RE: prize money

[kishanpattni]

It goes without saying that there are many tournaments that offer very modest prize money. I have had discussions before with some organizers to ask why the prizes are so low and some considerable points have been raised. It also might be fair to say in certain types of tournaments it is difficult to guarantee prizes/prize funds. However despite this I find it difficult to believe that organizers are always at high loss.

There is one tournament i remember seeing in the past that offers a prize fund (not first prize!) of £150 for the section, with an entry fee (if early) of £30. In another case there was a friend of mine who informed me that he won less that 2x his entry fee when finishing outright 1st.

Where there are great attempts being made to promote chess, is the modest prize money and expensive entry fees not a massive discouraging factor?

[IM Jack Rudd]

Where there are great attempts being made to promote chess, is the modest prize money and expensive entry fees not a massive discouraging factor?

I don't know. How popular are the tournaments you mention?

[kishanpattni]

Where there are great attempts being made to promote chess, is the modest prize money and expensive entry fees not a massive discouraging factor?

I don't know. How popular are the tournaments you mention?

I am speaking generally but the tournaments that come to mind are reasonably popular.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Where there are great attempts being made to promote chess, is the modest prize money and expensive entry fees not a massive discouraging factor?

I don't know. How popular are the tournaments you mention?

I am speaking generally but the tournaments that come to mind are reasonably popular.

Well, that answers your question then: the prize money and entry fees are not a massive discouraging factor.

[David Grobler]

You cant enter tournaments thinking that the main element for doing so is the prize money . If you do...you are a professional chess player...and you are in a whole different league .
I am currently playing at Harrogate (I have 1 out of 1...and should be sleeping...but I cant) . If I get 5 out of 5...I think I win £200...which almost pays for the entry fee and petrol . Anything less than 5 out of 5...Im out of pocket . But Im quite happy...its the love of the game you see?
I dont think bigger prizes will attract that many more players...and Im 100% sure that the "smallish" prizes generally on offer are not because the organisers are pocketing all the entry fees..

[IM Jack Rudd]

I don't usually enter weekenders unless I can make a profit by coming second. Given where I live, this means I don't play many weekenders.

(Norm tournaments are different, and I don't apply the same rule there.)

[David Grobler]

Jack.....I presume you have a "proper job" ?
In an ideal world an International Master should be able to make a living out of chess...maybe not multi millionaire status....but a decent living none the less . Unfortunately I think that you perhaps are unable to earn a decent living from Chess alone . I think that is wrong .
I doubt playing in weekenders and losing rating points (assuming you dont score 5 out of 5) is much help...?

[IM Jack Rudd]

No proper job as yet. This may have to change at some point.

[Nick Thomas]

Jack.....I presume you have a "proper job" ?
In an ideal world an International Master should be able to make a living out of chess...maybe not multi millionaire status....but a decent living none the less . Unfortunately I think that you perhaps are unable to earn a decent living from Chess alone . I think that is wrong .
I doubt playing in weekenders and losing rating points (assuming you dont score 5 out of 5) is much help...?

I don't understand these comments. Do you mean an IM should be able to make a living out of playing chess? Given that IM's are not very good in the scheme of things why should that be so and who should pay their wages? Even tennis, snooker, darts and many other more sponsor and spectator friendly activities do not provide a living for people 1000th best in the world or worse. If you mean that peripheral chess activities such as teaching chess ought to furnish opportunities to make a living then you are on more solid ground. It can but only given some hard work and the acquisition of other more pertinent skills than the attainment of IM level chess ability.

[Nick Thomas]

I fully expect to be trashed by the next 10 IM's I play as a punishment for calling them rubish...

[Sabrina Chevannes]

Ha! I agree with you though Nick! I know many GMs who have given up on the idea of making a living out of chess, because they can't! These are like 2550 GMs too. Realistically, you need to be in the top few in the world to make a decent living out of chess and that is not going round winning weekenders.

But I agree Kishan, it would be nice to have the tournaments raise the prize money, but if they do so too much then organisers will lose out on money. I have experienced both sides and it is a difficult one.

But saying that, the English Women's Rapidplay has good prize money :p I'm off there in a minute! It is £200 first prize and it is only a 1-day event I bet you are jealous you are not female now :p

[Mick Norris]

It goes without saying that there are many tournaments that offer very modest prize money. I have had discussions before with some organizers to ask why the prizes are so low and some considerable points have been raised. It also might be fair to say in certain types of tournaments it is difficult to guarantee prizes/prize funds. However despite this I find it difficult to believe that organizers are always at high loss.

There is one tournament i remember seeing in the past that offers a prize fund (not first prize!) of £150 for the section, with an entry fee (if early) of £30. In another case there was a friend of mine who informed me that he won less that 2x his entry fee when finishing outright 1st.

Where there are great attempts being made to promote chess, is the modest prize money and expensive entry fees not a massive discouraging factor?

I'd say a massive discouraging factor is spending lots of your free time organising an event, trying very hard to make sure it doesn't lose money, and players who don't lift a finger to do anything complaining about the prize fund/swiss draw/weather etc

[Alex Holowczak]

But saying that, the English Women's Rapidplay has good prize money :p I'm off there in a minute! It is £200 first prize and it is only a 1-day event I bet you are jealous you are not female now :p

The Birmingham League Rapidplay on 23rd October will have a £200 1st prize in the Open section. Our tournament isn't restricted to females though, so males do have a chance of winning too.

[Colin Patterson]

Isn't it all down to chess' profile, its mass appeal and atractiveness to sponsors.

If we take another seemingly fringe sport (in the UK) like tennis and look at British #1 woman Elena Baltacha, she has a record that might roughly equate in chess terms to an upper/mid-ranked WGM.

She has briefly made world top 50 (49), won no singles or doubles titles on the top level WTA Tour, but several titles on the lower ITF Tour, made only the 3rd round at Wimbledon, yet has prize earnings of $866,584 on top of what she gets paid for coaching.

So, despite tennis being a fairly unpopular sport here, there is still big money to be earned. Why is this? Wimbledon? Sponsorship? Money coming from abroad? Government funding? Of course regular players fork out much higher fees to belong to tennis clubs, but then the upkeep of the courts and venues will also be much more costly.

[Paul Cooksey]

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

About 10 million people watched yesterday's tennis on television I believe.