Tournament entry fees.

[Lee Bullock]

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.

No nick. The norm events did not go ahead either. And they knew probably weeks before about this but did not lower any entry fees. And I didn’t want to embarrass the organiser who I know only wants to get the event popular etc. But they are doing things the opposite way round. You don’t go big when you are still small.

And you only had to PM me like 3 others did and I would of told you.

[Matt Mackenzie]

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.

That's just an occupational hazard of the Swiss system, though. And its not like Koneru didn't prove her worth as a player subsequently.

[LawrenceCooper]

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

They were once explained to me as prizes for players with the least accurate grades.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I hope the overseas players in the cancelled events got plenty of notice.

[Ian Thompson]

I hope the overseas players in the cancelled events got plenty of notice.

The players who did enter probably never had a confirmed place in the event because the entry form suggests that no-one's place is guaranteed until all entrants are confirmed by the organiser. Hopefully, no-one made any travel or accommodation arrangements that they couldn't cancel.

[Joey Stewart]

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

They were once explained to me as prizes for players with the least accurate grades.

Yeah, or alternatively prizes for tournament organisers that hate the best players - there was a particularly egregious incident of this in the Cotswold tournament this year where they received an unexpected large donation mid tournament and so created about ten extra boundaries for grading prizes ( some of them with only two or three players eligible) while the section winners were left with less prizes for putting in a far better performance!

[Brendan O'Gorman]

As one of the section winners at the Cotswold congress, can I just say that I had no objection to the granting of extra rating prizes. These amateur events are meant to be fun. If organisers want to spread the joy around, good luck to them.

[Derrick Walker]

Yeah, or alternatively prizes for tournament organisers that hate the best players - there was a particularly egregious incident of this in the Cotswold tournament this year where they received an unexpected large donation mid tournament and so created about ten extra boundaries for grading prizes ( some of them with only two or three players eligible) while the section winners were left with less prizes for putting in a far better performance!

If you are going to make stuff up to support your point, make sure the person who set the boundaries isn't on the site to read it. The boundaries were set at 8-10 people, easy enough to check on Chess-results against the list of winners. Whether the money was a mid-competition donation or not I can't remember, but I don't believe so. The organisers decided rating prizes were to be given so, as one of the arbiter's, that's how I set them. Not sure how that is egregious, seems a fairly common occurrence for rating prizes to be set after the start of the tournament.

[NickFaulks]

If you are going to make stuff up to support your point, make sure the person who set the boundaries isn't on the site to read it.

Sounds like good advice.

[Roger Lancaster]

I suspect that one or two of the contributors to this thread have limited experience of organising tournaments. I've come across one-day rapidplays costing £30-40 to enter, by comparison with which £60 for a weekend Swiss - I assume that's what the original poster had in mind - isn't obviously outrageous. Main single factor affecting entry fees is usually the venue cost and, without knowing this, it's impossible to know whether the organiser is charging unreasonably high fees. Also, largely because venue costs are paid in advance and are usually non-refundable, it's not a risk-free venture for the organiser. I'm aware of one particular organiser - not the most competent, admittedly - who sometime ago lost what I'd estimate to be at least £1,000 running tournaments. As far as I am aware, no-one offered to bail him out. Organisers' profits on some events subsidise losses on others.

[Roger de Coverly]

Main single factor affecting entry fees is usually the venue cost and, without knowing this, it's impossible to know whether the organiser is charging unreasonably high fees.

I've been informed that the 4NCL balance the equation between decent prizes and competitive entry fees by getting the hotel venues for nothing. That's how hotel chains sometimes operate, if you can assure them of a certain number of bookings, they make their conference facilities available without charge. There was an outfit called Chess National Promotions which I imagine was doing this in the 1970s. It used venues such as the Maidenhead Holiday Inn which were also used by the 4NCL decades later.

I don't know if it's still the case, but in the e2e4 era there used to be complimentary hotel rooms as well, which could be made available for arbiters and invited players.

[Roger de Coverly]

Main single factor affecting entry fees is usually the venue cost and, without knowing this, it's impossible to know whether the organiser is charging unreasonably high fees.

I've been informed that the 4NCL balance the equation between decent prizes and competitive entry fees by getting the hotel venues for nothing. That's how hotel chains sometimes operate, if you can assure them of a certain number of bookings, they make their conference facilities available without charge. There was an outfit called Chess National Promotions which I imagine was doing this in the 1970s. It used venues such as the Maidenhead Holiday Inn which were also used by the 4NCL decades later.

I don't know if it's still the case, but in the e2e4 era there used to be complimentary hotel rooms as well, which could be made available for arbiters and invited players.

[Roger Lancaster]

Main single factor affecting entry fees is usually the venue cost and, without knowing this, it's impossible to know whether the organiser is charging unreasonably high fees.

I've been informed that the 4NCL balance the equation between decent prizes and competitive entry fees by getting the hotel venues for nothing. That's how hotel chains sometimes operate, if you can assure them of a certain number of bookings, they make their conference facilities available without charge. There was an outfit called Chess National Promotions which I imagine was doing this in the 1970s. It used venues such as the Maidenhead Holiday Inn which were also used by the 4NCL decades later.

I don't know if it's still the case, but in the e2e4 era there used to be complimentary hotel rooms as well, which could be made available for arbiters and invited players.

Hi Roger. Agreed but for most organisers, how confident can he or she be about the number of hotel bookings? Local entrants are likely to travel each day rather than stay overnight and even more distant entrants may shop around for a cheaper hotel. Over and above that, chess tournaments aren't necessarily the most attractive events for hotels to host - chances are that the hotel bar isn't going to run out of drinks!

[Matt Mackenzie]

Over and above that, chess tournaments aren't necessarily the most attractive events for hotels to host - chances are that the hotel bar isn't going to run out of drinks!

Really? In my experience most active chess players are not, shall we say, teetotallers.

Though it may be a bit different for younger folk

[Jon Underwood]

I'd have thought ratings prizes, appropriately set, comfortably pay for themselves. If you don't give everyone something to play for many of them won't. If I'm thinking about a local event and I see Keith Arkell, Jack and some visiting FM on the player list I do lose a certain amount of enthusiasm!

Though I do accept that these days the consolation prizes are likely to be hoovered up by massively under-rated juniors, but a man can dream.

An overseas congress I played in last year actually charges titled players more, this despite the fact that their prize fund is a multiple of the total entry fee, I presume due to subsidy or sponsorship.