Why do people play in OTB tournaments with cash prizes?

Last week, we witnessed the spectacle of hundreds of millions of Americans plunking down small and large sums of cash for an opportunity to pretend that they would be wealthy the next morning when their lottery tickets paid off.  It is seriously irrational behavior, although I must admit that the state of Michigan got one dollar of my money so that I could participate in the happening.

Sometimes I think Chess players are just as irrational as lottery players when it comes to the hope of winning money in Chess tournaments.  Let’s be real for a minute.  There is a very limited chance that you will win a prize in a Chess tournament, unless you are a grandmaster, or unless you can be very confident that you will be among the highest rated players at that particular tournament.

But what about the Under 1000 section, or the Class prizes?  Let’s think about this.  Who wins those prizes?  The answer is that you will win those prizes if your actual performance is a good deal better than your rating.  There are a few circumstances that make it likely you will win that prize.  You might be a rising star whose rating hasn’t caught up to your performance.  You might be someone who has been practicing a lot in online or computer Chess, and your skill today is much higher than the last time you played in a rated tournament.  You might be a sandbagger who cheated to deliberately lower his rating so that he could win a cash prize.  Whatever the case, the typical player is more likely to win a cash prize than he is to win the Mega Millions lottery, but not a lot more likely.  Ordinary, run of the mill, players, just don’t win prizes.  (Exception:  ratings based quad tournaments.  The nature of the signup process makes it possible for an ordinary player to win, although even there, a player underrated due to circumstances as described above has a huge advantage.)

Given those circumstances, why do players insist on cash prizes, and large ones at that?  If there are sponsors or advertisers or some other source of revenue, then it makes sense.  However, the vast majority of cash prizes come from player entry fees.  You, yourself, are paying for that prize that you have very little chance of winning.  Why do you do it?  Indeed, you don’t just do it, you insist that it be done.  Many people refuse to go to a tournament unless they are given the opportunity to give their money to the masters, the sandbaggers, and the wunderkinder.

I don’t get it.  Can you explain it to me?

I guess I'm not ordinary

Whats the point of doing anything just because there is many others who may succeed over you? The point is if nobody tried to do anything because of adversity, we wouldn't have computers to have this thread to begin with. We would not have cars, phones, relationships. Imagine everybody said oh, that girl has another million guys who could ask her out so I wont bother. We would not have a population. We would be extinct. It is about the experience, the journey, not the destination.

Well, you could make it so that no prize exceed the entry fee... but obviously a bigger cash prize draws more players.

I think it's a mistake to think that the grand prize draws most people -- IMO it should behave like a trickle down effect.  The large prize draws the strongest players, which in turn draw those a tier or two below them looking for a scalp (e.g. a strong expert wanting to scalp an FM or a FM wanting to scalp a GM etc).

"Regular" players like me, obviously have no hopes of winning or scalping, but I know that such a large event will draw a lot of players -- possibly some from out of state I've never gotten a chance to play... so now the tournament is more attractive to me.

In short, I think us regular players make assumptions about the nature of the event based in part by the cash prizes offered.  I've attended a small, one day, 15 player event once.  No complaints except I knew everyone there.  A large tourney is more worth the time and money it takes to play IMO.

It's marketing and costs.

Prizes can draw in the higher rated players. The possibility of higher rated players will draw in other high rated players and others who want to play them. The lower rated players often just want to play rated chess and they'll come too, unless maybe the cost is just too high.

Lower the prize fund and the higher rated players might not come. Remove it all together and you are looking at a different risk proposition. Higher rated players from farther away are less likely to come as they can't recoup their costs and they risk rating points to players that are getting better, potentially sandbagging, and just players having a great day (or themselves having a bad day).

Local players would probably play either way. It all comes down to who you want to pull in and from how far you want to pull them in from.

I know I don't go to any tournament with the expectation that I will walk away with prizes. I go to play and get experience. I know there are costs associated with the event and some of those include having an enticing enough prize fund to pull in good players.

That's not the kids fault, it the greedy organizers who offer cheap (non-USCF) rating systems and cheat (plastic trophy) prizes.

Some may be able to legitimately argue they're keeping costs low for parents.

But yes, most kids are underrated.  If an 11 year old rated 1100 is sitting across for me, I'm making no assumptions until I see the first blunder :)

I think most kids play for the fun of it... beating an adult is just icing on the cake heh.

philosophical query?

most people are there to play, the experience, and a chance at the money.  what's really interesting is why so many players play up a section - i placed t-2nd in a class section once in a cca event and lost rating because the majority of my opponents were playing up a class section.

If you lost rating points because of those players it seems they're decision was correct as they must have been underrated.

i don't think they placed in the money, and if they are underrated, they may as well prove it by winning their respective rating section.  to each, their own, however.

Some people, including myself and obviously many others, get simple enjoyment from just taking part and enjoying a game of competitive chess for the buzz! Regardless of the slim chance of walking away with 2-3x your entrance fee, for a lot of people, including every single IM, GM or titled player, and ordinary people like me, play or have played in cash-prize OTB tournaments, mostly for sheer fun and meeting new people with a love for chess at the venue. I play for my club in a county league - no cash involved... I play for fun... but knowing that there is money at stake in OTB tournaments makes the whole experience of an OTB so much more exciting! Ask anyone who has played in tournaments ;)

Because playing in OTB tournaments without cash prizes would be even more pointless.

Well, if they weren't close to a plus score I guess I'd be pretty annoyed :)  They can screw up ratings and tie breaks and all that.

In U-something tournaments I guess most people believe they can really win something, or at least they want some sort of motivator, a stake, to make the tournament more exciting. At mixed events amateurs typically pay money to play against/next to pros, thus improving their chess and getting an interesting life experience.

Speaking for myself, as a 1500 rated player USCF there is no way I would pay the entry fee plus any other expense I might incur just to get crushed repeatedly in the open section. I'd want to hit at least 1800 or better before I did that. Moreover, the chances that I would be paired against a GM in round 1 are low. Personally, I'd rather pay the GM for his or her time for some lessons. That's probably more instructive to the class player.

That said, I think you are right on the money that most people really do believe they can win something, at least initially. The money adds a dimension of competition that forces everyone to play at 100%.

(This leads me to a cute story of a guy I know in Michigan who would take the bus distant tournaments. He usually only had money to travel one-way, so he depended on the prize money to get back or he had to hitchhike. Win or walk is serious motivation to play well.)

Finally, I can happily report that I have won money at a large tournament. Not a lot; my $150 prize was part of a bigger purse that got split among the winners. So it does happen.

Meadmaker,

I know for a fact that smurfing happens at large USCF events. Someone throws games at small tournaments or at that club and then winds up in the C section competing for a $5000 prize when they should be in the A or open section. Sometimes, though, the prizes are won by players who are prodigies of some sort (read future GMs) who are working their way up the food chain. At really, really big events it is probably true that your chances of winning a large prize is limited, but to compare it to winning the lottery? It isn't the same - not by a longshot.

in rye n.h. you used to be able to play a rated chess game for 1$ a game.there were never more than 5 or 6 players. It takes the glamor of cash to bring a crowd.

Your entry fee pays to rent the venue.  Usually 80 percent of the fees are returned as prizes.  Most TDs provide a public good, especially for kids.

What planet does the OP hail from?

Buy yourself a few decent chess books, and get with the program.  Yes, it's entirely voluntary, and most folks enjoy it.  Why is this not obvious to you?

So you bought a lottery ticket to commiserate with all the other "stupid losers?"  Yikes.  

I phrased the question a little badly in the title. What I meant was that they compete in tournaments with cash prizes, and avoid tournaments with no cash prizes.

As kborg noted, your entry fee rents the venue, but 80% is returned as prizes.  Therefore, if you ditched the prizes, you could cut the entry fee by 80%.

I understand and agree with that.  (And my rating proves it!)  I just wonder why I ought to pay the people who will succeed over me.

But more importantly, I wonder why so many people who are almost certain to lose their entry fees will still choose to attend a tournament with cash prizes when there is a much cheaper, prizeless, tournament available.