Chess congress prizes

[Robert Stokes]

It sometimes happens that in a competition, the single winner of a grading prize can get more than someone who shares one of the principle prizes, as happened in the Blackpool Major this year. (I hasten to add that I was not one of those involved.) This seem wrong to me.

The situation could arise where someone finds that they would have won a larger prize if they had drawn their last game rather than win it which seems ridiculous. This is because they would have been the single winner of a grading prize rather than taking a share of second or third prize with others. In fact, if other games have finished, the person could look at the scoreboard and know this to be a fact while still playing their last game.

I suggest that congresses should include the following statement in the part about prizes "In each tournament (or division or section), no grading prize shall be larger than that shared by winners of a principle prize. If necessary grading prizes will be reduced to put this into effect within the same total payout."

So in this year's Blackpool Major each person who came second and each grading prize would have been £85.70 rather than those coming second winning £75 each and two grading prize winners getting £100 each.

I realise this is not all that important and relatively small amounts are involved, but I thought i would mention it anyway.

Robert

[Alan Walton]

It does seem strange that Mick Riding who got 4/5 was eligible for grading prize 1 got £75 for =2nd; I suspect he should have got £100 for the grading prize and then the £75 he received for the =2nd should have been split between Gareth Haslinger and Martin Burns (£37.50 each); this would have seem to be the correct option as I believe Mick has been done out of £25

[Peter Ackley]

Sorry, Robert - so what you're saying is someone who has played exceptionally well, who has performed (potentially significantly) higher than their rating, and has worked just as hard as every other player in the tournament should have their previously-published prize reduce as an outcome of results on other boards, in the vast majority of cases of which they will have had little or no impact???

The grading prize is exactly that - a prize for players below a certain grading. In the vast majority of cases players achieving the main prize(s) in a section will have grades above the grading limit. They do not, nor should not, have access to the grading prize fund.

Don't forget also it is not guaranteed that the recipient of the grading prize will have the option of agreeing a draw in the last round - they may equally have played for, and achieved, a win; a result which, through your policy, would be devalued if a lot of people finished ahead of them on the same score, players who they may not have played in the last round and would not have had the ability to affect the results of.

[Robert Stokes]

Peter, you make a reasonable point but the situation is not as straightforward as you suggest. For a start grading limits for prizes are not advertised in advance but decided on the day when all entries are known.

I said that I was not one of those involved this year but I was in 2013 at Blackpool. Here are the results. (I have used initials even though full names are in the public domain.)

Minor section prizes.

1. J.D. 5/5 £500
2. S.H. 4.5/5 £300

3= and G.P. 110-104 R.S.(me) 4/5 £63.33, J.M. 4/5 £63.33, J.N. 4/5 £63.33

3= and G.P. 88-82 M.S. 4/4 £80, C.R. 4/5 £80

G.P. 103-97 J.G. 4/5 £100

G.P. 96-90 T.G. 4/5 £100

G.P. 95-89 J.M. 2.5/5 £100

You will see that seven of us tied for second place but received three different amounts. (I only recently found this out. Had I known at the time I think I would have complained.) Furthermore, the person from the 88 - 82 section did very well to score 4/5 but received less than three higher graded people one of whom had done significantly less well.

Robert

[Roger de Coverly]

You will see that seven of us tied for second place but received three different amounts.

The practice in other Congresses is often to pool the prize fund of people who tie. Having third prize, if it exists, at least as much, if not more than the grading prize avoids anomalies. If the people who win grading prizes do so with 4/5, then extending the main prize list would work just as well. In fact what is the logic of having grading prizes in any but the top and bottom sections if the section grade bands are narrow because of the sheer size of the Congress?

It was the Blackpool Congress that found itself in the Small Claims Court a few years ago. They had accepted an entry into a grade restricted section from a player with only a previous grade and then refused to pay out when he won the section. If you are going to allow ungraded players into restricted sections, Congresses should decide their eligibility when they take the entry or else have a condition restricting the amount of prize the player may claim.

[Alex McFarlane]

Robert,

I don't think I was directly involved but a look at the figures gives an explanation.

8 people (not 7) tied for third place and the £150 prize.
This would have meant them getting less than £20 and people in the same grading bands but with fewer points getting £100. Therefore the prizes were shared.
Those who got £100 won the appropriate grading prize as this the one prize that they were allowed to win. That left 5 people, 3 in one grading band and 2 in another.
The prizes would therefore have been split 1/5 of £150 + 1/3 of £100 (£63.33) and 1/5 of £150 and 1/2 of £100 (£80).

This reflects the fact they were third equal and won a share of the grading prize amounting to 1/5+1/3 of a prize (8/15) and 1/5 + 1/2 of a prize (7/10) respectively.

[Sean Hewitt]

When this happens at e2e4 events then the player gets the rating rather than the place prize. If this means that the people who s/he tied with for the place would get more than the value of the rating prize, we aggregate the rating and place prize money so that all involved win the same amount.

[Robert Stokes]

Of course I meant seven of us tied for third place (and I still think it was seven not eight).

Whatever the explanation, I still think it bizarre that people who get the same score don't get the same prize.

Robert

[LawrenceCooper]

Of course I meant seven of us tied for third place (and I still think it was seven not eight).

Whatever the explanation, I still think it bizarre that people who get the same score don't get the same prize.

Robert

There are eight sets of initials including yours listed although two are J.M.

[Alex McFarlane]

OK the second JM was actually on a different score but it doesn't affect the maths.

Whatever the explanation, I still think it bizarre that people who get the same score don't get the same prize.

So if the 7 players each got the same prize that is £650/7= £92.86 each. It would then be possible that JG and TG would have got more by scoring a half point less. Surely that is just as bizarre, more of a deterrent to improving and more of an incentive to delay your result until other games have finished?

If the rules had not said only one prize per person then the simple thing to do is give all the third place players £150/7 (£21.43 each) and then give out the grading prizes to the same people as appropriate.

[NickFaulks]

If the rules had not said only one prize per person

I have concluded that such a rule causes nothing but trouble. If a player wins a tournament prize outright and is also eligible for a grading prize, I have no difficuly giving them both.

[Michael Mkpadi]

I have concluded that such a rule causes nothing but trouble. If a player wins a tournament prize outright and is also eligible for a grading prize, I have no difficuly giving them both.

Problem is in real life this puts off the chess punters you want to sign up for your tournament as they work out very fast that the 8 year old with a 103 ECF grade is playing at 2700 elo.

[Michael Farthing]

..but she deserves the prize for her rapid progress since the last grading list.

[Michael Mkpadi]

..but she deserves the prize for her rapid progress since the last grading list.

As I'm sure everyone who has ever one two or more prizes in a British Chess Weekender and had them given to someone else. Thing is congress organisers aren't about giving prizes to the deserving few, it's about sharing the love to get you to come back for more, well it is in the congresses I used to frequent, I lost a hell of a lot of prizes to this rule.

[Michael Farthing]

You didn't lose a prize because of a rule. You failed to win a prize according to the rules that were there before the tournament began. Had you been awarded the prize then indeed someone else would have had a just complaint.