Prize Money

[Alex Holowczak]

My belief is that upwards of 90% of congress entrants don't care about prize money. We don't play for money; we do it for love of the game. There may well be a demand for congresses where the prize pool was zero and entry fees possibly adjusted down.
A small number of people might be deterred from entering "amateur" congresses, but at least events might not be jeopardised like for example the Essex Chess Congress which has just been cancelled due to financial reasons. Remove some £1500 of prize money and perhaps the event could have been saved.
A small cup, shield or certificate is a much more lasting memory of a good performance than prize money.

The Warwickshire Championship of 2010 lost money and its (small) sponsor for 2011. So the organisers were forced to put the entry fee up, and the prize money down for the 2011 event. We had more entries in 2011 than 2010. Work that one out.

[Sean Hewitt]

My belief is that upwards of 90% of congress entrants don't care about prize money. We don't play for money; we do it for love of the game. There may well be a demand for congresses where the prize pool was zero and entry fees possibly adjusted down.

I think you're right. We offer no prize money at all for our international all play alls, with the winners getting an engraved silver salver or similar. Despite this 80 people usually still turn up and play and this allows us to charge as little as £30 entry fee for 9 games played over 5 days.

I have toyed with the idea of holding a weekend swiss, with no prize money and an entry fee of £10-£12. I haven't been brave (or stupid) enough yet to do it, but I probably will give it a go at some point.

[Stewart Reuben]

John Wright >My belief is that upwards of 90% of congress entrants don't care about prize money. We don't play for money; we do it for love of the game. <

You may well be right.

Alex >So the organisers were forced to put the entry fee up, and the prize money down for the 2011 event. We had more entries in 2011 than 2010.<

It is a well-known phenomenon that in the luxury market, that putting up the fees, increases the number of entries. I have observed this many times in chess events. This was confirmed by somebody at the ECF Council Meeting. Not putting up the entry fees for the British this year was a mistake. When I increased them by 20% in 2009, the number of entries shot up. But it is hard to compare like with like as the quality and location of the venue also has a large effect.

Very few other sports (including Bridge) have substantial cash prize money for weaker players and juniors. Indeed the whole matter of cash prizes for amateurs may have a disadvantageous effect on recognition of adult chess for charitable status.

VAT at the British. This is levied at 20% on the entry fees. These fees are needed, not only to pay for administration, but also provide the prize money. Thus, get rid of the prize money and the entry fee income could be used to improve the event.

One thing against this fo all chess congresses. It is not necessarily getting the actual cash that is what is deemed as valuable. It is the status that it lends the event. Return to the office on Monday. 'I won a chess tournament this weekend.' No interest. 'I won £100'. You will be treated with more respect. That it cost you £80 to play is irrelevant to the listener (or you?).

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

the Essex Chess Congress which has just been cancelled due to financial reasons. .

Presumably the event formerly known as Ilford.

Whether the lack of entries to this event was purely down to the entry fees is a matter of speculation. You could also cite a general reduction in the number of players wishing to play in Congresses, the relocation to a new venue (always a vulnerable time), the change of name, competition from e2e4 at Sunningdale, lack of on-line entry etc.

Looking down the entry list for Sunningdale only shows a handful of people who might have played at Ilford, but Sunningdale looks to have got much of the "tourist" market, those who treat the chess as an excuse for a weekend away.

[John Wright]

the Essex Chess Congress which has just been cancelled due to financial reasons. .

Presumably the event formerly known as Ilford.

Whether the lack of entries to this event was purely down to the entry fees is a matter of speculation. You could also cite a general reduction in the number of players wishing to play in Congresses, the relocation to a new venue (always a vulnerable time), the change of name, competition from e2e4 at Sunningdale, lack of on-line entry etc.

Looking down the entry list for Sunningdale only shows a handful of people who might have played at Ilford, but Sunningdale looks to have got much of the "tourist" market, those who treat the chess as an excuse for a weekend away.

Yes - it was at Ilford in recent years.

I'm not suggesting the entry fee is the cause of the lack of entries and hence the cancellation.
I'm suggesting that without £1500 of prize money to pay out, the event may have been financially viable.
As Alex said above, reducing prize money whilst maintaining or increasing entry fee does not seem to have an adverse effect on entries.
Congresses run like this will lose the professionals and sandbaggers, but may gain others who don't enjoy the prize money aspect.

[Ian Thompson]

the Essex Chess Congress which has just been cancelled due to financial reasons. .

Whether the lack of entries to this event was purely down to the entry fees is a matter of speculation.

I would have thought that unlikely. The Essex entry fees were much less than the Sunningdale entry fees (even more so when discounts are taken into account) so why would Sunningdale have got a good entry if high entry fees were the problem?

Perhaps the Essex organisers big mistake was to put on the entry form "Guaranteed prize fund in excess of £1,500". With hindsight, this was obviously a false claim, as they now won't be paying out anything at all. Their get out, I assume, is the entry condition "The Congress Committee reserves the right to ... cancel any tournament in the absence of sufficient players." Perhaps what they should have done is to say that prizes were guaranteed if a minimum of X players entered, and reduced pro-rata if fewer entered (as is commonly the case with American tournaments).

[Jonathan Bryant]

I have toyed with the idea of holding a weekend swiss, with no prize money and an entry fee of £10-£12. I haven't been brave (or stupid) enough yet to do it, but I probably will give it a go at some point.

A small cup, shield or certificate is a much more lasting memory of a good performance than prize money.

I recently visited the home of a man who has played bowls for many years. He had several shelves filled with cups and trophies from events he'd won dating back at least two decades. Very impressive, and much more memorable than a cheque or two that he might have won.

I remember thinking at the time this was quite different to how chess does it. We're not exactly comparing like with like - in that many of his trophies were club competitions rather than tournaments per se as we would understand them - but still it's perhaps worth pursuing this kind of 'reward' for some events.

That said, I write as a person who rarely if ever wins any money so I could be said to be biased. Anyhoo, I'd certainly be interested in the low entry-fee no prize money tournament experiment if Sean ever gets to arrange one.

[Roger de Coverly]

Perhaps the Essex organisers big mistake was to put on the entry form "Guaranteed prize fund in excess of £1,500". With hindsight, this was obviously a false claim, as they now won't be paying out anything at all. Their get out, I assume, is the entry condition "The Congress Committee reserves the right to ... cancel any tournament in the absence of sufficient players." Perhaps what they should have done is to say that prizes were guaranteed if a minimum of X players entered, and reduced pro-rata if fewer entered (as is commonly the case with American tournaments).

It's not unknown for Congress Organisers to amalgamate sections. Perhaps it was the venue costs that were the killer and cancelling the whole event was the only way to escape these.

[John Wright]

It's not unknown for Congress Organisers to amalgamate sections. Perhaps it was the venue costs that were the killer and cancelling the whole event was the only way to escape these.

Perhaps, but;

Venue costs are unavoidable.
Prize money isn't.