Is this fair?

[James Friar]

Just found that. If you enter online you just get the U160 blurb....You've guessed it we entered online

[Richard Bates]

Just found that. If you enter online you just get the U160 blurb....You've guessed it we entered online

Perhaps you should consider a boycott of English chess until it takes steps to weed out all measures aimed at conspiring against your son?

[Sean Hewitt]

Would you concede that the entry form is contradictory as it states: "There will be grading prizes of £50 each for players graded under 160 and 120."? (It does not state: "There will be rating prizes... for players rated under 1930 and 1610.)".

What the entry form says is

Prizes The following prizes will be awarded: 1st place - £400, 2nd place - £200, 3rd place - £100. There will be grading prizes of £50 each for players graded under 160 and 120. There will be a £50 prize for the leading junior player. These prizes may be increased in value, or additional grading prizes may be awarded, if there are sufficient entries. In the event of a tie, the prize money shall be shared. Prize money will be transferred after the event, and not on the day. The title of British Blitz Champion will be awarded. In the event of a tie for the title, the Champion will be player with the highest TPR. See the technical regulations on the website for more information.

Grading Prize Eligibility Eligibility for grading prizes shall be determined by the player’s assigned rating for the tournament. Ratings will be assigned from the most recent rating and grading lists, with the following priority (a) FIDE Blitz Rating (b) FIDE Rapidplay Rating (c) FIDE Standardplay Rating (d) ECF Rapidplay Grade (e) ECF Standardplay Grade (f) Other National Ratings. Suitable conversions will be used for the non-FIDE Elo ratings.

So it's not contradictory in my opinion, though I think it could have been worded in a clearer way.

However, we've established that's not the issue. The person concerned simply made an [incorrect] assumption about how the grading prizes would be distributed. Rather than accept that, said person says he's going to 'spread the word'.

I do find it depressing that after 70 people have enjoyed an afternoon of chess, played in a great spirit and well organised and controlled by a team of volunteers, it all gets overshadowed by something as stupid and petty as this. I'd rather people cut the kid some slack, said well done for getting off his arse and putting on a good afternoon for all concerned.

But hey. This is chess, and that is chess players. I'm probably hoping for too much.

[James Friar]

Just found that. If you enter online you just get the U160 blurb....You've guessed it we entered online

Perhaps you should consider a boycott of English chess until it takes steps to weed out all measures aimed at conspiring against your son?

.....I am going to start wearing tin foil hats to stop the mind rays!!

[Sean Hewitt]

I dont think anyone is disputing that the prize was correctly awarded according to the rules of the competition.

I'm pretty sure some people are disputing just that!

However it does seem a very poor way to award these prizes, and maybe organisers should consider this for future events.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but it seems clear that there are a number of posters who believe that this is a much fairer way of distributing such prizes. I agree with them though ultimately, it's a subjective matter.

[James Friar]

Would you concede that the entry form is contradictory as it states: "There will be grading prizes of £50 each for players graded under 160 and 120."? (It does not state: "There will be rating prizes... for players rated under 1930 and 1610.)".

What the entry form says is

Prizes The following prizes will be awarded: 1st place - £400, 2nd place - £200, 3rd place - £100. There will be grading prizes of £50 each for players graded under 160 and 120. There will be a £50 prize for the leading junior player. These prizes may be increased in value, or additional grading prizes may be awarded, if there are sufficient entries. In the event of a tie, the prize money shall be shared. Prize money will be transferred after the event, and not on the day. The title of British Blitz Champion will be awarded. In the event of a tie for the title, the Champion will be player with the highest TPR. See the technical regulations on the website for more information.

Grading Prize Eligibility Eligibility for grading prizes shall be determined by the player’s assigned rating for the tournament. Ratings will be assigned from the most recent rating and grading lists, with the following priority (a) FIDE Blitz Rating (b) FIDE Rapidplay Rating (c) FIDE Standardplay Rating (d) ECF Rapidplay Grade (e) ECF Standardplay Grade (f) Other National Ratings. Suitable conversions will be used for the non-FIDE Elo ratings.

So it's not contradictory in my opinion, though I think it could have been worded in a clearer way.

However, we've established that's not the issue. The person concerned simply made an [incorrect] assumption about how the grading prizes would be distributed. Rather than accept that, said person says he's going to 'spread the word'.

I do find it depressing that after 70 people have enjoyed an afternoon of chess, played in a great spirit and well organised and controlled by a team of volunteers, it all gets overshadowed by something as stupid and petty as this. I'd rather people cut the kid some slack, said well done for getting off his arse and putting on a good afternoon for all concerned.

But hey. This is chess, and that is chess players. I'm probably hoping for too much.

I agree Sean it was a well organised and played with great spirit. I didn't see that entry form, so imagine my surprise at the grading prize award. Apart that little hiccup everything else was great. If that was in the original entry form....which I didn't see....then I accept it was done above board................

[Ian Thompson]

It hasn't arisen in tournaments like Hastings, the London Classic or the British, but I would agree with the original poster that there's something not quite right about a player scoring 5 winning a grading prize ahead of one scoring 6.5.

Wrong - 1997 British Championship - the highest score by an Under-2300 player was 6.5 (by me). The rating prize was given to Francis Rayner who scored 5 points. This despite there being nothing on the entry form, at the event, or even at the prize giving stating that the prize would be awarded to anyone other than the player scoring the most points. I was informed after the prize giving that the prize was given to Mr. Rayner at the whim of the Congress Director, and he informed some arbiters of his intention on the Friday night after the tournament was over.

[Roger de Coverly]

the grading prize award

In common parlance, the term "grading prize" means what it meant forty years ago when the concept was first developed, namely a prize awarded to the highest scorer in a restricted band of grades. It's only when arbiters started to use these new fangled computers to manage tournaments that they discovered the output column measuring the outperformance against prior rating and decided to use that for minor prizes. I've noticed e2e4 avoid the use of the term "grading prize".

[Bob Kane]

the " grading (fide blitz )performance award " will shorty be converted at the cash point into beer vouchers
the only question remaining is convert the vouchers into Lager or bitter, a tricky question on such a nice evening !

[Paul Douglass]

Is this fair?

We recently played in the British Blitz tournament at Quinton. My son James scored 6.5. Being graded 149 I felt sure he was on course for the U160 grading prize as no-one with a similar grade was anywhere near him. Alas someone who scored 6 points had a better performance rating and was awarded the prize. This player would have won the U160 prize after amassing 3.5 points earlier on in the tournament. So 3.5 points beating 6.5?!

Going by the same standard, surely you have to apply the rule to all circumstances? You cannot have one rule for one thing and then one for another. On the entry form, it does not explicitly state that the winner of the tournament has to have scored the most points, as it does not state the U160 fiddle. Surely applying the self same rule then best performer should win the tournament. Someone scored 5 with a performance rating of 3.85, whereas the winner only managed a whopping 9.5 with a performance rating of only 0.89! I am sure Mark (the winner) will disagree(as do I and every other sane person).

In all the years I have been playing the grading prize was won by the player with the most points.

So, I ask is this fair?

UPDATE - It transpires the winner of the U160 prize was graded 168!!!!!!!!!!!! So as well as not scoring as many points he was 168!

Your son didn't win a grading prize; get over it, stop bleating and playing the paranoid father. Applaud his performance and get on with your life.

[IanDavis]

The problem is one of vocabulary. The meaning of grading prize has been changed, rather than being replaced with a new term.
Obviously, for the unaware, this will create confusion.

[Robert Stokes]

Your son didn't win a grading prize; get over it, stop bleating and playing the paranoid father. Applaud his performance and get on with your life.

I think that's unfair. Anyone who thinks that they have suffered an injustice has a right to seek redress, or if not seek redress then at least complain about it. Your comment would be valid if the person went on and on about it rather than just posting one complaint.

Robert

[John Hodgson]

From memory, W-We was used to determine rating prizes in the early 1990s (Commonwealth Championship, I think). So it's hardly an innovation now.

One advantage of this method is that there is no need to have multiple grading bands with small prizes. There can be just one grading pool (open perhaps to all but the top 5% in the tournament), with a more substantial financial reward.

[Paul Douglass]

Your son didn't win a grading prize; get over it, stop bleating and playing the paranoid father. Applaud his performance and get on with your life.

I think that's unfair. Anyone who thinks that they have suffered an injustice has a right to seek redress, or if not seek redress then at least complain about it. Your comment would be valid if the person went on and on about it rather than just posting one complaint.

Robert

Unfortunately the complainant has repeated such paranoia claims on this actual thread so its not technically "one complaint". He has made a series of arguments around the wording of "how grading prizes would be determined". Such grading prizes themselves are generous prizes in the first instance. You enter a tournament with the aim of enjoying and playing to your best ability (though in my case that's a challenge!!). Prizes for amateurs should be a bonus.

He should stop making such complaints - I'm sure he has more important things in his life to focus his energies on!!

[Angus French]

Your son didn't win a grading prize; get over it, stop bleating and playing the paranoid father. Applaud his performance and get on with your life.

I think that's unfair. Anyone who thinks that they have suffered an injustice has a right to seek redress, or if not seek redress then at least complain about it. Your comment would be valid if the person went on and on about it rather than just posting one complaint.

Robert

Unfortunately the complainant has repeated such paranoia claims on this actual thread so its not technically "one complaint". He has made a series of arugments around the wording of "how grading prizes would be determined". Such grading prizes themselves are generous prizes in the first instance. You enter a tournament with the aim of enjoying and playing to your best ability (though in my case that's a challenge!!). Prizes for amateurs should be a bonus.

He should stop making such complaints - I'm sure he has more important things in his life to focus his energies on!!

Well, I thought Jim made some good points.