Problems with US Chess

I dont know what your problem is but you seem to have a bone to pick with me so lets get some things straight: 

I lived during the 70s and even worked at a full service station a few times and never recall gas being as low as .25 cents/gallon, maybe it was where you lived ? 

40 years ago I was 18 and ac certainly DID exist back then but not everyone had it. 

I dont know where to begin on this as I havent said anything like this and how do you know what I have or havent organized in my life ? I guess you are just weak in reading comprehension ? If you think I am a crappy player where does that leave you ? 

If class players take home more money than masters I have NO problem with that as long as they play the same level of opposition as the masters do. 

Recently the FL state championship had many sections ( 7 I believe ) the Open was for 2000 and above, the winner of the Open was GM J Becerra at 2600+. So, a lowly 2000 player may play GM Becerra in the event and thats a 600 rating point difference ! Then the sections below the open were : under 2000, under 1800, under 1600, under 1400, under 1200  etc..... so these guys are all playing in a group with a range of only 200 points while the guys in the Open are playing in a group/section with a 600 point range ... 3x as much !  How is this not punishing good players ?! 

When did I say this ? I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills. 

As for the history lesson on why prizes went to cash I really don't need it as I was playing in chess tournaments when you were 6 years old.....

And what are the sections like in MN in Open events ? How many sections ? Where is the rating cutoff(s) , etc ?  Do you even play organized chess ? 

The problem is that the stronger the players, the fewer the players.  Thus, the highest tournament section will either have players with a broad rating range or a small number of players.  One solution is to have the cost of running the tournament divided among all the players in the tournament, and have the prize money for each section  provided by the players in the respective sections (That isn't the way it is now typically done.  The money is pooled and divided amongst the sections).

 In the tournaments that I play in, approximately 70% of the entry fees are returned as cash prizes.  I would just as soon have no prizes in my section and pay an entry fee reduced by 70%.

I see lots of events in the SE with only 10 to 20 players in the Open section which messes up pairings very often. The most common 5 round swiss is ideal for 32 players if you have a few over 32 the accelerated swiss pairings handle it well , if you have significantly fewer players the swiss system gets screwed up.... I see many of these in which the problem could be solved by having the Open include the A class players instead of being for 2000 and above. When I was an A class player the Opens usually did include the A class players, why the change ? And with the problems it creates why not change back ? The 2010 Southern Congress had 5 sections with only 40 players and the Open was for 2000 and up..... the result ? 

The Open section had 8 players and 3 of them didnt even have to play in the Open as they were under 2000 !  Sorry, this is just plain idiocy on stilts and is ruining chess wherever this kind of nonsense is practiced. 

With a total of 40 players 2 sections would have been more than sufficient and more than that just stupid. One section could also have worked and have accelerated swiss pairings. 

The open sections in my area are exactly that, open to any player regardless of rating.  The open section usually consists of Class A players and above with a scattering of Class B players.  Class D players like myself stick to our own section.

I understand anyone can play in the Open but at what rating is the Open section their only option ?  2000 and above ?  1800 ?  !600 ? 

Well, if you don't think you deserve the money just 'cause your a master and you understand that they are token prizes, what's your beef? From here in the cheap seats your complaint is that if you win the token prize doesn't cover your hotel. Well, if you can't afford to go to the tournament, maybe you shouldn't be there!?

And I'm glad you were playing in tournaments when I was 6. It took me till I was 8 or 9 to play in my first one. Had a lot of fun at it as well. Oddly, I never decided to not go play someplace because the prize pool wasn't big enough for me. I guess that's why I'm not a master, I'm not greedy enough.

 I did a quick check.  It looks like masters and experts (2000+) are limited to entering the open section.  The open sections have had 10 to 20 players.

Addendum:  I found a tournament where Class A players were restricted to the open section.  The open section had 28 players, and included a few Class B players.

Keep in mind that these are small tournaments (100 players or less).

Either you did not read my first post or you don't understand it . Let me draw you a picture : My problem is that the player who won first under 2200 only got $100. while the guy who won first under 1400 got $300. ! My complaint is that this is NOT fair and such prize structures need to be abandoned and fixed. Why shouldnt someone who wins 1st under 2200 get at least the same amount as the guy who wins first under 1400 ? 

Oh, and about possible prize winnings not covering expenses I dont usually go to such events and only make an exception if its something like a state championship when winning the title of state champion is more important to me than the money. If I was as concerned about the money as you seem to think I would floor my rating so that I have a shot at under 2200 money and in big events even under 2100 .... 

How many people played in each section. If the U-1400 section was 3x the size of the U-2200 section, then it makes sense that the section prize would be 3x as large.

Around here, the U-1400 section is typically quite a bit larger than the higher rated sections, that tends to be where the improving junior high and high school kids are at, and they are a very large part of the tournament scene. The upper sections tend to thin out quite quickly even in larger tournaments comparatively.

He had to play in the Open section , there were 13 players, 9 of which were under 2200 and eligible for the under 2200 prize. He played all 3 of the guys over 2200, one IM. The 1400 section had 10 players so... still seems nuts to me. 

ok, so his section was 9 players. That means his $100 prize was more than $10 per person in his section.

What was the size of the U1400 section from the same event?

The 1400 section had 10 players ... thats all 

Ok, then I agree that's off based on the size of the section.

But that's not a problem with US Chess, that's a problem with that Tournament organizer. At least in couple of tournaments I TD'ed in my life (which I will grant were pretty small things) section prizes were bsaed on entry numbers. What we guaranteed and published was based on extremely conservative entry estimates.

Unless the guy who won the U1400 also won the reserve and you're looking at an apples and oranges comparison.

http://www.scchess.org/tables/scopen/2011_sc_open_prizes.html

You can see the prizes there and the crosstables here : 

http://www.scchess.org/tables/scopen/2011scopen.htm

You're comparing apples and oranges.  There were effectively three separate tournaments, each with its own prize structure.  The total purse for the open tournament was $1200. and the total purse for the Under 1400 tournament was $700.  The "Class prize" for the open tournament, which is what your friend won, was $100, the same as the class prize for the Under 1400 tournament.

Based on the number of players in each section, the purse for the open tournament should be 40% higher than the purse for the Under 1400 tournament.  It's more than that.

The open prize fund is $86 per player, the U-1400 is $70 per player.  If both groups payed the same entry fee, the open players got a better deal (The U-1400 players had less of their entry fee returned as prize money).

CMGuess wrote:
When you compare these $0-$200 prizes for top level play(that can take decades to reach for us normal folk, btw) compared to the near 100k prizes, and 200k+ salaries in Starcraft[SC] it's pretty pathetic, and shows how chess is dying as a game

Gotta love Korea. They have their own Stacraft tv station. It's not just SC that they promote though - there's also Go, which is certainly more comparable to chess. Their organizations (and Go federations worldwide) seem to support it well enough, and since progress is more easily measurable in Go than in chess you find that professionals have a larger pool of students to attract for lessons. Not to mention that it has a novelty appeal and a great cultural appreciation, which is something that chess has lost over the years. I doubt it will ever get it back with people keeping things the way they are.

NM Reb wrote:
Today entry fees are 2 and 3 times as much as I paid in the mid 70s, hotels cost twice as much or more and meals out also about twice as much as then. The prizes offered, even if you do win, rarely even cover all the expenses of one of these tournies unless you win in something like the world open. 

That seems to be a problem. The organization itself should be providing those things to its members. It doesn't have to be free, but it would be more affordable and convenient while helping promote their seriousness to the players and the game. Kinda like a lodge/training center or similar. God forbid they should ever invest their own/membership money back into the game and community though ^^

Heh, I love the big tourneys (like the ones they throw down in vegas) but the entry fee alone is a couple hundred dollars.  The “chess rate” at the hotels is $100 a night, and the travel costs are high.  Being a class player, there is next to ZERO chance I’ll win my section, or a brilliancy prize, or anything else.  So these days I still go to those big tournaments, but only to watch the masters play.  That way, I can get away with a $300 dollar trip instead of shelling out $1,000 or more to play other beginners and miss all the master action anyhow.  Not for me.   

Great analysis.

So let's get concrete: Reb, how would you have structured the prize fund differently and why would your version be more "fair," than what was done?

To start with I would not have had more than 2 sections. It could have worked with even one using accelerated pairings. The current trend in the US is to have too many sections given the number of players. A 5 round swiss is ideal for 32 players so for each section there should be roughly 30 players. That particular tourney would have done much better to have 1600 and above in the open section and under 1600s in a second section, maybe even under 1500.