Whenever I'm involved in organising a chess tournament (as in this weeks ANU Open), my mind turns to the topic of prize structures. eg What makes a good prize list? (And as chance would have it, I was asked about this yesterday on another forum)
But having thought a little bit more, I'm not sure that answering the question is the right starting point. Instead I think there is a "prior" question that needs to be answered. What is a good size prize pool?
In Australia most weekenders have the same prize structure. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, followed by a couple of ratings prizes and a junior prize. Normally 6 to 10 prizes are on offer, with a prize pool between $1000-$2000. Now the interesting thing about this is not only is the structure traditional, but the prize pools have roughly remained the same for almost 20 years. ie tournaments that offered a first prize of $500 in 1991, probably offer the same first prize today. Of course some tournaments have increased their prize funds over the years, but overall I'd be surprised if prizes have kept pace with inflation.
Doing some checking I found that the current average weekly wage in Australia is $850 ($1100 for full time workers). Using the lower figure as a starting point, I think that an argument could be made that a minimum "decent" first prize matches that figure ie $850. Following on from there (2nd $425, 3rd $210, U/2000 $150, U/16000 $150, Junior $100) I get a prize pool of $1885.
The problem with this is that it only provides 1 player with an average weekly pay packet. Assuming that Australian chess wishes to provide support to more than 1 player, the prize pool needs to increase. Assume we make second prize $850, and increase first prize to $1700 (making 3rd $425 and a new 4th prize of $210). Then the prize pool grows to $3585. Suddenly we are talking decent money.
But there is a problem. Does Australian chess have enough players to support this tournament income level on a regular basis? Unlike Europe, where you simply need to put a chess board on a table and 30 players magically appear, in Australia we literally have to beg players to enter chess tournaments. Is any tournament organiser able to generate $4000 (and I'm being cheap on expenses) in entries simply by meeting an unfilled demand for chess tournaments in Australia. Not as far as I can see.
(Just to show you how hard this is, imagine a field of 50 players, half concessions (at 50%) and half adults. To get $4000 in income entry fees would be $106.66/$53.33, which I'm guessing would cause the field to drop below 50!)
So to come to my point. As I get older and more cynical, the argument over prize structures is to my mind an irrelevant one. Until we have a situation where tournaments can be guaranteed a large (and foreseeable) income of at least $4000 it probably doesn't matter how the prizes are awarded, because no matter how we slice and dice the income stream, we aren't providing a meaningful financial incentive to the players.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
: Does Australian chess have enough players to support this tournament income level on a regular basis?
DNM: No. And you won't put more bums on seats without either:
1. Dropping the entry fee or
2. Increasing the quality of the field.
#1 is easy. You just write a smaller number on the entry form.
#2 is harder. The "top players" need to play regularly, regardless of the prise pool.
I blaim the greed of top players for not playing enough and thereby reducing the attractiveness of the event for evryone else. Who do they think they are, Kasparov? Let's face it, nobody in Australian is playing chess so they can pay their bills.
Yes, It is al about their greed and over inflated sense of their worth. They are pricing themselves out of the market and the market has spoken by demonstrating a dwindling demand.
I disagree with the notion that cheaper entry fees results in increased players. While it is true that high entry fees act as a disincentive, cheaper entry fees don't seem to act as an incentive. Why? Because the entry fee is often a small financial component in the overall tournament expense (travel, accommodation and more abstractly, time). And my experience has shown that dropping entry fees actually causes an overall decline in income, as the money sacrificed isn't made up by an increase as entries.
As for point 2 I think you misunderstand the point I'm trying to make. It isn't the lack of "top players" that is the problem, it is the lack of everyone else. What I was highlighting was the lack of financial incentive for the "top players" to play. Those that do currently play already do so for "love" rather than money. But at the end of the day this means that most top players decide to play in an event for reasons that have very little to do with the tournament itself. Without a strong attractor, the top end of the field is often a n unpredictable beast.
As an organiser what I want to see is not 2 GM's and 6 IM's in my tournament. What I would like to see is double the number of players I currently get, so I can then offer the prizes and conditions that will attract 2 GM's and 6 IM's. And I guess this comes down to the concept of chess "culture". You think the "top players" need to play, regardless of the prize pool while I wonder why the "ordinary players" don't already have the same attitude. And as there are a lot more "ordinary players" than "top players", I know which group has the greatest impact on my tournament finances.
The survival of chess in this country is the average club player, not the few superstars. They never expect a return on their entry fee.Maybe rearranging the prize pool to the entire player pool rather then the top end of town wouold increase tournament numbers. I know when I enter, I'll never win anything, just get 7 rated games.
There are lots of chess players in Australia. So why don't they play?
I think we have to blame the administrators, many of whom are non-players and don't understand marketing.
ACTJCL has a rough ratio of 1 prize per 6 entries. At our events those prizes are trophies and not money. And everyone gets a ribbon :0) We also distribute our prizes at various levels with elite prizes, rating group prizes, "special" awards and encouragement awards.
At most adult events, by the time so many money prizes are shared, I'd think the 1:6 winning ratio is probably similar.
When you get 60-100 kids to an event the overwhelming majority are nowhere near winning a prize but they turn up because they are excited to play chess. And many turn up event-after-event in full knowledge that they are well off the main prizes.
OK, they're kids, but the principle is the same. They play because they want to play chess. They'd like to win a prize but most don't and still they turn up. (We do look to that type of player when we present encouragement awards so they'll probably take home something at some stage).
When I played netball, a 10 week indoor season (one game per week so 10 games) would cost me $100 and is probably more now because it's been a few years since my knobbly knees collapsed. I played in some pretty strong teams and we often made the finals where we might win a trophy. We were actually one of those unpopular teams who often made the finals and often won the trophy. But because we won them quite often, there were many others who never won a thing.
Instead, their $100 scored them the opportunity to play something they enjoyed in an atmosphere they liked with people they also knew and liked.
Woe is the chessplayer who might do this for the same reason. No matter how you split the prize pool it will never provide a return to every player. And it will certainly not compensate "average joe" for any travel or accommodation.
So why not play because you enjoy the challenge, company, ambience and structure of an event ... and you want to play chess.
I am still very confused by the different expectations chess players have of their sport when it is compared with my experience in other sports. At the Aus Juniors we had people whose expectations were very "5 star" who failed to acknowledge that we had lots of kids there because the venue was affordable (ie not 5 star). We offered a return in prizes and giveaways of over $18000 to those players because we were not collapsing under the weight of "5 star" overheads. But you still can't win them over.
sp: Because the entry fee is often a small financial component in the overall tournament expense (travel, accommodation and more abstractly, time).
DNM: True for interstaters. Not true for locals. In NSW the locals are dropping off, not the number of visitors. We seee that in that Canberrans are still coming to Sydney to steal our prizes ;-)
1 GM/IM being advertised as coming pulls the 2000 players and the 2000s pull the head hunting club players and so on down. I hear players actualy saying that they don't want to go to a weekender unless there is going to be some quality.
Perhaps the ACF could try to cajole top players into a roster where at lest one will compete in every open weekender in each state.
A plan, no?
Libby: OK, they're kids, but the principle is the same. They play because they want to play chess. ... So why not play because you enjoy the challenge, company, ambience and structure of an event ... and you want to play chess.
DNM: Because the kids are nice and normal. A large proportion of people who continue to play chess throughout adulthood are not quite as "normal" - are more ego driven, are more insular. Thus, they need tio be marketted to with more than fairyfloss and a blue ribon. :-)
DM:1 GM/IM being advertised as coming pulls the 2000 players and the 2000s pull the head hunting club players and so on down. I hear players actually saying that they don't want to go to a weekender unless there is going to be some quality.
SP: While this is true in theory, in my experience it is a failed model. Because of what I would call the "cool kids" theory (also described by Libby as the "John, Paul, George, and Ringo" syndrome).
If we knew in advance that all the cool kids are coming to the dance, we would go as well. But we don't know whether they are coming, especially as they've got no other reason to come other than to dance with the other "cool kids".
But coercion/rosters isn't the way to solve this problem. Providing the right incentives for all players is the way to go. But as the process is a circular one (more players-> more incentive->more players) it has to start somewhere. And to me that somewhere is players deciding to play in weekend events, because they want to play chess.
The problem with the 'want to play chess'. is that players can play chess on the internet at minimal cost with quality opposition. Tournament chess need to be promoted for some differential reason.
Post a Comment