Based on Prizes

[seki]

@ Mulfish on Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:51 am #297048

Good points. I was too dogmatic in my initial post.

[wilecoyote]

@ILfish

First of all let remind everyone that if the prize fund is less than $500 then if the based on is less than 50%, the prize fund can be reduced by more than 50%. Having said that I do agree that the idea of increasing a prize fund is a nice thing to do if you have a large number over the based on number. I do not think this should be a requirement, but it does make good sense as it will be popular with players. On the other hand I have heard a few players complain about a based on prize fund where there are based on class prizes and nobody in a particular class plays.

That complaint is that there advertised prize is not paid as there are no players in that class, but that the money marked for that class goes into the organizer’s pocket. This could (but I don’t know of any instance) result in less than 50% being paid due to a class prize not being paid due to lack of players in the class. Again the based on class prizes were meant to protect the class players from “prize fund injustice”. Example is a prize fund $300, b/30; $20 each class b/5 and there is a turnout of 20 players with 10 from a single class. Then that class prize can’t be reduced.

Larry S. Cohen

The rule is that at least 50% of each prize must be paid out. If there is no player eligible for a particular advertised prize, the organizer is not obliged to redistribute that prize money to other prizes.

[ericmark]

@wilecoyote

@ILfish

First of all let remind everyone that if the prize fund is less than $500 then if the based on is less than 50%, the prize fund can be reduced by more than 50%. Having said that I do agree that the idea of increasing a prize fund is a nice thing to do if you have a large number over the based on number. I do not think this should be a requirement, but it does make good sense as it will be popular with players. On the other hand I have heard a few players complain about a based on prize fund where there are based on class prizes and nobody in a particular class plays.

That complaint is that there advertised prize is not paid as there are no players in that class, but that the money marked for that class goes into the organizer’s pocket. This could (but I don’t know of any instance) result in less than 50% being paid due to a class prize not being paid due to lack of players in the class. Again the based on class prizes were meant to protect the class players from “prize fund injustice”. Example is a prize fund $300, b/30; $20 each class b/5 and there is a turnout of 20 players with 10 from a single class. Then that class prize can’t be reduced.

Larry S. Cohen

The rule is that at least 50% of each prize must be paid out. If there is no player eligible for a particular advertised prize, the organizer is not obliged to redistribute that prize money to other prizes.

Yep, but this will only happen in events with prizes so small that only chessplayers would argue over it.

I saw an amusing good-sportsmanship example of this first-hand, many years ago. A local two-day weekend Swiss (that tells you how long ago it was) offered class prizes down to D, but only one C player showed up.

The EF was $25 and the class prize was $50. He, being a nice guy, offered to just accept his EF back and split the difference. The TD/organizer, afraid the USCF or IRS would smite him if he did not pay prizes as advertised, insisted the guy take his full $50. That also happened to be the cost of a year’s dues at the club that organized the tournament, so the C player, in an inspired move, took the prize money and gave it back in exchange for a year’s club dues.

Guy went on to become an expert and a professor. Maybe it’s not too late to recruit him.

[eastside]

@ericmark

@wilecoyote

The rule is that at least 50% of each prize must be paid out. If there is no player eligible for a particular advertised prize, the organizer is not obliged to redistribute that prize money to other prizes.

Yep, but this will only happen in events with prizes so small that only chessplayers would argue over it.[…]

The 2014 Millionaire Chess Open had exactly three players rated under 1000, competing for four good-sized prizes in that classification. So, if I had taken my son to that event, he actually would have been guaranteed $2,000.

This same situation has arisen occasionally in other non-local events (usually due to things like bad weather or other factors driving down attendance unexpectedly).

[DENTONCHESS]

@hgpitre

The rulebook exists, it seems, to explain that based-on prize structures should pay out a minimum of 50%, and otherwise proportionally for the turnout compared to the base. We understand that a guaranteed prize fund means what it says, and we would expect that the organizer does well when he gets a large turnout, and not so well when he get a small turnout, and the prize-winners are unaffected by those concerns. But the rules, as far as I can see, are only concerned with explaining proportionality when the turnout is less than the base. This is, in a sense, to protect the prize winning players, for in this situation, the organizer has taken the based-on structure to protect himself somewhat if the turnout is low. Why doesn’t the rulebook go on to illustrate examples where the turnout is larger than the base? Let’s say, by 20%. Surely, fairness in this case requires that the prize fund be increased by 20%, although it may be achieved through more prizes, and not necessarily bigger prizes.

Will someone clarify? I believe I have seen the records of some grossly stiffed players, in some well-attended tournaments. But, you know, the chess-players generally don’t complain, and so the organizers got away with prize fund injustice, or am I wrong? And I am thinking that surely this was discussed in the forum previously, but I don’t know where to find that discussion.

Nonsense-this is a point USCF should stay out of as much as possible. It is the organizers who are taking the risks. Quite frankly, from an organizers viewpoint, fair is them not losing any money on the event, which quite frequently happens if a minimum turnout is not achieved. Thus, for those events in which the turnout is greater than expected, the organizer should reap the windfall. Chess for fall too long has been run on a seemingly socialistic agenda, which has resulted in many chess organizations simply no longer existing. Quite frankly, the more for profit tournaments that are run, the better for USCF. And for many of the tournaments I run, I simply make no guarantees, and state prizes based on entrants. Very, Very general. And no way is 50% of anything to be honored, much less the totally ridiculous rate of 65%–ie, another word for long-term financial suicide for most clubs and tournaments. The truth is this–few non-professional chess players are really in it for the prize money. If something adequate is offered, they will come.

Rob Jones

[brennanprice]

Rather than fault an organizer for not paying more than advertised when the based-on number is reached, we should praise that organizer for basing the prize fund on a realistically achievable number of attendees.

Unrealistic based-on targets (e.g., the 2008 Miami Open’s infamous target of 650) are the bigger problem with based-on prizes, in my view.

When I organize, I get around this by guaranteeing all prizes, but guaranteeing no more than I can afford to lose if a catastrophe happens. Others may not be able to do this, and that’s fine.

[mlanger]

@ericmark

I saw an amusing good-sportsmanship example of this first-hand, many years ago. A local two-day weekend Swiss (that tells you how long ago it was) offered class prizes down to D, but only one C player showed up.

The EF was $25 and the class prize was $50. He, being a nice guy, offered to just accept his EF back and split the difference. The TD/organizer, afraid the USCF or IRS would smite him if he did not pay prizes as advertised, insisted the guy take his full $50. That also happened to be the cost of a year’s dues at the club that organized the tournament, so the C player, in an inspired move, took the prize money and gave it back in exchange for a year’s club dues.

Guy went on to become an expert and a professor. Maybe it’s not too late to recruit him.

Here is another example. In 1998, the owner of Magoo’s Billiards parlor in Tulsa, OK decided to organize a tournament there - 1st Magoo’s Open. Being a rookie organizer, he misunderstood the USCF Grand Prix requirements and split the tournament in 2 sections, with one section open only to 2200+ with guaranteed 1st prize of $1000 and the other section open to everyone else with guaranteed 1st prize of $500 and 2nd prize of $250. I believe, the TLA also mentioned class prizes based on entries.

When all the entries were in, it came about that there was only one apparent 2200+ player registered, while there was a good crowd overall, including 8 experts. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, one of those experts, Phil Thoma, was in fact a master, Roger Rowland, who stole the identity of the deceased Phil Thoma to be eligible for the class prizes. The organizer sportingly offered the one openly 2200+ who came $1000 1st prize without play. However, the master, who drove 500 miles to the tournament instead proposed to combine the sections and the prizes (1st $1000, 2nd $500 3rd $250). He got nicked by a draw in round 4 by Phil Thoma/Roger Rowland and ended up sharing 1st-2nd at 4.5/5 with another expert, who gave up a draw in Round 2 and ended up with a successful Swiss Gambit.

At the end, the master got $750 payout instead of $1000, but he got to play 5 exciting games of chess in return. Though as opposed to the player from the previous example, he didn’t go on to become anyone good.