The Problem with Cash Prizes

I’ve been planning Chess tourneys again, and part of that has been asking people lots of questions about what is important in Chess tournaments to them.  One thing keeps coming up.  Prizes.  Cash Prizes.  More Cash Prizes.  Large Cash Prizes.

I’ve never been a big fan of cash prizes, but that constant refrain made me consider giving in to the market, raising my entry fee , and offering a cash prize.  In considering this, though, I realized just how much of a problem these prizes cause.  I’m more firmly opposed to them now than I was. This thread is devoted to the problems caused by cash prizes.

One obvious problem is cost.  We don’t get advertising revenue or ticket revenue the way spectator sports do.  The next time you watch someone walk away with a big cash prize, remember that’s your money they walk away with.  (And be honest with yourself.  Are you really going to win it next time?  Seriously?)

Another problem is cheating.  When I got into Chess a few years ago, I was stunned to learn that people cheated.  Cheating?  At Chess?  Why bother?  But there’s money on the line.  It can be subtle, like sandbagging at a low prize event to lower your rating.  It could be trying to gain an advantage by annoying your opponent.  (Yes, that’s cheating.  Rule 20G, but it would be cheating even if there weren’t a specific rule against it.)  In more extreme cases,  we know of instances where people try to sneak in cell phones to get advice, or even use false identification to play in a section for which they are not eligible.  People might cheat even if there is no cash on the line, but it seems to me that the incidence of cheating will go way up as a result of the cash.

Of course, some people will say that if I don’t like cash prizes, just don’t go to tourneys with them.  That works for me, almost.  However, the culture of the Chess community is influenced strongly by those big tournaments with the large cash prizes.  That influence seeps in to other events.  My recent great revelation was that there might be a reason to avoid my prizeless tournament.  If you do well at a tournament, your rating goes up, and that might push you out of a prize bracket.  (e.g. if you know there is a tournament with a U1200 prize coming up, and your rating is 1199, you might not want to play in a tournament with no prize.)  Is that a factor for anyone?  Do you avoid tournaments with no prizes out of consideration for making yourself ineligible for future prizes?

I’m not saying that cash prizes are necessarily evil at all times and in all circumstances.  There’s a place for them.  I just wish that large prizes were the exception rather than the rule.  There’s a lot more that could be said, but I’ll save that for the discussion portion of the thread.  For now, I will just say that I want to play Chess against people who enjoy the game.  If you don’t feel like playing against me unless you have a chance to win my entry fee, maybe I’ll play someone else.  If you feel the same way, look around for some low cost, low prize tournaments, and if you don't find them in your area, host one.  Being a TD is no big deal.

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.

Hope you find more of what you want. Perhaps one day, I'll hold these little tourneys again. They were fun. Some of my fondest memories of chess camaraderie were generated there.

Sure, people cheat.  Fortunately, people don't cheat all that much in Chess.  However, I'm willing to bet they cheat a whole lot more in a tournament with a prize of $1,000 than in a tournament with a trophy.

i don't think that's coincidence.

 I like the way you think.

It's also true, as you noted earlier in your post, that you pay for that competition.  I just think it's unfortunate that you have to.

When I first started attending tournaments, about four years ago, I asked why they were so darned expensive.  It was explained that there had to be high prizes for the best players to come, and the high entry fees supported the high prizes.  I responded, "So you mean the lower rated players bribe the high rated players to attend?"  There was lots of hemming and hawing, but, really, that's what is going on.

OK.  Fine.  If that's what the market wants, the suppliers will deliver.  For me, that's just a huge turnoff.  When someone says they won't play me unless I pay them for the privilege, I'm inclined to go somewhere else.

Of course, one reason all of this happens is that if you want to get really, really, good at Chess, you have to make it a full time job.  Without the big prizes, that would be impossible.  Competition levels would drop if people couldn't devote their lives to this game.

I'll leave it to others to decide if that would be a good thing or a bad thing.  I don't think the answer is obvious either way.

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. 

In poker, almost 100% of the fund goes out to players

it was too long i didnt read sorry...

The reason you can’t understand why we are having the conversation is that you are a product of a particular “chess culture”.  You fit in with the normal view among people who are part of the competitive chess “scene”.

Far be it from me to say that your attitude is “wrong” in any sense of the word.  However, what I will say is that there are a lot of people who don’t like that aspect of chess culture, and it drives people away.  The people who remain are the people who like things the way they are, but it’s important not to make the mistake that “everyone” wants it that way.  Everyone who has not been driven away by that aspect of the culture likes it.  Everyone who truly doesn’t like it has already left.

I think there’s room for cash prizes and big tournaments where you are “compensated” for the hundreds of hours you spent in order to hone your skills.  However, for my part, I want no part of providing that compensation.  Unlike professional sports, where the money comes from spectators, professional and semi-professional Chess players are paid by the participants.  I don’t feel like ponying up my share of the cash so that some people can be rewarded for spending a lot of time getting really good at a game. 

I’m willing to compensate the hotel/church/community center/retail store for providing me a place to play that is comfortable, is well lit, and has heat.  Depending on your standards of comfort, that should cost at most 25 dollars a day, and could be done easily for 10.  I am also willing to throw a few bucks into a pot in a quad tournament as a form of “friendly wager” among people who are pretty much equally likely to win the small prize that results.  However, when I know that 25 dollars of my entry fee is contributing toward a prize fund that I have zero chance of winning, I start thinking of better ways to spend 25 bucks.

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.

There is probably an upper limit to the amount someone is willing to spend for a day of entertainment, such as your $25 amount, but when you compare it to something like a movie or two, a day at an amusement part, etc, then it really isn't a lot different. That is if you are entertained by it.

That isn't to say there isn't a place for no prize, low prize, or trophy tournaments. Of course there are many motivations for playing and as long as you are able to cater to some subsection of your local playing populace, that is a good thing.

 Exactly.  I am willing to pay for the entertainment portion, but I, personally, am not entertained by subsidizing a prize.  I am not motivated to win it.  I don't feel like paying to have it.

Other people really enjoy competing for the prize, or are glad to compete against the sort of player who comes for the prizes, and so they are willing to pay.  Great for them.  Go for the prize, and pay your higher entry fee.

Unfortunately, while it is almost that simple, it is not quite that simple.  What I was pointing out in the OP is that the existence of ratings based prizes can actually create a disincentive to play in prizeless tourneys.  My rating goes up when I do well in a tournament.  When I put in my best performance ever, that's when I get the big jump in ratings.  If I were very interested in prizes, I wouldn't want to "waste" my good performance on a prizeless tournament, because by doing so I make myself ineligible for the big prize.

Well, anyway, I don't think that prizes, by themselves, hurt Chess.  However, I do think the obsession with prize money does hurt Chess.  I think it turns off a lot of potential players.  I would just encourage people to run prizeless tournaments and not mistake the small numbers of players as proof that the market demands prizes.  The market has been conditioned, and even created, to expect prizes.  Changing that will take a bit of effort.

We have rating sections within 200 pts difference exactly for the reason to provide everyone in a section with equal opportunity to compete for the prize. You may not like to play in Opens, I can understand that, but opens provide the rare opportunity to play with higher rated opponents. And if you can't compete in the lowest section then i guess you are right, there is no point to play in tournaments.

I just got back from the Kings Island open. I was unrated so I played in the cheaper U1300 section, however the entry fee was still 75$ which is too much for me but I payed it anyway. My head was on not being able to afford the tourney the entire time and I played down to the competition and ended up losing my last game which was ultimately worth $181.50 versus nothing if I lost. Not being able to afford the entry fee will deter me from playing in future tournaments since I fear I will just screw up again under pressure.

 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..... 

Well all major tourneys have under 2300 or under 2400 prizes

 Yes, but compare that prize to what an 1800 can win for winning his section while NOT playing anyone more than 199 points higher rated. Is it fair ?  Why not have separate sections for 2200-2399 and make the open just for those over 2400 ? 

Tournament entry fee= Too much

Hotel cost= Too much

Chess.com fee= 6 dollars a month.

I used to go to a lot of tournaments but until they lower the entry fee, I'm staying home. My last tournament was $150 entry fee plus 3 nights in a hotel. I would have to sandbag my rating just to win enough to break even!

Good point Reb. I don't know :)