Chess Cash App Download
Lang Nunnally
Yes, this *is* meant to be a for profit tournament and while I'm not complaining about the money they're paying me to run these events, I was wondering if a "take home and feel proud" inscribed trophy makes more sense than a 10-15 dollar cash award? I'd prefer to convert the entire 10+15 prize fund into trophies ... if they don't cost much, maybe even have 3rd or 4th place so that everyone can compete for a position.
Well, I have a couple trophies on my top shelf, and I am proud of them. They certainly last longer than money (apart from the annual ones which I have to return at the end of the next season... bah!). All in all, I think trophies are better than cash prizes, for kids at least. How are they supposed to appreciate even a $30 prize when games consoles range in the hundreds? A trophy is something that cannot be 'bought'- well, at least they will see it that way.
Given that the entry fee is low, you will find it more profitable to give out trophies. Those that find cash prizes as necessary for participation usually are willing to pay more a chance to win more money and won't play in your tournament anyway.
If you have a lot of first-timers then trophies are the way to go. I'm surprised so many people say they'd take trophies over money so often, though. The only trophies I'd be proud enough to display are state or national ones, but that of course means winning prestigious events. In general, I think it's much better to return cash prizes, even if they are meager (I play Wednesday nights at DCC all the time where often 1st place is no more than $5 above what the entry fee was).
Also, I think if you have high school kids, money should definitely be given out. There were a lot of scholastic tournaments that I had no interest in playing while I was in high school because the entry fee was absurd ($40+) and all that was given in return were trophies. I feel like chess is a nice cheap hobby which can be self sustaining if you're talented and willing to put in work so that you're better than other players in your class (yes, I think class prizes are a good idea).
A kid's ability to succeed at something he's passionate about depends on parents who see that activity as worthwhile. I'd think even the most indifferent parent would start to beam a little with pride if their kid brought home something tangible beyond a 10$ cash prize.
Might also consider a middle ground such as a laminated certificate to go with the cash prize. It's easy on the pockets and you still have the kids coming home with something to make them feel special.
It's too bad that USCF chess is so expensive. I can see how it's difficult to offer substantial cash prizes when you have to pay for the venue and staff (if you don't have any volunteers). Even a 1st place finish doesn't put you in the money when you consider not only travel costs, but also membership dues.
Good points being made, and I myself - though I've won several hundreds of dollars in cash prize events - would on the whole prefer to play in low-entry-fee, nominal prize events. But that's me. Inevitably, the market determines the outcome: if entries to large cash prize events diminish, the number of such events and the prize funds attached also diminish.
I used to hold a once-a-month quick chess tourney at a local coffee shop: $2 entry fee, top 2 players take 80% of the little money there was (with the remainder reserved to pay for ratings fees). They were popular. Indeed, there are many chess players out there with very limited resources.
We need to get the deep pocketed sponsors, then we all make a bit and everyone is happy. Beer companies spend billions. Obviously, chessplayers need to drink more beer* to attract their attention. We should each make a New Year's Resolution to double our beer consumption in the coming year. It's not much, but it is a way we can give a little back to the game.
Cash prizes draw in people from outside your area. If you are in a area with a larger competitve chess playing population, then that might not be a big deal. But, in my opinion, not as many people are going to spend the money and time to drive to an event if there isn't the chance they might win the cost back, even if the chance is minimal. I know there are pretty dedicated players that will but unless they don't get very much rated chess in their area and just are trying to get whatever they can.
I am surprised we are even having this discussion. When I was naive 14 year old studying chess and playing at State Scholastic Championship, i wanted nothing else but trophy. But 10 years later, when i have invested hundreds and hundreds of hours into studying this game, it's only natural that I want to be financially compensated if i play well and win the tournament. Nowadays, I will not play in a tournament that doesn't offer cash prizes. What I think is wrong, is that tournament directors collect same entry fees from all rating groups but award higher prizes to masters.
I think it would be even more beneficial if more beer drinkers played chess. I won a Class D trophy and $50 when I was in high school. My Dad was impressed with the trophy but he was even more impressed with the $50. There were no more complaints about coming home late from chess tournaments after that.
One other way to think of it is as an entertainment cost. I have no issue paying to attend a tournament, even though I may not get a prize payout. As an example, most of our past tournaments have been 1 day, G/60, 5 round Swiss tournaments. When I played (not ran it) I get 1 day of chess entertainment, up to 10 hours, for $10. I have also attended more regional events, $40 entry, a day in a hotel, gas, and food for two days for G/90 and G/120. I haven't won money at the last two tournaments that I went to but the experience, and entertainment cost, was acceptable (can't do it often though), especially since I got to play OTB with people I couldn't play OTB with any other way.
Many Open tournies actually discriminate against players over 2200 IMO. For example, I often see big Open events where the " Open " section is for 2200 and above. Ok, this means a lowly 2200 player is competing with players as high as 2600 to 2700...... 400 to 500 points difference ! While the lower sections are often every 200 points ! 1600-1800, 1800-2000, 2000-2199 etc...... I certainly wouldnt mind myself to go back to low entry fee events where the prizes are just trophies, which is how it was back when I started out...... I have never won the " big money " prizes and the few smaller cash prizes I have won in over 30 years of play simply do not justify me continuing to pay the high entry fees being charged now at ALL tournaments... There have been several tournaments in which I won the first place prize and often just broke even after all my expenses were figured.....
On some level, it may just be culture shock. I got involved in Chess at age 45, after spending my entire adult life in the Society for Creative Anachronism. We're the medieval folks you might see wearing armor and swinging rattan weapons. In the SCA, there is never, ever, a cash prize. There's no rule against it, but it just never happens. Probably, it's because in our sport, it's too easy to cheat, and we know that a cash prize would be too tempting for people to pass up when they could get it by cheating. We just view it as something that would degrade the sport.
Bigger prize funds = more players, better players. That leads to opportunities for up and coming players to play established strong players, and others to gain the experience. Tournaments like the World Open which offer big cash prizes even in the classes try to trade on both people trying to win money and those who just want to be at a tournament where people like Gelfand, Kamsky, Nakamura, Serper, Christiansen, Fedorowitz, etc., will be playing , and hanging around in the bars and smoking areas.
How can you assert that chess players somehow stumble irrationally or unknowningly into paying for entry fees that they (apparently) should not? They should know better? They already know their own minds.
Competitors in events like prizes. Many competitive events have non-cash prizes (trophies, medals, gift certificates, etc) mainly because of a concern about amateur status (particularly high school and college athletes). Since prizes are expected and there is no concern about amateur status, the chess tournament prize might as well be cash.
Obviously, class players participate for the experience rather than for the prizes under these circumstances. But IMO it is a joke (and a bit insulting) to offer such small prizes. If that is the best they can do, IMO the tournament should forget the cash prizes for class players and simply use the money elsewhere (Like reducing the entry fee a bit).
Given the fact that better players will be at tournament A, if he understands that the higher entry fee buys him a chance at associating with (or conceivably even playing against!) those players, and he is willing to pay that price, then his decision is not irrational.* He understands what he is getting for his money and he chooses to spend it in that manner. If, on the other hand, he thinks he can win some big money, but that belief is not supported by his actual rating and chess playing ability, it is irrational. Among Chess players I talk to on that subject, I haven't noticed a level of rationality that is significantly higher than that of the general population.
ffe2fad269