03-05-2015, 03:01 PM
If there was no money involved then I would be in support of the "one big event" idea.
Remember though that for a competition to be competitive it requires everyone to have at least a chance of doing well if not winning. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a procession and demoralising for those losing most of the time.
If you are asking competitors to contribute over and above the basic costs of staging the event then you need to provide them with a chance of a return.
This is where sections within an event are a great idea. There is more doubt as to the eventual result, individual games are closer and more exciting and those competing can gain a greater sense of achievement.
An original point in this thread was the sense of entitlement that some players have. In my opinion these players need to think about contributing more to grassroots chess rather than just taking from it.
Everyone should pay an entry fee regardless of ability, unless organisers agree with them that they provide free coaching as part of a deal.
Remember though that for a competition to be competitive it requires everyone to have at least a chance of doing well if not winning. Otherwise it becomes a bit of a procession and demoralising for those losing most of the time.
If you are asking competitors to contribute over and above the basic costs of staging the event then you need to provide them with a chance of a return.
This is where sections within an event are a great idea. There is more doubt as to the eventual result, individual games are closer and more exciting and those competing can gain a greater sense of achievement.
An original point in this thread was the sense of entitlement that some players have. In my opinion these players need to think about contributing more to grassroots chess rather than just taking from it.
Everyone should pay an entry fee regardless of ability, unless organisers agree with them that they provide free coaching as part of a deal.