The LPO this year had only 14 players in the Open section of which only 5 of those had to play in the Open as they were rated over 2200. If not for 9 players choosing to play "up" the Open section would have had only 5 players and 5 rounds. This is really sad as the LPO used to be one of my favorite events to attend and I have cherished memories from this tournament. However, as long as it has so many sections I dont intend to play in it ever again. The Open section in 92 had almost 60 players in it !
Then and Now
Sort:
L. Thad Rogers ... haven't seen that name in a long time... 
frazetta wrote:
L. Thad Rogers ... haven't seen that name in a long time...
You must not still be active in GA otb chess then ?
No... I last played in Kennesaw back in '92. So Thad is still around?
It seems the larger number of sections is due to class players insisting on playing among themselves. They dont want to play the better players and want a higher % chance of winning prizes. What this results in are tournaments with Open ( the top ) sections with only a handful of players in the section , which in turn results in very weird pairings and sometimes high rated players even getting byes. I dont intend to play in events in which the Open section consists of fewer than 20 players.
This also results in mediocrity imo. If class players never play with experts and masters I dont believe they will ever reach expert or master strength themselves.
Isn't expert/master strength still fairly mediocre in the greater scheme of things? (i.e. it's all relative)
heinzie wrote:
Isn't expert/master strength still fairly mediocre in the greater scheme of things? (i.e. it's all relative)
No, not in the US Southeast its not...... but in most European countries , yes it is. There are countries that dont have even one player rated over 2200 and several US states. So, its very dependent on the area in which you play chess as well.
Reb, I have no problem playing people who are better than me. Indeed, I like doing that for a game or two. But if for us mediocre players not having multiple sections means we tend to see only 1 or 2 competitive games in a tournament and the rest are either us getting smashed or smashing someone else.
If I want to beat on a kid rated 600 points lower than me, I can stay home and play my son. If I want to be pounded on by someone 600 points higher than me, I can pay my coach for a teaching game for a hell of a lot less money.
My ideal tournamnet is one where all 5, 6, 7 or however many games have me playing someone within a few hundred points above me. I can learn from the game, but there's still a reason to play it.
And yeah, sorry if I'm not entirely interested in funding prizes I have no hope of ever winning. Lately I've been seeing tournaments listed that allow titled players to play for free -- yet they get the biggest prize funds. But I haven't seen you complain about that practice.
The presence of titled chessplayers attracts more untitled participants and of course there will be one or two more spectators as well. chess.com applies this as well and it works
daw55124 wrote:
Reb, I have no problem playing people who are better than me. Indeed, I like doing that for a game or two. But if for us mediocre players not having multiple sections means we tend to see only 1 or 2 competitive games in a tournament and the rest are either us getting smashed or smashing someone else.
If I want to beat on a kid rated 600 points lower than me, I can stay home and play my son. If I want to be pounded on by someone 600 points higher than me, I can pay my coach for a teaching game for a hell of a lot less money.
My ideal tournamnet is one where all 5, 6, 7 or however many games have me playing someone within a few hundred points above me. I can learn from the game, but there's still a reason to play it.
And yeah, sorry if I'm not entirely interested in funding prizes I have no hope of ever winning. Lately I've been seeing tournaments listed that allow titled players to play for free -- yet they get the biggest prize funds. But I haven't seen you complain about that practice.
I have never been allowed free entry because of my NM title. As for IMs and GMs that are allowed free entry at some tournies you do know that the entry fee is often deducted from any of their winnings, right ? At least this is the case in many US tournies but in Europe they dont do that. The tournies I used to attend never had more than 3 sections unless it was a " class tourney " . The sections were usually Open, Amateur and Novice the Open cutoff was usually 1800 and up for Open Amateur was usually under 1800 and Novice often under 1400. So..... only if you were in the Open could you possibly be paired against someone 600 points higher rated. Or if you were playing " up " a section. A 5 round swiss is designed for sections with 30 to 40 players ( 32 being ideal ) ...... so to have 3 sections your tourney should be drawing more than 90 players. If 60 or less 1 or 2 sections is plenty. It looks like they are trying to turn most tourneys into class tournies now and that ruining chess and makes the swiss pairing system stupid as you get forced pairings among greatly different " score groups" . With the attitude you have I can pretty much assure you that you will never get above A or B class. But if its more important to you that you win a cash prize sometimes and you dont want to be a strong player more power to you.
i don't go to a tournament because there is a titled player there. I go to play competative chess. Giving titled players a free ride, and then allowing them to win prizes dillutes my entry fee. Asking on top of that for there to be fewer sections to ensure a larger prize for the top is just insulting.
But I guess instead of just having 3 sectiosn like Reb wants, the GMs, IMs, and NMs can just get a bunch of baseball bats and mug the class players as they come through the door. That way we'd get to meet them personally while they pick our pockets.
Class players are not under an obligation to pay the master's way.
melvinbluestone wrote:
Reb wrote:
It seems the larger number of sections is due to class players insisting on playing among themselves. They dont want to play the better players and want a higher % chance of winning prizes. What this results in are tournaments with Open ( the top ) sections with only a handful of players in the section , which in turn results in very weird pairings and sometimes high rated players even getting byes. I dont intend to play in events in which the Open section consists of fewer than 20 players.
This also results in mediocrity imo. If class players never play with experts and masters I dont believe they will ever reach expert or master strength themselves.
Thanks. I see your point. According to the logic of these players, the best of all worlds would be to play in a section with only one other player, and a lower- rated one ta' boot! But if this arrangement drives away better players, it's just "dumbing down" the quality of play. As to heinzie's comment, I'm not sure what he means....."the greater scheme of things" is not the issue here. Expert/master strength players are not mediocre compared to A or B class players. Too many sections "dilutes", so to speak, the strength of players in any one section. But as I suggested earlier, perhaps they do it to attract more entrants: more prizes, more chances to win. So,what's the record? In tournaments with sections up the ying-yang, do they have more players, bigger turn-outs?
No, they don't. Look at the participation at the 92 LPO with 3 sections compared to this years LPO with 7 !!!
daw55124 wrote:
i don't go to a tournament because there is a titled player there. I go to play competative chess. Giving titled players a free ride, and then allowing them to win prizes dillutes my entry fee. Asking on top of that for there to be fewer sections to ensure a larger prize for the top is just insulting.
But I guess instead of just having 3 sectiosn like Reb wants, the GMs, IMs, and NMs can just get a bunch of baseball bats and mug the class players as they come through the door. That way we'd get to meet them personally while they pick our pockets.
Class players are not under an obligation to pay the master's way.
Look , there's no reason for you to be afraid of the big bad masters as you would be playing the under 1800 or under 1600 sections anway, so why are you complaining ? A 3 section tourney would put you in either the amateur or novice group depending on where they have the split ratings wise.
Reb wrote:
daw55124 wrote:
Reb, I have no problem playing people who are better than me. Indeed, I like doing that for a game or two. But if for us mediocre players not having multiple sections means we tend to see only 1 or 2 competitive games in a tournament and the rest are either us getting smashed or smashing someone else.
If I want to beat on a kid rated 600 points lower than me, I can stay home and play my son. If I want to be pounded on by someone 600 points higher than me, I can pay my coach for a teaching game for a hell of a lot less money.
My ideal tournamnet is one where all 5, 6, 7 or however many games have me playing someone within a few hundred points above me. I can learn from the game, but there's still a reason to play it.
And yeah, sorry if I'm not entirely interested in funding prizes I have no hope of ever winning. Lately I've been seeing tournaments listed that allow titled players to play for free -- yet they get the biggest prize funds. But I haven't seen you complain about that practice.
I have never been allowed free entry because of my NM title. As for IMs and GMs that are allowed free entry at some tournies you do know that the entry fee is often deducted from any of their winnings, right ? At least this is the case in many US tournies but in Europe they dont do that. The tournies I used to attend never had more than 3 sections unless it was a " class tourney " . The sections were usually Open, Amateur and Novice the Open cutoff was usually 1800 and up for Open Amateur was usually under 1800 and Novice often under 1400. So..... only if you were in the Open could you possibly be paired against someone 600 points higher rated. Or if you were playing " up " a section. A 5 round swiss is designed for sections with 30 to 40 players ( 32 being ideal ) ...... so to have 3 sections your tourney should be drawing more than 90 players. If 60 or less 1 or 2 sections is plenty. It looks like they are trying to turn most tourneys into class tournies now and that ruining chess and makes the swiss pairing system stupid as you get forced pairings among greatly different " score groups" . With the attitude you have I can pretty much assure you that you will never get above A or B class. But if its more important to you that you win a cash prize sometimes and you dont want to be a strong player more power to you.
First, I have never won a prize in a tournament. Ever. I'd love to have it happen once, but I doubt it will. To suggest that my attitude about wanting to be able to play competative games is due to greed is insulting and arrogant on your part. Particularly when your recent complain was all about how the poor suffering titled players aren't making enough money off the class players because there are too many sections.
Second, I'm 45 years old and rated 1400. I gave up on the idea of getting TO class A let alone above it a long time ago. I'm not that good. I still work at the game. I study it practically every day because it's a fun intellectual challenge for me. I play regularly. I pay a titled player to work with me on my game. Your attitude towards people who simply started later in life or aren't as talented as you are is pathetic.
I love how you insist on continually overtly insulting class players and then crying because we don't voluntarily give you more of our money. And then you say it's us who are ruining chess? I show up at every tourny in driving range of my house. I don't check before hand to see if it's worth my time to go based on how many classes there are or how many entrants there are or if the prize fund is big enough in my section. I just go and play. I have played in a town with a population of 400 people and had a great time. I have played in the US Open when it was near me and had just as good a time. I've shown up and the 5 round swiss was turned into a double round robin because there were only 6 of us. And I don't see chess as being "ruined" in any of those cases because I'm more interested in playing competative games than in making money off of lower ranked people.
"I don't go to a tournament because there is a titled player there."
No, but a tournament gains more credibility if there are strong players hanging around every year, which in itself will attract more participants in future editions. It's the word-of-mouth-marketing stuff. "My friend played there last year and he had a good time, the playing conditions were good, now I want to play there too." (even if he didn't even actually play against any of the stronger players)
Just like on chess.com, which advertizes with many titled players and interaction, but how many actually write in the forums? (only a few NMs like Reb and Tonydal) How many actually actively play? Has anyone in here ever gotten the chance to play with any of them? There are dummy accounts for Nakamura, Polgar...does it matter that they aren't so active? :) No, it does not matter... simply their presence is enough to count on a broad endorsement.
First, I am not intending to insult anyone and apologize if you feel I have insulted you. My complaining has absolutely NOTHING to do with money in my case. I am concerned about having stupid pairings when too many sections force stupid pairings because of too few players in a section. A 5 round swiss tourney needs at least 20 players per section in order to NOT have these stupid pairings I am concerned with. I have won a few tournies with cash prizes but I assure you that in my almost 40 years of tourney chess I have paid a LOT more money into chess than I will ever receive. I don't care about the money ! I would still play if they just went back to giving trophies ! What I do care about is sections with too few players which forces stupid byes and stupid pairings. Whats causing this problem is too many sections and whats causing the too many sections is all the lower rated players whining for their own sections ! If you are not one of the whiners then I am not referring to you ! Look at the two LPO events I presented at the start of this thread. This used to be one of my favorite events and now I will not go to it unless they change its format. 3 sections worked fine in 92 ( and before 92 ) they get fewer players now than back then but DOUBLE the number of sections ?!! ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS
How many titled players are volunteering to coach for high school and middle school teams? I live in a major metro area and we have a pretty active chess club system amongst the schools. There are at least 15 titled players that I know of here in the metro area. Not one of them is volunteering in the scholastic program, though a few of them will take a paying student, they're not coaching.
None of them give lectures or lessons at the local chess club.
At most local tournaments they don't show up. I only see them at the large events where there are guaranteed top prizes and they can play for free. Otherwise they play in the metro league and the small tourney goes without their presence.
So, if the theory that titled players draw more participants is correct, one way to drive participation of class players would be for the titled players to get involved in chess in their local communities. Give lectures at the chess club. Volunteer with the school programs. Show up at the tournaments.
I help "coach" my son's chess team. I'm the best qualified person who's willing to show up and do that for his school. There are two titled players who live in our school district. I guess they must not care that much about the state of chess.
melvinbluestone wrote:
daw55124 wrote:
i don't go to a tournament because there is a titled player there. I go to play competative chess. Giving titled players a free ride, and then allowing them to win prizes dillutes my entry fee. Asking on top of that for there to be fewer sections to ensure a larger prize for the top is just insulting.
But I guess instead of just having 3 sectiosn like Reb wants, the GMs, IMs, and NMs can just get a bunch of baseball bats and mug the class players as they come through the door. That way we'd get to meet them personally while they pick our pockets.
Class players are not under an obligation to pay the master's way.
This is way over-the-top! Not to mention a bit extreme. But that baseball bat thing would probably draw a lot of spectators......Seriously, though, this seems to be getting off-topic. The problem implied by the initial post, the degeneration of chess "then and now", particularly in the US, is the at the core of this situation. The very idea of more sections and prizes to attract more players seems to be back-firing. Though some people like it, like daw55124, overall attendance is down. And the quality of play? Dubious, at best. So, any better, more practical ideas to beef-up chess in the US? Just look at the explosion of chess-interest in China, India and other countries! Are we just fated to go the way of our own economy and technology, taking a back seat to the competition?
Actually attendance in Alabama tournies is 25% higher this year than at this time last year, so what are they doing right ? One thing they do is that their state championship has ONLY 2 sections with the split at 1500 .....both sections have over 30 players and they usually draw around 70 players..... perfect. Another of their annual events is the Queen of Hearts in Montgomery every February and that tourney format is the same. I know players in Ga who no longer go to Ga tournies because of the "sections disease" and play all their chess in neighboring states instead. I myself will not go to any event with more than 3 sections unless its something huge like the world Open. I will check uschess.org and if the event I am thinking of going to has a history of having fewer than 20 in the Open section I will not go. Most of the players I have contact with on this matter that play the Open sections feel pretty much the same...... what will be the end result ? Only time will tell I suppose.....
3 Section(s), 194 Players
7 Section(s), 110 Players
Is this a change for the better ? I certainly think not.