Is this a good idea to try? Opinions wanted!

Greetings from Asheboro!

It has been quite a few months since I have posted here. The Asheboro Open is going okay, but ALL tournaments in the state seem to be facing a drop in attendance. I do not think this is due to too many tournaments, but more so a sign of the times.

In my opinion, the number of folks willing or able to devote an entire Saturday to a weekend Swiss is dwindling. So I was wondering–is there a way to combat this problem. I came up with the following idea:

We have a three round Saturday Swiss. I propose allowing players to
play just two of the three rounds at a discount. They can chose either the first two rounds, or last two rounds. Rather than the regular $25.00 entry fee, Two Round Players (TRPers for short) would pay just $15.00. TRPers would receive no bye points for the missed round, so their maximum score would be 2.0 out of 3.0.

A TRPer who played the first two rounds would be allowed to play in the final round, but would have to pay a full entry fee to do so. This would make their total cash outlay $40.00. The point of this would be to discourage players from using the system for other than the intended purpose.

TRPers would be allowed to collect no more than their entry fee as a class prize IF they are the only eligible player for that prize. Otherwise, they could collect the full amount (usually $25.00).

I can think of many who could benefit from this system:

  1. Second shift workers, who are not accustomed to getting up early.

  2. Folks who have to work for part of the day on Saturday.

  3. Young people who want their Saturday night free for other activities.

  4. Those who need to attend some function.

  5. People on a tight budget.

My question is: what do you guys think of this, and am I overlooking some USCF rule which might prohibit this type of organization?
I would think that as long as players understood this method, there would be no problem with USCF.

I have one other discounted entry fee idea–but I will post it separately.

Thanks to everyone for their input!

Sincerely,

W.T. Hales

Organizer, The Asheboro Open

I suppose this kind of set-up would depend on the size of the event and how the software delt with it (perhaps, zero point byes).

Another idea along the same lines is to charge an EF that reflected the number of games the player intended to participate in with zero point byes for the missing games. Of course this EF would only apply before round 1 otherwise their would be a lot of administrative work.

In another post I outlined a method of dealing with discounted
EFs in a based-on prize fund. That same idea would work here.

Tim

I think we are facing fundamental change. There are no USCF events within 100 miles of my home other than the ones I run - and these are almost all scholastic tournaments. In order for me to play in a major event such as the USATE, it costs me close to $1000 for travel, hotel and food. I can do that, but not very often. Even an ordinary one-day event away from home costs at least a few hundred. I will never play in a big money tournament, even with large class prizes, because the entry fees are enormous and the prizes will be going to sandbaggers or kids whose playing strengths are 400+ over their ratings. Add to this the fact that one can play on-line for free and it becomes evident that times have indeed changed. Earlier this evening I played three games on Yahoo. It was almost as satisfying as OTB. It’s hard to compete with free, exciting on-line chess.

I can’t quite see it. You could always find “free, exciting” chess at your local club. For “real” chess, you still need a tournament. I agree, however, that there is a problem in finding a new generation of organizers and TDs. I think some of the decisions made by the USCF and other big organizers have exacerbated this situation, but that’s a question that really needs a thread of its own.

[quote=“W.T. Hales”]
Greetings from Asheboro!

In my opinion, the number of folks willing or able to devote an entire Saturday to a weekend Swiss is dwindling. So I was wondering–is there a way to combat this problem. I came up with the following idea:

I think a few hours difference in playing time, on a single day, would not matter much to most people. If you have an e-mail list of the people who normally participate in your events, why not e-mail them and see how they feel?

My gut feel is that you are going to have a headache trying to make that one work.

I agree that there is a problem with people finding enough time to play. I did a 4 round swiss G/60, and had several people saying that they wanted longer time controls; however, more people didn’t want to commit 2 days for a Sat/Sun tournament.

I think that the optimum solution is a mix of 1 day shorter time control tournaments with 2 (or 3) day events with longer controls throughout the year. It depends on how many people you have in the area to draw upon for the tournaments.

If you give it a try, let us know how it worked!

Rob

The time issue is definately a factor. I personally like slower time limits, but as one parent I know observed that I seem to play mostly the fast time limits. G/30 - G/60. I play 1 or 2 tournaments a year that are more then one day. Mostly I play weeknights at various clubs I belong to, or 1 day tournaments at the Marshall.

Sometimes I opt to take a first or last round 1/2 point bye if I have other plans. The discounted EF for taking a zero point bye is an interesting concept. I’m not sure it would encourage more people to come play who otherwise might not play. I don’t think any of the organizers in this area would do it because enough people pay the full entry fee, and take their 1/2 point bye when needed. If I were planning to take a bye one round I certainly be willing to pay a lower EF to have it be a 0 bye, but it would not be the deciding issue as to whether I was going to play in a particular tournament or not.