Problems with US Chess

A good friend of mine ( also an NM ) recently played in a tournament and scored 3-2, winning 3 games and losing two. He won first place for under 2200 ( he is a senior and his rating has dropped below 2200 ) and got a mere $100. for his result , which didnt even cover his 2 nights in a hotel. Contrast this with the winner of the under 1400 section winning $300. and I dont know what to say about this type of situation other than good players are " punished " for being good players . The winner of the under 1400 section didnt play anyone over 1400 while my friend played 1 IM and 2 NMs , 1 A, player and 1 B class player.  Where is the incentive to improve in US chess ?! This type of prize structure only encourages sandbagging practices imo. I pointed this out to my friend and he said that if you dont appeal to the weaker players to come there will be NO prize fund !  He is right ofcourse and this is one of the big problems/weaknesses of US chess and explains why US players are at a huge disadvantage compared to their European counterparts... the incentive to improve is removed from US players due to the fact that the prizes all come from entry fees and there is no sponsorship in the US as there is in Europe. While my friend is correct I think I am also correct and that the better you get in the US the more you are punished !  

$300 doesn't seem to be worth sandbagging for.

Did you mean that your friend won the U2200 "class" prize of 100 but the other guy won 300 for the reserve "section"?

If so, it is not exactly apples to oranges (section prize vs. class prize),  is it?

Though I understand how messed up the entire system of using "entry fees" to directly translate to prizes. I TD'ed a tournament a few weeks ago where the U1400 winner breezed through the two days of a tournament and the open section winner fought wars and pushed himself to the limit against almost all B/A/Expert rated players  (atleast 2 of the 5 games were time-scrambles with clock slapping in the end) ....and yet the diff. in the two section "1st place" prizes was about 50-75 bucks.

Based on your post, I take that in Europe, somebody usually sponsors money into a tournament prize fund which thereby takes away this need to give equal stakes for the lower class levels?

This has me wondering ... what %age of US Chess players actually play  for the money?

Yes, in Europe the prize money isnt from entry fees alone and this makes a big difference and so you dont see such weird "results" and you also dont see such high entry fees in relation to the prize money to be won. Also, the tournies here tend to be one big section and it may or may not have prizes for the lower classes. They do often have prizes though for "best female", best senior, best junior, etc. 

The U.S. is far more purely capitalist.

The beauty of that is, if you have a real beef with how underpaid chess players are, you can do something about it.

You can organize a grassroots movement, or fund-raise for a big one-off tournament (in hopes of turning it into a recurring thing), or undertake a large and profitable capitalist venture of your own with the intent of funnelling profits into chess incentives.

You can't really blame "the U.S."  They're not out there subsidizing World of Warcraft games or bowling tournaments, either.  The games are subsidized in proportion to the efforts and dedication of the players and enthusiasts.

All of which is to say, if you've got a problem with it, do something about it.  Absolutely nothing stops anyone making, say, $100k a year in salary from using $10k of it to fund a purse in a big local tournament.  (Likewise, nothing stops anyone who isn't making 100K from determining to make 100k.)  Get people to do that in 50 different cities once a year, and you've got a nice, fat, juicy grassroots movement.

But then, we'd all rather keep our $10k, and hope for "someone else" to bail us out.  That's the American way, after all.  Right?

That's exactly the problem. Tournament directors, and the organizations that run these gargantuan open tournaments (like the CCA), get to charge U1400 players the same amount as NMs such as yourself. National masters are in approximately the 98th percentile of chess players in the USCF. It doesn't take a degree in economics to recognize that going after just that 2% that might win money in a one-section tournament isn't economically feasible.

But I'm a young, supposedly underrated class player, so I'm not complaining

thx reb you oppened my eyes. i wanted to train in all secret and then get all the under this and that cash. But i never believed they were only like 100 or 300 dollar. Thats like a crying shame. 

To my knowledge only the world open has really big prizes for class players. Ofcourse you pay really big entry fees there too.... 

PUMAPRIDE, some tournaments have much bigger prize funds for lower sections and class prizes. For example:

• The tournament announcement for the World Open (which just finished) gave these prizes for the U1300 section (the lowest): $12000-6000-3000-1500-1000-900-800-700-600-500, top Under 1100 (no Unr) $2000-1000, top Under 900 (no Unr) $1000-500. The earliest entry fees are around $300
• U1300 section at the Continental Open (reasonably large tournament): $1600-800-400-300-200. Entry is about $140
• The U1500 section for the Manhattan Open (which promotes itself as "Big money chess returns to the Big Apple): $4000-2000-1000-800-700-600-500-400-300-300, top Under 1300 $1000-500.

So there are tournaments where class players such as ourselves can get decent prizes. Training in secret and not playing tournaments is a good idea (aside from the limits on how much an unrated can win). One might say that these 100-people sections don't give you a chance, but you still only have to play 6 people.

what do you think of the possibility of cheating in open tournaments?? Isnt the chance that people use computer there much bigger?? i mean how do they want to look over all those people there??

Luckily (?), the players themselves get pretty paranoid. I know I do when my opponent is listening to an iPod. And I'd guess some of the behavior would be pretty easy to see, whether it's their actions (ear covering, leaving the table on their move only to return and quickly play a move) or the situation on the board (no 1600 is going to calculate some forced mate in 12 in half a minute; Houdini can).

Define " master level " ? 

Here in Binghamton, a local businessman/city council member (John Cordisco) decided to organize some tournaments to revive interest in chess.  He offered free memberships to former players whose USCF memberships had expired, and contributed money out of his pocket toward the prize funds.  After two years of doing this, he had something like 12 people signed up to the USCF, of which only two have played in more than the tourney that renewed their memberships.  The regular competitors in these events has dwindled to 10-12 players showing up, and all his contributions to the prize fund has done is to leave him down several thousand dollars.  You can't get the players without the money, and you can't get the money without the players.  My only solution to this is to say screw the money, play for the game.  I remember in the 80s reading an article by GM Joel Benjamin in the New York State Chess Bulletin complaining about his mother once again winning more money at the NYS Championships than he did (and he had to play GMs and IMs).  It makes you respect the players of the 50's and 60s who kept chess going without the class prizes.

Trying to make a living playing chess in the US has about the same chance of success as trying to make a living playing Bridge. Over here it's just an amusing parlor game to most people. It's not considered an art form or a science or a sport like it is in Europe.

If you want to make a living at games in the US take up something dangerous and then you will have plenty of support. We're a lot like Ancient Rome in that way. If killing people in an arena were legal in the US that would draw the biggest crowds and the most money.

Chess boxing is the way to go ...

 Have you ever tried battle chess on the PC? Whenever you take a piece your piece pulls out a weapon and slaughters the enemy piece complete with blood and gore.

" it's just an amusing parlor game "

 Unfortunately that's the way it is viewd by many in the US. As if it were no different than checkers, scrabble, monopoly..etc. We're a bit behind over here sometimes.

One simple solution..

Move to Europe (not to US.. cough Reb)

After being in Europe almost 14 years I prefer to go back to the US where there are certain advantages , none in chess however. The cost of living is lower, the food and weather both better and all my family is in the US...... 

Actually there are a few chess advantages too , but very few.