It seems to me that part of this disagreement can be addressed by simply making a distinction between “stronger-but-smaller” sections and “weaker-but-(potentially much)-larger” sections. I shouldn’t speak for GM Finegold, but perhaps he plays more of the former category, while the great majority of us (mostly) play in the latter type. It would be something of an embarassment to have top GMs playing in an event that will not even provide equipment – I suppose they have earned that much respect. But it’s completely impractical to put an unknown additional cost on organizers of the “weaker-but-potentially-larger” events/sections. Suppose I have 20 sets and clocks, which would be more than enough based on the fact that I usually have only a dozen players or fewer in a free rated section – and I have a venue large enough to hold (say) 60 players. Should I really cap the registrations and thereby deny the opportunity for an additional number of players beyond my 20 sets & clocks, simply because I can’t know if they have their own equipment? That makes no sense at all. So while I think that stronger players, especially GMs, ought to receive the respect of being provided equipment (and their numbers will be lower as the standard for “stronger” gets higher), strictly speaking, that notion would have to be placed ABOVE the minimum standard – it cannot BE the absolute minimum standard. I see nothing wrong with requiring any players to have their own (standard) equipment.
The nationals are often able to provide boards and sets because that is part of the contract that the book-seller signs to get the concessions for the event. Most small tournaments wouldn’t generate enough in sales for that to be a viable option for a bookseller (if there even was one).
In this area a lot of the scholastics have had boards and set provided by the hosting organizer, often requiring borrowing sets from other participating schools. Since the scholastics generally run an ASAP schedule, not having to set up the boards and sets each round helps immensely.
I started playing chess tournaments in 1986. Tim Just was organizing events well before I got into the game. I would lean toward giving him credit for being at least passably familiar with the breadth and depth of chess activity in the US.
You do a wonderful job with the MD events, from all reports I’ve read/heard. Many organizers provide at least some level of equipment, though as I noted earlier, this is harder for an organizer to do as his events get larger, more geographically spaced and more frequent. For the US’s two largest organizers (USCF and CCA), I don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation.
USCF does provide sets and boards for its largest events (though clocks are a non-starter). It gets some of the money back on the sets by selling them after the event is over, and for the big events, there are a lot of volunteers helping with setup and breakdown.
CCA does provide DGT XL clocks, DGT boards and DGT sets for the top 4 boards of its major events. It also provides loaner MonRois for the open section of those events, as well as a projector and projector screen to display the top 6 MonRoi-transmitted games going at any time (and those same games are available at MonRoi.com). This requires setting up the equipment at the start of every day’s play, setting up MonRois for players to use each round, and breaking down equipment at the end of each day’s play. It also requires a staff member who is dedicated to running that entire setup.
I tend to give TDs credit for wanting - and trying - to start rounds on time. Put another way, I’ve never come across a TD who has tried to start late. Different TDs and organizers have different practices that they have developed as a result of their own experiences. I’m not going to bag on them for that, even if I would do things differently.
For example, I firmly believe in cutting off on-site entries early enough prior to round 1 that I can start the first round at the advertised time. As I imagine some Forums posters can attest, I do this at any event where I’m the chief TD. On the other hand, I’ve quite literally had a dozen people walk up to me 5 minutes before a major event is scheduled to start round 1, saying they want to enter without a bye. Now you’re talking about possibly losing over $4,000 in on-site entry fees if you stick to that policy, depending on the event. I won’t criticize an organizer who would rather not risk that loss, especially when that organizer has 100% of his skin - and ONLY his skin - in the game.
It is nice when you can provide boards, sets, and even digital clocks for the players to use. You can do that for small events. I do not see how you can do that for major events that have in excess of 500 players. Or even 300 players. The initial cost for the organizer is prohibitive, and it does not get that much less over time as you have to service and store all of this stuff. Then there is the issue of security.
We used to have a favorite saying when telling people to watch their equipment: “chess clocks have legs.” It is not uncommon for players to leave their bags or clocks lying on a table and find them gone when they get back. For example, I once was analyzing a game with an IM at the World Open in a side room. While we were pushing my pieces back and forth, someone went under the table and stole his bag, which held not only a wooden set and a clock, but also precious notes for a book he was writing. I can’t imagine that an organizer would be thrilled to find that 10 or more of his clocks plus sets disappearing at every event. It might seem unthinkable for a European or Canadian that people would do such a thing, but in America stealing chess stuff is more common.
It’s a little bit ironic that this is one of those cases where it’s easier to provide better service for small, cheap, events than for large expensive ones.
I provide sets for my events because there are kids there, and there is no time between rounds. Set up and take down every round cause major disruptions. On top of that, smaller events use volunteer labor, so the setup and takedown time at the beginning and end of the tourney don’t cost anything. Not to mention that when I’ve been at events with lots of kids, and the organizer didn’t provide sets or clocks, there’s always several minutes of running around trying to find sets and clocks for everyone.
At a CCA event, there’s cost associated with providing sets, not just with the initial outlay, but maintenance, storage, and setup and takedown.
In the end, it’s a consumer preference. Most CCA players obviously don’t mind bringing their own sets and clocks, although I have read accounts of European visitors who are appalled. For me, though, I just like the atmosphere. There’s something rather exciting about a hall (i.e. gymnasium) lined with tables, all set with pieces, awaiting battle. It’s just a nice image.
Some players have their favorite board, set and clock and would really not like to use the furnished stuff. How do you deal with that?
For my players, it has never been an issue yet. If anyone really wanted to use their better pieces, I would explain why I do things the way I do, but if they really insisted, I would let them. Most people just appreciate how it makes things easier, and most of my players only have cheap plastic anyway. A few bring weighted sets, but no one has expressed a problem playing with the unweighted. Of course, they may go home appalled that they were forced to play with substandard equipment when they had brought a beautiful, high quality set with them.
Mostly, what I see is that they take their nicer sets and set them up in the skittles room, so now they have a board to use for analysis after their games are over.
I guess the organizers also should also provide appearance fees as well. I have always yearned to know what a 300 player thinks about when he plays. Especially when he pays hundreds of dollars to enter a tournament. Long live our US system.