPONSOR is someone who pays money but doesn’t take an active role in the organization process, while a PARTNER is someone who may (or may not) pay any money but has an active role in the organization process, usually contributing goods or services (like a hotel providing the space and sleeping rooms.)
Both expect promotional consideration for their contributions. Whether that consideration is enough to be considered a revenue-impacting form of advertising or promotion or is more of a public relations gesture depends on a lot of factors.
To further muddle the distinction, a sponsor may assign one or more employees (or hire a promotions firm) to assist with the promotion of the event, sometimes on a full-time basis, helping to make sure the sponsor’s contribution is sufficiently and appropriately acknowledged.
This is a distinction without a difference, especially for the purposes of the sponsorship that people are looking for to continuously finance major chess events in the US. I don’t care what they call themselves, they’re looking for return on their investment, unless it’s one of the “niche sponsors” mentioned before. I believe it can be stated as historical fact in US chess that those do not last.
When you go to the companies that could provide that sort of financing (and I do have experience doing this for non-chess activities), I agree that they want something tangible in return.
I have my doubts about sustainability of the class model of major Swisses going forward. This thread is an offshoot from CCA Cell Phone Policy that was implemented in response to fears of electronic cheating. If we are not ready to change now, let’s check back in 10 years. At the very least, as my chess playing strength continues to decline, a lot more people will be above it by then. 
No one gives lower rated players anything. Lower rated players have a more unrealistic view of their winning chances than higher rated “professional” players. This unrealistic view coupled with the vastly larger number of lower rated players drive the bottom line of player sponsored tournaments.
In Baltimore, professional players were given a tournament series. This series was sponsored and subsidized by lower rated players who paid exorbitant entry fees to play in a qualifying tournament. This series was killed by the unprofessional conduct of one of the professionals who was too drunk to realize that a cheif sponsor was witnessing his behavior.
As one of my chess hustler associates says, “A monkey can make money.” I think players at whatever level should focus on making the best moves they can in the events they choose to participate in. For the money…Try boxing.
Curious that Finegold made his snarky little post and then abandoned the thread.
I’d hardly count not responding for 2 1/2 days as “abandoning” the thread. Reminds me of receiving complaints Sunday night about a weekend tournament that hadn’t been rated yet.
While I assume this probably has to do with issues of detecting cheating, the class model appears to be doing OK. Here’s a summary by fiscal year of the number of Grand Prix events showing the number of events, the number of players in the Grand Prix sections and the number of players in lower (non-Grand Prix)sections:
[size=150][code] fy events sections gp non_gp
2009 339 948 10108 17069
2010 344 1006 11218 17748
2011 388 1101 11052 19004
2012 315 1032 10129 20350
2013 428 1362 12603 23902
2014 412 1358 13066 24655[/code][/size]
This table restrict the events to just 100 point or larger Grand Prix events:
[size=150][code] fy events sections gp non_gp
2009 26 167 1774 7218
2010 29 179 2039 7361
2011 28 177 2036 6877
2012 34 205 2002 8397
2013 37 220 2253 8591
2014 41 231 2565 8398[/code][/size]
This table shows 100 point or larger events NOT run by the Continental Chess Association:
[size=150][code] fy events sections gp non_gp
2009 10 47 889 1420
2010 12 56 1037 1647
2011 12 67 971 1603
2012 15 74 1047 2372
2013 18 80 1277 2336
2014 22 97 1604 2469[/code][/size]