Tournament entry fees.

[Peter Ackley]

In case it helps anyone reading this thread Lee has just confirmed in a Facebook post

"...the event was going ahead no matter that anyway as there is an open and a GM and IM event. The lowest 3 sections all got cancelled cos of the entry fee."

Might have been useful to have this information earlier...

[Lee Bullock]

In case it helps anyone reading this thread Lee has just confirmed in a Facebook post

"...the event was going ahead no matter that anyway as there is an open and a GM and IM event. The lowest 3 sections all got cancelled cos of the entry fee."

Might have been useful to have this information earlier...

Most people can read Peter. I thought mentioning it once was enough on the status sorry. For the Peter ackley brain types I will put it future statuses 3 times in future. Not once

My post read.

How do people feel about £60 entry fees?? I saw a recent event. Had 2 entries with 3/4 days to go. I said surely this is crazy and why you have no entries. He said. Yeah this is the price. He ended up having 3 entries. And all lower sections were cancelled. thank goodness. What’s others views on £60 entry when many events available and it’s a tiny event as well.

[Peter Ackley]

If the information is not there, Lee, people cannot read it. You hadn't mentioned that there was a GM and IM event going on at the same time and indeed when asked to confirm whether there had indeed been three entries you yourself stated:

"Yes. 4 counting 2 of the sections. The open went ahead. Other 3 sections were cancelled."

It's not like you could even imply from that statement that there was a GM and IM event going on at the same time.

You don't need to type things three times, Lee. Just make the effort to put the information in your post the first time you write it and you don't need to write it again and again.

[Lee Bullock]

I did Peter. I said the lower sections were cancelled? That means the lower sections were cancelled surely? This implies there were higher sections that went ahead. Agree? Or do you really need me to say there was an open. A GM event and a IM event. Surely if you want to know the higher sections you can ask me.

The GM event and the IM have no relevance in this at all. The open could of had 30 on it. The point was the event was always going ahead. Which is why making the lower sections lower entry was a much better idea.

[Peter Ackley]

Yes, Lee, as a norm event is very different to an open section. Norm events tend to be closed events (I suspect they were here since you say there was an open event and a GM and IM event). People will enter well in advance. Players may be paid to play. The events are likely to take place over a longer period of time. A more senior arbiter may be needed. As a result commitments are made and cancelling an event is much more difficult.

I assume you agree that "open" and "closed" are two different things. Agree? Also why would I ask you about the higher sections. I don't have psychic powers to help me realise you've only given me told me part of the story. This is a chess forum, not a game of 20 questions.

Going back to your original question but now we have the full story:
-as a player I agree £60 feels a bit high for an entry fee, especially when compared to the prizes (both value of and number of). Whether I played would depend on other factors such as could I stay at home, do I want to visit the area, do I have anything else to do, do I have other financial commitments but, based on what you have said, like yourself I probably wouldn't bother. Even though I have long-since accepted I won't win many prizes in opens I want to get "something" from an event.
-as an organiser £60 probably represents a fair price based on break even costs and it is highly likely they are using these events to offset the costs of the GM and IM closed events which will have seen overall costs increase. But you are right - the organiser probably should have thought more like a player.

[NickFaulks]

It was clear from the opening post that we were being given partial scraps of information - why else would someone not name the event and supply a link to the entry form? I lost interest at that point.

[Ian Thompson]

It was clear from the opening post that we were being given partial scraps of information - why else would someone not name the event and supply a link to the entry form? I lost interest at that point.

This event, I assume. There are references to 2 and 3 day events on the website, but the links to them now direct you to a 4 day event.

chess-results lists the 3 day event with 3 entrants, but no results even though it should have started 2 days ago.

There are also 2 day events listed with 5 entrants and 1 entrant that are/were scheduled to start tomorrow.

[Mick Norris]

Isn't it bound to be more expensive in London?

Everything else is

[IM Jack Rudd]

The knowledge that it's a festival with title-norm sections does change things, yes. Those are always cross-subsidy operations to some extent.

[Ian Thompson]

The knowledge that it's a festival with title-norm sections does change things, yes. Those are always cross-subsidy operations to some extent.

The GM and IM title norm sections appear not to have started. It looks like the Open is the only event that is taking place.

[Joey Stewart]

This topic got me thinking of another thing that I feel is really detrimental to chess tournaments - rating prizes.

They have their place when it is a single section tournament and you want to encourage more entrants who might not otherwise play.

What is hugely off-putting is where you have graded sections with a sizeable percentage of the the prize fund going into rating prizes - that really annoys me to enter an open where the expectation on me is that it is win the whole event or nothing but the bottom feeders are unjustly eligible to win far more prizes but also guaranteed to gain rating points and are getting far more value for their entry.
I say scrap all rating prizes and just make a 4th, 5th etc prize with the money - those who overperform relative to their rating will likely pick up one of these places anyway.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

This topic got me thinking of another thing that I feel is really detrimental to chess tournaments - rating prizes.

Yes, I agree. The main problem for me is that the rating and other prizes of that sort will often go to someone who has picked up a few easy points in the last few rounds. I remember following the 2000 British Championships closely and local player Harriet Hunt was doing really well. For a few rounds it looked like she might even win the tournament, but then she lost to a couple of of the top grandmasters and got overtaken for the Ladies title (I think it was still called that then) by 13 year old Humpy Koneru, who had been a few points behind Harriet for most of the tournament.

[Roger de Coverly]

They have their place when it is a single section tournament and you want to encourage more entrants who might not otherwise play.

Some organisers of Open tournaments have been known to both hike the entry fees for lower rated players and not offer rating prizes below a particular level. In other words they might have say a 1950 to 2100 rating prize but nothing for players below that. To compound the felony, they have rating restricted sections as well, but not following the same schedule in terms of number of rounds as the Open. The CSC London FIDE Open used to be guilty of this.

If rating prizes are retained, should they be on a (W-We) basis or more simply tie break on points scored?

[Kevin Thurlow]

"What is hugely off-putting is where you have graded sections with a sizeable percentage of the the prize fund going into rating prizes - that really annoys me to enter an open where the expectation on me is that it is win the whole event or nothing but the bottom feeders are unjustly eligible to win far more prizes but also guaranteed to gain rating points and are getting far more value for their entry."

In the old days, when you tended to have an "Open", "U160" and "U120", with (say) 2 grading (now rating) prizes, I used to try and sort it so that, in the Open, you would put people in grading order and then divide them into three equalish groups, graded down to 160. The top third hoped to win a normal prize, the second third probably did as well, but had the opportunity to aim for a grading prize, and the third group also had the opportunity to aim for a grading prize. Those U160 could have entered a lower section... You lump them in with the bottom 14. If you have 50 entries, say 8 are below 160, you sort the others into top 14, middle 14 and lower 14, but then look at the gradings. If seeds 12 and 13 are graded 180, and 14, 15 and 16 are 178, you could select "under 179" eg. If 28 is 172 and 29 is 171, select lower grading prize to "171 and below", to give the U160s a chance. Then amend the other grading prize to "178 - 172". You would try and find a could cut-off.

The problem may be worse in the lowest section. It is common to say ungraded players cannot win grading prizes for obvious reasons. Players in the bottom section may also have even more random gradings than the other players, so are grading prizes a good idea then?

It is nice to maybe get a rating prize, but I enter strong opens to hope to play strong players. I played Tiviakov at Guernsey, I can still remember that, but have no idea what I scored in the rest of the tournament. (Everyone got 0 against Tiviakov...)

[Lee Bullock]

The knowledge that it's a festival with title-norm sections does change things, yes. Those are always cross-subsidy operations to some extent.

What I’m not getting is this. The event is going ahead due to the biggish open. Ok there was GM and IM norm also supposed to take place but didn’t. Not enough entries for that either. My point was surely filling up the tournament hall is better than no lower sections going ahead at all. Making it £60 was a huge off putting barrier. That put me off anyway. And speaking with friends they agreed.

I don’t count prizes or entry fees compared to these things being first I consider. How many people going I know is 1 with location and venue being next important. Then how well supported it is. Ie entrants. Then it’s prizes and then entry fee. It’s the least important thing to me. But if it’s got nothing going for it in the first 4/5 things I go for then the entry fee becomes huge. And I can’t justify it if I’m not looking forward to any of the other things. Im
Not playing to just play chess