English Chess Forum

Entry: Bowl
Accomdation: Monkey


Then even if reserved with drinks etc , your looking at least a Pony a day, bullseye on the rest day

= Bag of sand all in to play a few 2200's at best = no appeal

Ben

Mike Truran wrote:Well, there are at at least three other events that get free venues......

I was under the understanding that 4NCL gains a limited revenue to help with running costs from the venues.........

The fact A certain Mr Hewitt uses the same hotel chain must be of coincidence

You guys are the smart guys

Ben

Ian Thompson wrote:

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.

I see your point, Ian, but I was searching for the words to describe the way some chess players react when it is suggested that a titled player might get, for instance, a free entry or honorary membership of a club, let alone an appearance fee. Do you know what I mean? I am not saying that titled players are saints, but in many countries they are the equivalent of top sportsmen, musicians or opera singers and accorded the same respect.

We have titles where some sports have rankings, and I think that achievement should attract some level of support or recognition. We can't afford to pay titled players to appear at the British without some sponsorship, but we can do more to actually get sponsorship by ensuring that the money we raise is spent wisely.

Stewart Reuben wrote:But Council, who invariably minimise game fee...

Nonsense. Council almost invariably vote for the figure recommended by the Board. There have been two exceptions in the last 12 years. In 2004 they cut the Board’s figure by 1p, and in 2003 they gave the Board 2p more than it was asking for.

Ian Thompson wrote:

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.

Ian the levels of funding your referring to are totally different. The Lawn tennis support is basically a salary , Simon and the other players are requiring an amount which would constitute a tennis player having a 2x3 inch sponsorship badge on their jumper for crying out loud.

Whilst tennis gets more TV time , is FIDE not the second biggest governing body in world behind FIFA?

Ben

Ben Purton wrote: Whilst tennis gets more TV time , is FIDE not the second biggest governing body in world behind FIFA?

IOC?

Stewart Rueben: "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."

Increasing game fee would affect us mere woodpushers. There's been page upon page on this forum recently regarding Game Fee vs MO but I don't see any direct benefit to the vast majority of mere woodpushers who wouldn't be attending the British Championship in either the capacity of a spectator or player.

I agree with the suggestion of an all-play-all for the top 12 English players, assuming the sponsorship would attract such a line-up. However, in such harsh financial times that is very difficult to achieve.

For the recent post regarding GM Simon Williams... who is towards the top of his profession in the UK (13th on the ECF Grading Top Players Page). I think it would be churlish to downgrade him in that way. He should be applauded for playing the British when it appears others are attracted to other spectacles during the period. Simon is also an exciting player to watch and an excellent presenter, having recently bought his DVD on the Dutch. Therefore, he brings many positive attributes, which other GMs don't necessarily do so in my humble opinion.

Olympic committee don't have induvidual registrations, like all footie players. Nor do they represent one said sport. Rugby, Tennis combined don't have the amount of players chess does

Paul Douglass wrote:I agree with the suggestion of an all-play-all for the top 12 English players, assuming the sponsorship would attract such a line-up. However, in such harsh financial times that is very difficult to achieve.

I presume they would like to stick with the top 12 British players (which would include Rowson).

I think this format would be alot easier to find sponsorship than the current set-up, due to the attractiveness of the best players playing

Presumably you would require £15,000 for accommodation & expenses (£75 per night for 15 nights, 11 rounds with 2 rest days)

Then a prize structure of £10000, £7500, £5000, £4500, £4000, £3500, £3000, £2500, £2000, £1000, £500, £500

There could be a best game prize of £1000 and maybe £50 per win

So you would require a total sponsorship of say £65000 to cover an event like this, obviously you can tweak the prize structure at the top end and offer more for winning games

I am presuming the London Classic has a bigger outlay than the above example, so sponsorship should be attainable

Alan Walton wrote: I presume they would like to stick with the top 12 British players (which would include Rowson).

Why would the ECF spend its already dwindling funds on getting Scottish players to play? Surely Chess Scotland should be funding his participation?

Well currently it still is the British championship, and I think the general opinion is it will stay that for the forseeable future.

But wouldn't it be easier finding sponsorship if it was called the British Championship, rather than just the English Championship

Also I was never suggesting the ECF spends its own funds, I would hope that all the funding would come from sponsorship, the ECF could then fund the junior events better

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Alan Walton wrote: I presume they would like to stick with the top 12 British players (which would include Rowson).

Why would the ECF spend its already dwindling funds on getting Scottish players to play? Surely Chess Scotland should be funding his participation?

I would support all our top players - anyone who is eligible for the British - and that includes Rowson and company. Chess Scotland would, I am sure, be part of the negotiations, but the bottom line is that we've been far too partisan in the past, and we should really welcome all our top players to our national championships.

Adam Raoof wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:

Alan Walton wrote: I presume they would like to stick with the top 12 British players (which would include Rowson).

Why would the ECF spend its already dwindling funds on getting Scottish players to play? Surely Chess Scotland should be funding his participation?

I would support all our top players - anyone who is eligible for the British - and that includes Rowson and company. Chess Scotland would, I am sure, be part of the negotiations, but the bottom line is that we've been far too partisan in the past, and we should really welcome all our top players to our national championships.

We should; I am surprised that the ECF is solely in charge of the British. I assumed that all the unions involved helped with the organisation. Yet financially, it only goes through the books of the ECF.

Alex

I am surprised that the ECF is solely in charge of the British. I assumed that all the unions involved helped with the organisation. Yet financially, it only goes through the books of the ECF

One of the organisers, Alex Mc Farlane is Scottish.

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

Surely the big attraction for a lot of good players who enter the British is the chance to play for norms, e.g. IM norms. If you take out the top players then they won't be nearly so keen to play in the next section down. You might attract a few more to see the grandmasters at work put you would probably lose quite a few more people from the "norm-seeker" category.

michele clack wrote:Alex

I am surprised that the ECF is solely in charge of the British. I assumed that all the unions involved helped with the organisation. Yet financially, it only goes through the books of the ECF

One of the organisers, Alex Mc Farlane is Scottish.

Yes, but Chess Scotland have no direct involvement with the organisation. It is my understanding that Alex is organising it on behalf of the ECF; he just so happens to be Scottish.