Interesting. Doesn't this raise an ethical question if the GM gets a cut? A specific player is directly paying the GM to give that specific player a chance at a norm. That's a short step from paying the GM to give that player a norm by not playing well.
Clearly the titled players in such an arrangement have a conflict of interest. Their compensation is directly proportional to the popularity of this system. The popularity of the system will be directly proportional to how successful it is in producing norms.
Judging from previous responses, norms may be a major, perhaps the only, incentive to pay. There is no mention of whether FIDE has agreed to ratify any norms earned with these manipulated pairings.
I think if norms are an issue, the player probably will pay more for travel and high entry fees. Norms or no, I think it is a crime for a player to offer a director a "tip" to change the pairings, and the director should not take any special initiative to "fix" the pairings.
"a crime"??!?!!?!?
Interesting. Doesn't this raise an ethical question if the GM gets a cut? A specific player is directly paying the GM to give that specific player a chance at a norm. That's a short step from paying the GM to give that player a norm by not playing well.
Clearly the titled players in such an arrangement have a conflict of interest. Their compensation is directly proportional to the popularity of this system. The popularity of the system will be directly proportional to how successful it is in producing norms.
Judging from previous responses, norms may be a major, perhaps the only, incentive to pay. There is no mention of whether FIDE has agreed to ratify any norms earned with these manipulated pairings.
I think if norms are an issue, the player probably will pay more for travel and high entry fees. Norms or no, I think it is a crime for a player to offer a director a "tip" to change the pairings, and the director should not take any special initiative to "fix" the pairings.