MyRatingis1523 wrote:
But if a master doesn't score well than he would go home with nothing. If a a begginner scores well he would win far more.
Never seen a tournament where the open prize was less than a under section
Money in Amateur Tournaments?
Sort:
You need to speak with a tournament director who will explain the motivation of upper echelon players in a tournament.
Jul 3, 2017
0
#4
MuensterChess doesn't understand the overall perspective, and the rest of you I don't think get what he is saying.
Let's take the US Open, which is one big open section with class prizes. First place for those under 1200 may be say, $2000. Let's say 5th place overall is $800.
What he's saying is that an 1189 player that scores 4 points will cash more than a 2450 player that scores 7.
What he doesn't get is it takes a hell of a lot more in terms of going beyond one's own skill level for an 1189 to score 4 in the US Open than it does for a 2400 to score 7.
It's not like first place overall is lower than first Under 1200. First under 1200 may be $2000, and first overall may be $8000. The people playing well beyond their normal skill level are the ones getting paid, and that's how it should work. Pay for performance!
I think that the idea of money prizes in amateur tournaments should be revised. A 1200 could could win more than a master, and possibly above that, it creates too much tension and stress, over a game that we all play for fun. I propose that the entry price should be lowered, and the extra money should be spent on bettering our community (location, organization, advertisements, etc.). A more expensive entry fee would be used for the open section, where the money prizes would still be used, even higher than before. What does the chess community think of this?