RE: prize money

[Paul McKeown]

By all means not out my my capable hands then.

I think even a limit of 2350 is too high for the Major Open.

I think your motivation is very different than mine. I like to risk a good kicking in the off chance that I can pull of the odd result against a titled player. You want to win and don't care particularly about the quality. I have to say that it is nice from time to time winning some prize money, standing a couple of rounds with it and noshing down a ruby at the curry house, but I have never found the prize money a motivator in itself.

[Roger de Coverly]

Thanks for the info Roger, that doesn't seem to have been widely advertised! Have many IMs or GMs taken up the opportunity?

None to my knowledge. It may only have been removed for Canterbury last year, because Torquay 2009 featured a GM in the one week events. He didn't even win, something about the scoresheet having the move numbers in the wrong place causing him to lose on time in a critical game.

[Paul McKeown]

Have many IMs or GMs taken up the opportunity?

None as yet; the only such players who would be eligible are those who are neither citizens of or resident in one of the six home federations - which likely means the titled players in question would have to win the tournament just to break even on the fortnight.

Thanks Jack!

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Yeah I remmeber not being too happy when having to play Prokopchuk on 0/1 and getting double black in the process!

The strength of the Major Open has massively gone fown over the years. I haven't actually heard anyone describe the major open as "really hard" in years. I think the prize money is quite decent in that section as it is indeed completely amateur.

The hard section is the Open and that there isn't really any prize money for those who are not likely to get right to the top. the IMs and GMs get free entry and they're the ones who have a shot. The others have to spend £200 to get nothing. So it is only people who want to play and can afford to play in that section.

However, there are people who can play the major open as it is cheaper entry fee but stand a chance of picking up some prize money.

[Jonathan Bryant]

... I imagine I'm one of the sorts of player that the Major Open intends to attract - 180 something - a decent enough player in the general run of things but no star by a country mile.[*] ....

I wouldn't flatter my chess skills by comparing my 160odd to your 180 Paul, but I'm just about to head off to a European Open rather than playing in the Major Open in Sheffield for exactly the reasons that you describe. I don't find the Major Open an appealing event at all.

I do think Matt has a point about under-rated juniors, though. Assuming they're going to be using the grades from September 2010, that is. I once played young Salimbeni shortly before the British. His playing strength had probably gone up 20 points in the (almost) year since the grades had come out.

That said, if it's too strong now, I wonder what Matt would have made of the major open back in 1989/1990 - the two years I actually did go to the British. These days the tournament simply doesn't compare to what it was back then. The lifting of the 2350 limit might help bring it back to its former status, I suppose - though only if people find out about the change.

[matt_ward]

I don't think you can expect a ameteur to win the Major Open Sabrina; You would have to perform of a relatively high standard.

Matt.

[Alex Holowczak]

I wouldn't flatter my chess skills by comparing my 160odd to your 180 Paul, but I'm just about to head off to a European Open rather than playing in the Major Open in Sheffield for exactly the reasons that you describe. I don't find the Major Open an appealing event at all.

I think it's only as successful as it is because it's the only Open FIDE-rated event there.

[matt_ward]

Jonathan new grades will be used for the British not the September 2010.

[Alex Holowczak]

Jonathan new grades will be used for the British not the September 2010.

That's not right; I've entered the Under 140 because my 2010 grade was 137, even though - to my reckoning - my grade will go above 140 by the time I start playing in it.

[IM Jack Rudd]

I don't think you can expect a ameteur to win the Major Open Sabrina; You would have to perform of a relatively high standard.

So far all the entrants in this year's Major Open are rated under 2130. You know many sub-2130 professionals?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

So, despite tennis being a fairly unpopular sport here, there is still big money to be earned.

I think you will find that unless you reach the top in tennis, you need sponsorship or some form of income to pay for coaching, equipment, travel, and other sports extras (dietician, trainer, medical staff, etc).

[Christopher Kreuzer]

For 20 people it could be held in my living room with nearly zero expenses. How many people do you think would enter?

Depends how large your living room is. Can you really fit in 10 chess boards and chairs and tables? If you can, I'd go for it and see how many are prepared to gamble a large entry fee. You said this is what happens in poker, but I think poker tends to attract gamblers, whereas chess attracts a different sort (though there seems to be a great deal of cross-over from chess to poker, I presume that is for the money).

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Exactly Jack

I don't think that there has been many professionals in the major open for a while so it is most likely that an amateur will indeed win the major open.

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't think that there has been many professionals in the major open for a while so it is most likely that an amateur will indeed win the major open.

The group of players at the top of last year's Major Open were similar in strength to the group towards the tail of the British. For that matter it's the field you might meet in division 2 of the 4NCL. By contrast to European Opens, there isn't a lengthy tail, so whilst the chances of meeting an IM in Europe are greater, the likelihood is that you have to chew through a number of 1800 players to get there.

So if you compare http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calc ... 2010-09-01 to a Major Open player http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calc ... 2010-09-01, the Major Open field is somewhat stronger.

[Chris J Greatorix]

No doubt the top half of the Major Open will be slightly offended by the comments in this thread. Alot of them are very capable of getting a win or a draw against IMs and FMs, even some GMs (no names!). In fact looking at the results of congresses, there are at least 6 players who have achieved a result against a master of some sorts, although not in Fide competition. There are very talented players in there whom could be masters if they gave up work/school/university. Alot of them have high Ecf ratings but lower than expected Fide. I wouldn't go into the hyperbole of the sort Matt Ward dishes out, but there are some players in that section who deserve respect.