Prize Money is Out of Control

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Justin,

"To rephrase, is there any particular reason to think that it increases when there is more or decreases when there is less?"

Or does it decrease when there is more and Increase when there is less.

I've no idea, but I brought up the possibility of temptation so I'll give a go.

I'd be very surprised if collusion was discovered at the top level. Why run the risk at £32,000 for coming last
also it will slay the golden goose. (geese). They would be very silly indeed to start messing about at that level.
With this kind of pot I'd remove all detectors and searches etc... These players are not going to blow it,
They got to the top by hard graft and now getting a reward. I think in this case too much but there it is. My opinion.

What I fear may happen with this kind of prize money, it will attract the not so good players to the gravy
train and they might be tempted to cheat in some way to get onto the passenger list. It's very attractive money.

With strong players admitting it goes on at the lower levels and human nature being what it is
how long before one or more others players think. "We could be getting some of that..."
Hopefully I'm wrong, but the temptation is there and players have been tempted for less.

Every major tournament now has to take measures to stop cheating. It's the times we live in.
They will get caught, banned and chess will take another punch on the nose.

---

My Tiger Cubs won 3½ - 2½ they play in a adult league, they are all a bright young crew.
Andrew Green trains them and is doing a wonderful job. (I untrain them when he is not looking.)
I won't name them (yet) but you will be hearing from them.........hopefully.

[Chris Goddard]

There is some “trickle down” though Geoff. The prize money in the British K.O. and the FlDE Open was pretty good. By my reckoning British players pocketed just shy of £59,000 between them during this event.

I take your point about the same players being invited to play in these SuperGM type tournaments though. It does get a bit stale. I think that’s why the big Swiss events like the Isle of Man are far more exciting to follow. At least in those we get to see some David v Goliath contests, more dynamic play and the big guns can’t just draw their way to hefty prizes.

[NickFaulks]

I take your point about the same players being invited to play in these SuperGM type tournaments though. It does get a bit stale.

These things go in cycles, and we do seem to be at a low point right now. Maybe top level chess really has petered out to a draw, but we've heard that before and then something came along.

My reading of the latest GCT announcement is that they are firmly committed to the "triathlon" approach. I find that a bit disappointing, but can understand that they have lost patience with superstar classical chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

I am of course about to lay into the London Classic four player event and the ridiculous prize money.

1st $120,000
2nd $ 80,000
3rd $ 60,000
4th $ 40,000

Some ham could have lost every game and walk away with $40,000 (that is now impossible and the draws have already started to pile up.).

(...)

Wrap these boring close shop gravy train tournaments up so these clowns have to play in Opens to get a sniff of the dollars.

I think it's unfair to call the top players in the game "some ham" or "these clowns", especially when they have qualified for the Finals on merit based on their performance in other GCT events this year. It's certainly not their fault that the prize fund should be structured the way that it has been; they simply get offered the contracts by tournament organisers, and can choose to sign it if they want to take advantage of it.

Generally in sporting events, the money is concentrated towards the top, and often the players at the bottom of them sometimes get nothing. In PDC tour events where all 128 tour card holders play, and all World Snooker events where the 128 tour players play, 1st round losers get £0 prize money, and they have to fund their own travel/accommodation requirements to play in them. It's the same in golf; if you miss the cut you get no prize money.

The distribution of the money is unusual here, in that the losing Semi Finalists win either 33% or 50% of the prize money the winner won. To compare with other sports chosen randomly:
- 2018 World Snooker Championship, losing Semi Finalists won 20% of the prize money won by the Champion.
- 2019 PDC World Darts Championship, losing Semi Finalists win 20% of the prize money won by the Champion.
- 2018 Wimbledon Singles, losing Semi Finalists won 25.2% of the prize money won by the Champion.
- 2018 US Open golf, 3rd place won 37.6% of the prize money won by the Champion. 4th place won 26.4% of the prize money won the Champion.
- 2018 ITTF World Tour Singles events, losing Semi Finalists win 35% of the prize money won by the Champion.

As ever with these things, the events are organised in the way that the people supplying the money want.

[Alex Holowczak]

My reading of the latest GCT announcement is that they are firmly committed to the "triathlon" approach. I find that a bit disappointing, but can understand that they have lost patience with superstar classical chess.

You say that, but they've gone from 1 standard and 3 rapid/blitz to 2 standard and 4 rapid/blitz. So standard will be a bigger proportion of the tour in 2019 than it was in 2018.

[Nick Grey]

To Alex & others organising the London Chess Classic on 13/12 the sponsors wife introduced herself to the U1750s top boards with their vision in supporting chess in this country. Her son was sitting next to me. That is not something you get everyday & was appreciated.

Playing chess at the same time as no live boards at the venue was all that was different.
The organisers taking a reasonable adjustment in not allowing access even to get refreshments because juniors still present is understandable.

I do not think prize money is out of control sporting wise or light entertainment wise.

[JustinHorton]

It's the same in golf; if you miss the cut you get no prize money.

2018 PGA golf:

Players making the cut but finishing below 70th place will be paid in diminishing increments of $100 each ($19,500; $19,400; etc.). Players missing the cut and completing the 36 holes will receive $3,100 each

The Open:

The top 10 pro golfers who did not make the cut will receive $7,375 with the next 20 (including ties) picking up $9,500. Any other pro golfers outside of those groups will get $4,950

2017 US Open:

$10,000 each will be awarded to the 76 professionals who missed the cut

2018 Masters:

Those who miss the cut still get $10,000

[JustinHorton]

Couldn't find it in the small hours, but I have now.

2018 US Open

Those professionals who missed the cut were paid $US10,000.

[Alex Holowczak]

OK - I stand corrected. You certainly never used to get prize money if you missed the cut. When did this change?

[Geoff Chandler]

Hi Alex,

Why do people persist in comparing chess to other sports.

I knew this would keep getting tossed back at me.... "look what other sports pay out."
Who cares? Comparisons are meaningless, misleading and be twisted any way you want.

Armed robbery has increased by 11% but car theft has gone up by 25% therefore armed robbery in not a problem.

But you are correct, 'clowns' was wrong.

Caruana, for example recently played 14 classical games in London and drew every one of them taking home
$511,400 for failing to win the world championship and $60,000 for coming 3rd in the London 'classic'.

I do not think it's him picking pieces of custard pie from his face. And I still do not know who
sponsored the four player London Classic. There is nothing leaping out at you from the main site.

https://www.londonchessclassic.com/

One thing that does leap at you is an appeal asking for donations for a good chess cause.




You could not make this up. The tournurnamant proudly boasts:

"The fantastic four will be dueling for a total of $300,000 (£230,000) in GCT prize money."

On the same page there is an appeal for money to help out grass roots chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

Couldn't find it in the small hours, but I have now.

2018 US Open

Those professionals who missed the cut were paid $US10,000.

OK - I stand corrected. You certainly never used to get prize money if you missed the cut. When did this change?

I withdraw my earlier standing corrected, because it seems I may have been right in the context that I meant it.

In a regular PGA Tour event, you get nothing for failing to make the cut. These are events that are open to all Tour Card professionals to enter. However, for the Majors, they have different rules that give prize money even to players who miss the cut.

This is the same as snooker and darts. In the PDC Premier events, such as the World Championship, Grand Slam, World Matchplay and so on, there is money for losing in the 1st round. These events have restricted fields though, and regular Tour Card holders have to qualify either by their ranking or via a qualifying competition. For example, the Grand Slam qualifiers have no prize money; the prize is entry to the tournament where they get prize money even if they lose in the 1st round.

The same is true in the four golf Majors; you have to qualify by virtue of your ranking (or various other routes in depending on the Major) or via the qualifying competition, and you appear to get prize money if you miss the cut. The most recent official PGA Tour event was the RSA Classic, which paid nothing to players who missed the cut: https://thegolfnewsnet.com/golfnewsnett ... ut-111495/

[Alex Holowczak]

Why do people persist in comparing chess to other sports.

Because other individual sports seem to have mastered the art of running a professional series of events/tour which is well co-ordinated around the world for a large number of professional players, whereas chess has not. I would argue that imitation of the best ideas in those other sports might be the path forward to make that happen. If the GCT has that aim, they would appear to disagree with me, and I've no doubt that a number of other people will have their own ideas as to how best to make such a series of events happen too.

And I still do not know who sponsored the four player London Classic. There is nothing leaping out at you from the main site.

I think the answer to that is simple: No one sponsored it. It was probably funded entirely by donations. Donations do not attract VAT, whereas sponsorship does. So the organisers are probably happy that you can't find out who is funding the event, since it means the donor is demonstrably getting nothing that counts as a sponsorship benefit back in return, and thus there is no requirement to pay tax on it.

[JustinHorton]

Couldn't find it in the small hours, but I have now.

2018 US Open

Those professionals who missed the cut were paid $US10,000.

OK - I stand corrected. You certainly never used to get prize money if you missed the cut. When did this change?

I withdraw my earlier standing corrected, because it seems I may have been right in the context that I meant it.

"I would have been right if I had said something that I didn't actually say, which I definitely meant to say even though I did specifically cite one of the Majors in the course of my posting, which was nevertheless definitely not meant to refer to the Majors in any way."

[Alex Holowczak]

Couldn't find it in the small hours, but I have now.

2018 US Open

OK - I stand corrected. You certainly never used to get prize money if you missed the cut. When did this change?

I withdraw my earlier standing corrected, because it seems I may have been right in the context that I meant it.

"I would have been right if I had said something that I didn't actually say, which I definitely meant to say even though I did specifically cite one of the Majors in the course of my posting, which was nevertheless definitely not meant to refer to the Majors in any way."

I didn't realise that it didn't apply to the Majors, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned the Major. So I was a bit wrong on the details, but the principle I was getting at was right. Trying to positively contribute to a discussion is going to lead to inaccuracies in the details from time-to-time, but the wider point I was making is reasonable.

[JustinHorton]

"Although I insist on making my arguments with lots of detail to show much I know, when those details are wrong I am still right anyway."