Poll: Would you be interested in playing in this chess festival?
This poll is closed.
I am over 1800 and would be very interested in playing in Group B
57.69%
15 57.69%
I am under 1800 and would be very interested in playing in Group C
19.23%
5 19.23%
No I am not interested (please comment why thanks Smile )
23.08%
6 23.08%
Total 26 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scottish Winter Chess Festival
#31
Clement Sreeves Wrote:Yeah look what happened to Jonathan Edwards when he tried to be ambitious.

Jonathan did terrifically well with the Scottish Blitz tournament but Edinburgh CC wouldn’t have that kind of capacity; sounds like the players with less exalted ratings are finding the cost of the juggling too high. To try to bring them in, is there maybe any leeway in the conditions offered to titled players? It’s difficult I know to make announcements when nothing is fixed. Just a thought. Yeah, it’s easier just to turn up and play e4…
Reply
#32
Quote:David ,I wish you every success but I honestly think you are being way too ambitious too quick.
Perhaps you're just being way too negative too quickly? David's Armageddon events at Edinburgh CC have proven to be very successful and I see no reason why this projected event should be any different =)
Reply
#33
He will succeed because he is asking the right people the right questions!
"How sad to see, what used to be, a model of decorum and tranquility become like any other sport, a battleground for rival ideologies to slug it out with glee"
Reply
#34
OK ! so I'm not one of the 'right people' but I don't think a cautious approach is being negative, David has already conceded that his entry fees will need to be rethought. I was trying to be constructive but clearly
the prevailing thread wind is with "Way to go David" norm aspirants.
Reply
#35
Great idea, would be interested but not at £200 entry fee. If the purpose of the event is purely to give norm chances then how about no prizes (or just a first prize), charge a small entry fee and use to give some conditions to IMs/GMs.
Reply
#36
I don't think I could commit to a nine-day tournament at this time of year, but if weekend events were run alongside either before or after New Year (handily on a Wednesday this year) I would be interested.

It seems we have the same "Catch-22" here we have with the Scottish. Players of my standard (~1900) will happily pay for the chance to play IMs and GMs, but anyone seeking a norm doesn't really want to meet players below about 2100.

Suggestion for a 'condition' - a free pass to see the Pet Shop Boys at the Hogmanay celebrations.
I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine
Reply
#37
Peter G is so diplomatic that he is seemingly having difficulty getting his point across.
What about an aspirational tournament and an open, separately funded by their respective entrants? That might have wider appeal.
Reply
#38
There is another alternative which is a hybrid system between an all-play-all and an open. For example players pay £50 and are split into groups (of not more than 20) based on rating. You could have prizes of £400, £200, £100.
This system has some advantages and it should mean that most of the games are very competitive. Personally, I am not a big fan, but they have used it at a tournament in Amersham for a good number of years and there are certainly players who like it a lot.
Reply
#39
From my understanding tournament is pretty much as follow:

Idea is to have a closed all play all to generate norm opportunities for a few 2200+. To do that you need to have enough GMs/IMs and for the it costs money.

Initial idea was to have a lower section(s) that would help offset costs. Then it was to get norm aspirants to contribute.

If primary aim is the closed open would it not also be possible to see if there is any potential for sponsorship. It might require extra work both getting sponsors and then running it in a way that gives sponsors publicity but since a lot of arguments have been financial that is an approach that can be considered. Depending on how successful that is then lower events might not even be needed or would simply be used to bolster prizes/lower entry fees.

Other thing that can be considered is whether dates selected increase or decrease entry level. On the one hand students etc can make dates quite easily. On the other hand anyone that has to work over xmas/new year break (most places give xmas, boxing day, new year's day and 2nd if following scottish holidays with rest depending on coverage) may find it difficult to get all those days off from work. Some people also visit family etc during that time.

As an additional thought would something like this be easier or harder to organise close to commonwealth games since I would assume that a lot of strong players should be in scotland at around that time.

I personally hope idea works out but don't really consider myself part of target demographic for tournament so it's more altruistic thoughts on good of chess in scotland that anything for myself
Reply
#40
All-play-all are great and everyone enjoys them, but the problem is that they are so damn expensive. If you have three professional players then you have to cover travel, accommodation and allow them to make a profit, either through prize money (or they would generally prefer a fee). Sponsorship is pretty unlikely to be significant unless you are very very lucky, so you are left with 7 players to raise a significant sum from and some of these will have to be foreign and/or FMs. That makes the economics really tough.
It isn't too hard to come up with creative ways of getting round this, but putting it into practice is all a different matter. Here is an idea that you can use, you have two teams of nine players who play against each other

Team A 3 GMs 4 FMs 2 2200's

Team B 3 IMs 2 FMs 4 2100+

In this way you organise a GM norm tournament and an IM norm tournament, but you can get away without paying the IMs (much) because their fee is a chance for a GM norm. That leaves you with 12 fee paying punters to cover the cost of the GMs, and the venue and the arbiters and the FIDE fees and the phonecalls and the entry forms. OK, so not an economic masterstroke, but possibly more viable.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)