RE: prize money

[Stewart Reuben]

This debate often comes up. Only in the 1970s in Britain were numbers of entries large enough to provide substantial prize money solely from the entry fees. If you have a low fee (a relative term) then the percentage of the money that goes in expenses has to be high. Let us imagine an organiser took a gamble on £1000 entry fee and guaranteed £960 from each entry would go to the prize money. 50%, 30%, 20%. It could be a grading restricted tournament. For 20 people it could be held in my living room with nearly zero expenses. How many people do you think would enter? Organisers assume very few and go, perhaps too far, to the other end of the scale. The only way to establish the market reaction is to do the experiment. I don't intend to try, well maybe I should. But they do have such events in the US, though not so extreme. Poker events have very high entry fees for some of their tournaments. That client base took many years to build and the ethos of the two sports is very different.
Gibraltar has very high prize money, well over £100,000. The entry fee is quite modest at £50. The money comes from sponsors.

Although the money for available for playing tennis is high so are the expenses. I understand only about 100 people worldwide make a living purely from playing the game and some of their income comes from endorsements. Tennis in Britain is very odd. Wimbledon provides much of the income for the sport and yet the event is not sponsored in the usual meaning of the term.

Chess is unusual in there being prize money for everybody. The satisfaction that comes over a child's face when he wins £20 in a Richmond Junior Club blitz tournament is a joy to see. But tournaments with no cash prize money, just trophies, would be cheaper and might therefore attract more entries.
Stewart Reuben

[Simon Dixon]

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 think high entry fees and low prizes is a discouraging factor, then again if organisers do not make a hefty profit, that may also be a discouraging factor.

[matt_ward]

I believe that the British Chess Championships, is one of the worse tournaments entry to prize fund ratio.

Not sure that the prizes have really had any dramatic increases over the years, I mean look at the Major Open it is a measley £1000 for first this has been the case for several years.

Matt.

[Alex Holowczak]

Not sure that the prizes have really had any dramatic increases over the years

Well, the main British Championship's prize money has gone up from £5,000 to £8,000 this year, plus an additional £2,000 prize for the English Champion. Is that not a dramatic increase?

The Major Open offering £1,000 for an 11-round Swiss is good. What's the prize fund like in London for its 9-round FIDE-rated Open? (Which tends to have people rated > 2350 in it, of course.)

[matt_ward]

Not sure that the prizes have really had any dramatic increases over the years

Well, the main British Championship's prize money has gone up from £5,000 to £8,000 this year, plus an additional £2,000 prize for the English Champion. Is that not a dramatic increase?

The Major Open offering £1,000 for an 11-round Swiss is good. What's the prize fund like in London for its 9-round FIDE-rated Open? (Which tends to have people rated > 2350 in it, of course.)

Alex, I don't think there is any appreciation of how hard the Major open is and therefore surely it's only fair to increase the prizes in the (Major Open) if they are going to promote high prizes in the main event.

I've not doubt they have only increased it this year because they wanted to try attract some of England's top players in the main event.

[Alex Holowczak]

Alex, I don't think there is any appreciation of how hard the Major open is and therefore surely it's only fair to increase the prizes in the (Major Open) if they are going to promote high prizes in the main event.

I've not doubt they have only increased it this year because they wanted to try attract some of England's top players in the main event.

Matt, how many other events in England are there which are restricted to players under 2350, and have a prize of £1,000? Most FIDE-rated Opens don't have that much prize money.

They increased the prize fund in the Championship because CJ got sponsorship from Darwin Strategic. The only reason so many GMs are playing is that the sponsorship also covers the GMs' appearance fees.

[Paul McKeown]

I've not doubt they have only increased it this year because they wanted to try attract some of England's top players in the main event.

Sounds good to me! The organisers deserve applause.

Alex, I don't think there is any appreciation of how hard the Major open is and therefore surely it's only fair to increase the prizes in the (Major Open) if they are going to promote high prizes in the main event.

Sounds like you have been ungruntled because you haven't qualified for the main event and have to make do with the consolation prize of the "Major Open". How hard is the Major Open? It would be a makkie for the top half in the British, basically limited to U2350 means it is not "hard" at all, except in the sense that those of us who haven't made the exalted heights of 2350 find it a struggle to beat our fellow U2350 peers.

My personal view? It isn't an attractive event. £100 entry is steep, and then you are guaranteed NOT to get your backside handed to you in a series of kickings from IMs and GMs. If I was to pay that much to play in a two week event, I would want to have the thrill of playing against some stars should I have a good tournament, so the Major Open fails to interest me, because it is so "weak". Continental style opens are much more interesting.

[matt_ward]

Paul,

It sounds like your too strong for this section. I do not believe it would be as a easy ride as your assuming I mean their are under- rated juniors in it for one thing; One has to play way above his rating to win the 11 round tournament, I intend to cause some upsets.


Anyone know what the highest ever score is in the Major Open?

Matt.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Anyone know what the highest ever score is in the Major Open?

11 out of 11 by Evgeny Prokopchuk at Edinburgh 2003.

[Roger de Coverly]

Anyone know what the highest ever score is in the Major Open?

11/11 by a Russian GM about 10 years ago. He played the previous year at Torquay, lost to a very coarse attack against his Sicilian in round 1 and could only tie first. The game was featured in the newspapers as a giant-killing. The following year at Edinburgh, he came back and showed what GMs could do. The year after that, the Major Open was restricted to under 2360 (2350?). The restriction has been removed again but it's not widely known.

For what it's worth 7.5/11 (3rd place & the minimum for British qualification) in last year's Major Open required a 200 performance according to my recent grading print.

[matt_ward]

Cool,

By all means not out my my capable hands then.

I think even a limit of 2350 is too high for the Major Open.

[Paul McKeown]

It sounds like your too strong for this section.

By no means. I imagine I'm one of the sorts of player that the Major Open intends to attract - 180 something - a decent enough player in the general run of things but no star by a country mile.[*] I suppose that a good result in the Major Open might possibly put me in the prize list, but a par result would simply put me on a moderate plus score.

[* Just to be clear, I normally describe my chess standard as crap, and have been chided before on this forum for that, as 180 something is better than 90% or so of graded players. However, being better than 90% of graded players just makes the remaining 10% loom larger in my mind, and they are all tougher, better and more knowledgeable than I am, and gaining even a single further grading point means maintaining a high level of motivation and putting in a lot of work to improve my score against those better players.]

I do not believe it would be as a easy ride as your assuming I mean their are under- rated juniors in it for one thing;

I don't assume that it would be any easy run, and would ask you to re-read my post, as you clearly failed to understand what I wrote. I did after all say that players under 2350 find other players under 2350 hard to beat, but I said that the fact that having strung together a good series of results, I normally expect to be rewarded by having a shot at a genuinely strong player, an IM, say, or even a GM.

I mean their are under- rated juniors in it for one thing;

Playing "under rated juniors" generally motivates me! Call me cynical, but I have heard of many more "under rated juniors" than ever became titled players and so I try to investigate the claim most rigorously. If they are, however, genuinely under rated, beating them on their way up is my only realistic chance to score against them!

One has to play way above his rating to win the 11 round tournament, I intend to cause some upsets.

Bon chance, mon ami.

[Paul McKeown]

The year after that, the Major Open was restricted to under 2360 (2350?). The restriction has been removed again but it's not widely known.

Thanks for the info Roger, that doesn't seem to have been widely advertised! Have many IMs or GMs taken up the opportunity?

[matt_ward]

My aim is to make money from being a total ameteur of the game of chess.

Is this realistically possible.


If this starts encouraging titled players I will withdraw and NEVER play it again!


That on their part would just be being greedy they should play in their own standard the Main Event or nothing.

Matt.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Have many IMs or GMs taken up the opportunity?

None as yet; the only such players who would be eligible are those who are neither citizens of or resident in one of the six home federations - which likely means the titled players in question would have to win the tournament just to break even on the fortnight.