Unrealistic "Based On" Prize Funds

Running Chess Tournaments
21

Maybe one simple idea to highlight the based on figure would be to include it in the heading of the TLA, e.g. “Oct 14-16, Western States Open, $52400 b/500”, or even just “$$ b/500” so that it doesn’t unfairly highlight the bigger monetary amounts.

I’m not sure people read all the way through the TLA fine print and maybe just look at their relevant section prizes or something.

However, I still think something should be done about an organizer giving a “based on” figure that is 20% higher than any attendance in the past 8 years.

Chris

22

Douglas, before reviewing past tournaments to see what the director’s certification level was, please be aware that there was a problem with results submitted on diskette, and for that matter there may still be such a problem. When I did the Illinois K-8 championship (>700 players) for 2004 I found out that the program took the local TD section chief for the first section listed and actually listed him as the overall chief TD. Since neither I nor my NTD chief assistant were listed as section chiefs or section assistants, neither of us showed up in MSA for the tournament. Since neither of us need the tournament credit for another level of certification I simply informed the USCF of the apparent bug for that tournament so that the program could be reviewed and didn’t worry if they ever got around to correcting the director IDs (it’s still wrong, but the error is not particularly significant). Just because MSA shows a local director as a chief TD doesn’t mean the LTD really was the chief TD, especially if the tournament had multiple sections (though I guess it could happen for single section tournaments as well depending on how the entry was done).

23

Having just organized and Chief TD’d my first tournament of any size,
I can see both sides of this coin.

If a TD underestimates his “based on” projections, this may hurt his
tournament. Players want to attend the biggest tournaments with the
largest purse. Of course, overestimating is unfair to players.

I have a suggestion: Add a field to MSA tournament crosstables: total
prizes distributed. Of course, this lead to another problem: how does
USCF verify these claims?

It is quite hard to predict how successful a tournament will be, but I think
“based on” projections should have to be “based on” something. An
average of the last 6-12 tourneys might be a good idea. The problem
is for newer tournaments getting started–there’s really no way to know.

Rather than a guarantee, we chose to advertise The Asheboro Open I based on payout percentage. I let players know what to expect
given a certain turnout, without guaranteeing that turnout or prize. The
tournament was a good success with 45 players.

I believe our turnout had less to do with prizes, and more to do with
a great location and good advertising. We did not advertise in TLA–
which we would like to do in the future. As chief organizer and TD, I
found it hard to properly word such an announcement with neither a
“based on” nor “guarantee.”

Our advertising was mainly via email and posting on North Carolina
Chess Association’s website. I am sure that adding a TLA could take
things to the next level.

Perhaps I’ve gotten a bit off topic. I do think most players understand
the TD’s dilemma, and will give an honest TD every benefit of the doubt.

The USCF’s “50%” rule assumes that most TDs are honest and fair, and
will not inflate their estimates. I think that is a correct assumption.

Sincerely,

William “Tom” Hales, TD
Asheboro Chess Club (Asheboro, NC)

24

I don’t really see that its necessary to include this extra field, not only for the reason that you provided, but just for the reason, that I don’t know as a USCF memeber if I care soo much. I am not a “money” player, and I’d argue that most players are are into chess for the fun and competetion not the $$$.

Awesome! I think that is a great turnout. and you really hit key points. I completely agree that $$$ is not always the prime motiviating factor for players to come to a tournamnent. More important, IMO, are location and reputation.

Most players do. But its the ones that don’t that give you the biggest headaches.

25

The way that I like to handle that situation is to say something like “prizes based on entries”. In your situation, I’ve seen things like XX% of entries returned as prizes.

Alex Relyea

26

I organized a tournament that was a newer one, but I don’t remember if I had a “based on” prize fund. I probably did, but used existing local tournaments to do the projections. I also had a well-known TD do the top section while I directed the bottom section.

What I primarily based the tournament prize fund on was the numbers I expected first, then assumed everyone would pay the early entry fee. Using that number plus the usual expenses, I made up my budget.

Even so, I was sweating a bit a few days before the tournament because advance entries weren’t even covering the room rent. As it turned out, the day of the event saw a large enough turnout of walk-ins that I managed to just break even.

I can understand overestimating the number of people showing up can cause problems, and saw many organizers lose (and complain about) money. I thought my method worked because I didn’t lose money, and always had a nice cushion if there were a lot of players who entered at the last minute.

Radishes

27

The real challenge here is that the USCF does not have and cannot afford a “based-on” police force. The “based-on” rules, like so many other rules, make the assumption that players and TDs are people of “good will” doing the right thing. In real life, as well as in the chess world, someone is going to take advantage of this fact.

Players can complain under the current system about “based-on” abuses but it is not an easy road to travel (a $25 good will fee and long waits in processing the case are the norm).

Would it be worth our time and effort to create a system that is more user friendly when it comes to reporting abuses of such items as the “based-on” rules? I am not suggesting we dismantle our current system that deals with the major abuses and outright bad enforcement of the major items in the rulebook (like the improper distribution of prize money, improper pairings, improper enforcement of the rules by a TD…). I am suggesting an additional system that is easier for the players to use in reporting the kinds of minor irritating abuses of our rules and regulations that keep on occurring. Perhaps just airing those concerns on this forum is enough?

Tim

28

I agree with everyone that this is a nuisance or worse. But it’s getting better, isn’t it?

With MSA you can look up the affiliate and see their tournament history in the twinkling of a mouse click :slight_smile: Just look up last year’s tmt - and the year before - and make your own decisions about the honesty and openness of the organizer.

It will get even better as more organizers include email addresses in TLAs. If it’s a new affiliate or the estimate looks inflated, send a note off and ask him/her how they arrived at the b/on figure.

If you really think you’re in the running for a big prize, then spending 5-10 minutes on research isn’t a big deal. If - as an organizer - I can’t convince you why you should attend my tournament, then I don’t deserve to have you come.

Which isn’t to say Tim’s police shouldn’t crack down on organizers that just break the rules :slight_smile:

29

I think the online TLA feature, which ED Bill Hall wants implemented quickly, may help, too, if only because the ‘based on’ information will be in a standardized place in online TLAs and could even be in larger type if necessary.