English Chess Forum

A friend has just booked himself an en-suite self-catering room, sharing kitchen, for just £24 a night in the university accommodation. Since he only likes a light breakfast so wouldn't want a catered room, he considers that very good value. If there are any of those rooms left the GM's could get together and book a 6 bedroomed block with their own kitchen and probably get away with a bit less than £800 if they had a few take-aways. The accommodation does seem very good value at Canterbury.

That said I wish there was some sponsorship so that all the top players could have their expenses paid.

Richard Bates wrote:

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Richard Bates wrote:Should cost of food enter the equation? I suppose it depends if you are playing somewhere else instead.

Surely it depends on whether you want the GM to starve?

No, the fairly obvious point is that if the choice is between playing at the British, and not playing anywhere, then the only marginal cost is the cost of accommodation (and travel). Unless playing chess requires one to eat more food than normal. Although if avoiding starvation were the issue i reckon you could get by on about £50 for the fortnight!

I would have thought the obvious point is that it costs more to eat out than it does to eat at home.

Perhaps the more important point is that whatever you might think it should cost to play at the British, the GMs disagree with you because there is currently only 1 GM entrant. I'm sure that will change, but the lack of GMs is going to have a negative effect on total entries.

Sean Hewitt wrote:
I would have thought the obvious point is that it costs more to eat out than it does to eat at home.

Eating out at chess tournaments is not compulsory. Although now i think i see where your £400+ on food is coming from...

Simon Williams has now entered; the second Grandmaster to do so.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Simon Williams has now entered; the second Grandmaster to do so.

I support fully the idea that titled players should have appearance fees to defray their expenses. I often despair at the way professional players are treated in the UK, and not always because of lack of funds. I am always glad to see titled players in Open tournaments, though not if I have to play them . We would not treat players at the top of their profession this way if they played tennis, or snooker.

However.

There are more reasons to play in the British than just a chance to make some money - though I accept that this is one incentive amongst many. There is the chance to win a national title. It is the biggest chess festival in the UK, and a chance to get together with friends from all over the country in one spectacular event. Apart from the many titles on offer, the Festival features tournaments for every class of player, coaching, informal tournaments, commentary and many other side events such as quizzes.

Canterbury is a beautiful place to spend a day. You can get there in 55 minutes from London St Pancras. Come on!!

michele clack wrote:A friend has just booked himself an en-suite self-catering room, sharing kitchen, for just £24 a night in the university accommodation. Since he only likes a light breakfast so wouldn't want a catered room, he considers that very good value. If there are any of those rooms left the GM's could get together and book a 6 bedroomed block with their own kitchen and probably get away with a bit less than £800 if they had a few take-aways. The accommodation does seem very good value at Canterbury.

That said I wish there was some sponsorship so that all the top players could have their expenses paid.

Michele , don't assume GM's have any cooking skills whatsoever is probs best!

Adam Raoof >We would not treat players at the top of their profession this way if they played tennis, or snooker.<

Quite correct. Only about 100 players make real money playing tennis. The first round losers' prize is not adequate to cover the considerable expenses. Tennis players make their real money from coaching and so on.
But how many English organisers apart from me give even free entry to titled players?
To secure say £5000 for start money for this year's British would have required a substantial percentage increase in game fee. Well, worth it, in my opinion. But Council, who invariably minimise game fee, would have voted it down.

Stewart Reuben

I think the main problem with the British for the amateur is the cost of playing, a conservative amount you have to pay after accom, entry, travel, and spends is about £1,000.

To spend this amount the chess has to be very attractive proposition, so if you don't qualify for the championship then the major open isn't really worth that outlay

Over the years many people have compared the British with other foreign tournaments which are much better value for money, myself have played in Amsterdam and Pardibuce twice (both have pros and cons), but both have been considerably cheaper than the British (and I use less holidays). Even this year I am only spending £1,400 to go to play in Canada (Toronto) and that is with a few days exploring the sights.

I think we have to look at what we want from the Championship.

I would like to see a very strong all-play-all with the top 12 players playing (maybe top 8 active players, and 4 qualifiers), then a very attractive Major Open with good prize money and the rest of the strong players not qualified for the championship.

Admittedly you would require sponsorship for this, but it should be easier if the Championship contained the best players in the country

Stewart Reuben wrote: But how many English organisers apart from me give even free entry to titled players?

How many English organisers can afford the luxury, given they need to spend £1 per game on Game Fee, £300+ for room booking for one day...

Most congresses struggle to break even as it is.

Stewart Reuben wrote: But how many English organisers apart from me give even free entry to titled players?

Well, there's at least one

....and the British Rapidplay is another....

Alan Walton wrote:I think the main problem with the British for the amateur is the cost of playing, a conservative amount you have to pay after accom, entry, travel, and spends is about £1,000.

I agree , not worth it for major, £1000 is a holiday in nice country with unlimited drinks for 10 days.

Ben

Alex H >How many English organisers can afford the luxury, given they need to spend £1 per game on Game Fee<

They do not do anything of the sort if the event is FIDE Rated. English players have to be members and don't have to pay game fee.

The highly prestigious events, such as the British, Hastings, Gibraltar, Blackpool, Paignton, e2e4 attract a healthy number of entrants. The question would be better asked, 'How many English organisers can afford the luxury of NOT making their event attractive?' I do, by the way, agree that the cost of hire of premises is far higher today than 25 years ago in real terms. Only the British gets a free venue and that is getting more and more difficult.

Stewart Reuben

Adam Raoof wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:Simon Williams has now entered; the second Grandmaster to do so.

I support fully the idea that titled players should have appearance fees to defray their expenses. I often despair at the way professional players are treated in the UK, and not always because of lack of funds. I am always glad to see titled players in Open tournaments, though not if I have to play them . We would not treat players at the top of their profession this way if they played tennis, or snooker.

What is your definition of a player "at the top of their profession"? Simon Williams, for example, is currently ranked 570 in the world for active players and 626 for all players. That is pretty good, but what level of support should such a player expect? The Lawn Tennis Association has recently cut the support they provide for a player ranked 166 in the world because they don't think his performances are good enough.

Well, there are at at least three other events that get free venues......