14-04-2014, 09:43 AM
Kevin raises some interesting ideas at the beginning of this thread.
1. Free entries to titled players
I have no strong feeling over whether this is the right thing to do or not. However, I would say that I am personally very grateful when tournaments offer free entries. It is a relatively small amount of money and I agree with the majority of contributors who've said it is really up to organisers to decide what they want to do with their own congress.
2. Prize money
Over the past 15 - 20 years the prize money at the Scottish congresses has really declined and I sense that there is a strong feeling that this doesn't really matter (because it was often English GMs coming across the border and taking the money). I think this is a really misguided perspective - I think Scottish chess has lost a lot from not having the fairly regular £500, or even £750 first prizes.
3. Entry Fees
Kevin suggested that entry fees should rise 20% and they would still be dirt cheap. That is a tough one, when you've got travelling and accommodation expense to account for as well then entry fees are relatively cheap in the overall scheme or things. However, for a significant number of players I would suggest entry fees are far from dirt cheap.
4. Spending priorities
Kevin suggested that Chess Scotland should spend no money on adults and everything on junior chess. I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view, however I think it is quite a lot more complicated than Kevin suggests. Firstly, I think there is a third main area of expenditure that may become increasing significant to federations, namely seniors' chess. After all we are talking about spending £5,500 on the Olympiad team where the prospects of a medal are zero and a lot of money will be spent on international junior chess (mainly by the parents) and the realistic prospects of a medal are probably only a fraction above zero. On the other hand, Craig Pritchett represented Scotland at the European Seniors (presumably with relatively modest expenditure) and was seeded 4 or 5.
When we talk about junior chess (in federation terms) we are often talking about World and European Championships. As you will see on the thread started by Jacqui Thomas the cost of these events is colossal and the whole of Chess Scotland's resources could soon be eaten up. I would suggest that if you want to prioritise junior chess you need to think clearly about the most effective ways of spending the money. As Robin Moore points out the Commonwealth Championships in Glasgow is surely a much more economic way of giving our best juniors international experience than jetting them half way around the world. I appreciate that this is an unusual situation, but in normal years there are lots of big European Open which are easy to get to, better experience and vastly cheaper than World and European Championships.
1. Free entries to titled players
I have no strong feeling over whether this is the right thing to do or not. However, I would say that I am personally very grateful when tournaments offer free entries. It is a relatively small amount of money and I agree with the majority of contributors who've said it is really up to organisers to decide what they want to do with their own congress.
2. Prize money
Over the past 15 - 20 years the prize money at the Scottish congresses has really declined and I sense that there is a strong feeling that this doesn't really matter (because it was often English GMs coming across the border and taking the money). I think this is a really misguided perspective - I think Scottish chess has lost a lot from not having the fairly regular £500, or even £750 first prizes.
3. Entry Fees
Kevin suggested that entry fees should rise 20% and they would still be dirt cheap. That is a tough one, when you've got travelling and accommodation expense to account for as well then entry fees are relatively cheap in the overall scheme or things. However, for a significant number of players I would suggest entry fees are far from dirt cheap.
4. Spending priorities
Kevin suggested that Chess Scotland should spend no money on adults and everything on junior chess. I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view, however I think it is quite a lot more complicated than Kevin suggests. Firstly, I think there is a third main area of expenditure that may become increasing significant to federations, namely seniors' chess. After all we are talking about spending £5,500 on the Olympiad team where the prospects of a medal are zero and a lot of money will be spent on international junior chess (mainly by the parents) and the realistic prospects of a medal are probably only a fraction above zero. On the other hand, Craig Pritchett represented Scotland at the European Seniors (presumably with relatively modest expenditure) and was seeded 4 or 5.
When we talk about junior chess (in federation terms) we are often talking about World and European Championships. As you will see on the thread started by Jacqui Thomas the cost of these events is colossal and the whole of Chess Scotland's resources could soon be eaten up. I would suggest that if you want to prioritise junior chess you need to think clearly about the most effective ways of spending the money. As Robin Moore points out the Commonwealth Championships in Glasgow is surely a much more economic way of giving our best juniors international experience than jetting them half way around the world. I appreciate that this is an unusual situation, but in normal years there are lots of big European Open which are easy to get to, better experience and vastly cheaper than World and European Championships.