Why are open sections more expensive to enter?

[Joey Stewart]

It just struck me that this has been happening for decades any no one seems to have questioned it - so many tournament organisers charge entry to the open at significantly higher costs then any other sections for no good reason other then that it the way it has always been done.

Does anyone else feel this is an unnecessary inconvenience for players rated too high to have any choice of sections and that maybe the entry fee should only be higher for those who had the option of being in lower rated sections but chose to go up?

[MSoszynski]

Higher prize money, also to dissuade weaker players.

[Matt Mackenzie]

also to dissuade weaker players.

But the latter suggestion by Joey might help deal with that "problem".

[Nick Burrows]

Does anyone else feel this is an unnecessary inconvenience for players rated too high to have any choice of sections and that maybe the entry fee should only be higher for those who had the option of being in lower rated sections but chose to go up?

Yes absolutely. For those players unlucky enough to find a stable rating just above the "Major" limit, they never have the opportunity to compete for prizes, and must pay more for that privilege.

[JustinHorton]

Plausibly you are paying more because you may get the opportunity to play titled players in a way that competitors in the Minor will not.

[jholyhead]

I always assumed it was because they are (usually) the only FIDE rated section. I'm sure FIDE charge for the privilege.

[NickFaulks]

I'm sure FIDE charge for the privilege.

That is an interesting assumption.

[Graham Borrowdale]

Its been the case since long before opens got FIDE rated. Presumably it is because the prizes in the open tend to be higher, and because it is a more 'prestigious' event.

[Phil Neatherway]

Here is a congress where Joey's point is incorrect. All sections have the same entry fee.

https://www.4ncl.co.uk/fide/information_28.htm

[Phil Neatherway]

The same is true for the Lancaster Congress.

[Roger de Coverly]

All sections have the same entry fee.

That's applying a theory that all the sections should be fianancially self supporting. If entries are fewer for the top section, then one of three actions is necessary. Thus for the top secion only, increase the entry fee, lower the prize money or accept that there's a cross subsidy from rating restricted sections. It's even more imbalanced if there are financial incentives for titled players to take part.

[Joey Stewart]

That 4ncl tournament is fantastic value for the entry price Vs the prizes on offer, and nice to see that not everyone is sticking with the "old ways" when it comes to open entry fees.
The Lancaster one is cheaper to enter but the somewhat skewed prize structure makes the open relatively lower value for prize seekers with only first and second place getting paid but I can see there being an element of logic in this as it deters chancers playing up a section knowing that a 50% score will likely mean money.

[Tim Spanton]

Why have sections?

[MartinCarpenter]

Why have sections?

Because its much more fun to play people somewhere around your own playing strength than much weaker and/or stronger.

Also 5 rounds wouldn't be nearly enough to sort things out. It often isn't with the larger Open tournaments as things stand.

[Tim Spanton]

Why have sections?

Because its much more fun to play people somewhere around your own playing strength than much weaker and/or stronger.

Also 5 rounds wouldn't be nearly enough to sort things out. It often isn't with the larger Open tournaments as things stand.

Fair enough. I was really thinking about nine-rounders, but I can see why five-rounders need to be in sections.