The website for the 2008 Australian Chess Championship is now up and can be viewed at http://www.parramattachess.org/auschamps2008/index.html
In comparing this event to the 2006-07 Australian Open it is clear that the organisers have accepted the reality of potentially smaller fields and have budgeted accordingly.
The entry fees are pretty much the same for the Championship ($170 v $180 for the open) although the fees for the subsidiary events are significantly different ($130 v $70 at the Open). Even the recommended accommodation choices are equivalent with $145 full board per night in Parramatta v $135 full board per night in Canberra.
One area where I expect the Championship to do well is in the strength of the field. The Australian Open attracted 4 GM's and 2 IM's to play, but the strength dropped away pretty quickly after that. While the Championship probably won't draw the same number of GM's, Australian IM's seem to be willing to contest the Championship, as opposed to ignoring the Open.
The smart thing that the Championship organisers have done is to be more realistic about the prize money. The overall prize pool for the Australian Open was $16,000, with $12,000 in the open, and $2,000 each in the Major and Minor. For this years championship there is a total prize pool of $8,150, with $4,500 in the championship, $2,150 in the Major and $1,500 in the Minor.
For those that may bemoan the drop in prize money just have to realise that big prize tournaments are not sustainable in Australia unless it is clear that a significant number of players support them. Until that time we just have to be used to smaller returns on our chess investments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
"For those that may bemoan the drop in prize money just have to realise that big prize tournaments are not sustainable in Australia unless it is clear that a significant number of players support them."
I'd say that big prizemoney events are perfectly sustainable, but they need to be organised a long way ahead of time.
I congratulate the Parramatta and Canberra organisers for stepping in late to organise such important events. However for such events to be really successful, they ideally need an 18 month horizon in order to attract sponsors, secure the participation of top players, and generate some buzz.
Wouldn't it be great if the prizegiving at Parramatta next year began with an announcement of the location and details of the following year's Open, and distribution of brochures and entry forms?
A number of years ago I would have agreed with this, but not anymore.
In the case of an Australian Championship or Open, I believe this should be the No.1 priority tournament for Australian Chess Players. And it should be the top of a chain that goes fun chess -> club chess -> weekend chess -> championship chess. There are those (the majority) that won't go beyond fun chess, those that stop at club chess etc Certainly the smallest group should be championship chess. But the size of that group should represent a definable number of committed chess players. Instead what we see each year is that group shrink, predictably in the case of the Australian Open. And yet the expectation is that somehow the organisers have not done enough to move players from one group to the one above it. As an (ex)-organiser I'm no longer accepting the blame for the non-appearance of players who weren't turning up anyway.
My other belief is deep down chess players resent having to "thank" organisers by having to turn up. Instead they believe that organisers should thank them instead, for playing in their events. That is why the more successful chess tournaments do well with "I'm new and shiny, look at me, look at me" approach, while the solid "I'm here every year" tournaments never seem to grow by all that much (cf ANU Open this year, drop in Doeberl numbers this year).
Warning: Check the venue before playing there.
The playing hall "Parramatta RSL Chess Club located in Parramatta" has the worst lighting of any playing hall I have played. Wish they put in 25 Watt globes (at least) for the tournament and replace the glow worms currently in use.
Have you seen any photos inside the hall under normal tournament playing conditions?
"That is why the more successful chess tournaments do well with "I'm new and shiny, look at me, look at me" approach, while the solid "I'm here every year" tournaments never seem to grow by all that much (cf ANU Open this year, drop in Doeberl numbers this year)."
It's not fair to judge the Doeberl by "growth", since it has been Australia's most successful tournament for many, many years. Even after a small drop this year, the Doeberl is easily the biggest tournament of the year.
Don't the Doeberl and SIO disprove your contention that big fields and large prizes are not possible (without making losses)? Just because it hasn't happened in 07-08 for the Championship doesn't mean it is the end. Brisbane 06 wasn't all that long ago..
I can't speak for the SIO, but the Doeberl Cup took an absolute bath this year. Even with the extra sponsorship money we made a substantial loss, mainly due to the extra expenses for GM's, as well as the drop in income from the smaller field.
But do I think the Doeberl Cup is an exception to the point I was making, even if I did use it as evidence. The reason that the Doeberl Cup is so large is because it has always been large. Players know that there are always going to be a whole lot of players there so they enter, in part as it validates their choice to be a chess player.
And if it was certain that 300 players entered the Australian Championship/Open every year I'm sure that 300 players (or more) would enter every year. And there would be a queue of organisers out the door.
Not sure where to post this but I wanted to ask if anyone has heard of National Clicks?
Can someone help me find it?
Overheard some co-workers talking about it all week but didn't have time to ask so I thought I would post it here to see if someone could help me out.
Seems to be getting alot of buzz right now.
Thanks
Post a Comment