Miami Open

Running Chess Tournaments
1

This was posted today at the Miami Chess Open website, themiamichessopen.com :

Miami Open players,

We are looking forward to your participation in this year’s Miami Open. As I am sure you know, hurricane Ike is just passing south of Miami, right over Cuba. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Cuba.

Because of the uncertainly during the last few days, due to Ike, some players have called, expressing concern and asking if the chess tournament was still scheduled. We have been very fortunate and the event is, indeed, still scheduled. Nevertheless, it also appears that this will affect attendance. Therefore, I want to inform you that the Prize Fund may be affected by this developments. The possibility exist that we may only pay 50% of the Prize Fund instead of the guaranteed amount of 70%. As this point, we do not know but I just wanted to make sure that you knew of this possibility. Again, this is just a possibility and does not mean it will happen. If it does, we will have to appeal to the US Chess Federation, in accordance with Rule 32C4 and 21L of the USCF Rule Book. We are still hoping that many players sign up in the coming days. If that is the case, the prize fund will not be affected.

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
IM Blas Lugo
Organizer, Miami Open

2

This is allowable with the permission of the ED (I recall this came up after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and during the '78 blizzard in Boston). Poor attendance isn’t enough to justify lowering the prize fund – by this logic they could claim that a disaster on the other side of the continent cost them players – but I suppose it would be a judgment call for the ED.

3

My understanding is that the chief TD has already requested and received that permission from Bill Hall, on the condition that they attempt to contact all pre-registered players.

4

And the players who show up at the tournament?

5

Like Steve, I have some problems with this. The organizers are not saying that it is physically impossible to hold the tournament, or that players literally can’t get to it. Instead, they’re saying that, because of bad weather elsewhere, they may not get as many players as they expected and so should not have to pay the full guarantee. That really shouldn’t be enough. If an organizer foolishly guarantees more than he’s going to take in – well, that’s tough.

6

I guess I don’t understand how rule 21L comes into play quite yet. 23A1 (and the comments that follow it) appear to be more relevant, and also the comments about disappointing advance entries under 23A2 and 32C4.

As I recall, there were questions raised regarding the prize fund and the turnout at this event last year, which may justify the ED placing some restrictions on the organizer for a period of time.

224 of the 335 players in the 2007 Miami Chess open were from within 50 miles of Miami.

7

As a pre-registered player, I can tell you that I did receive an email with the same message posted at the start of this thread. I would assume that anyone else who pre-registered and included an email address also received the same message.

As for why this is an issue: Roughly a week before the tournament started, the National Hurricane Center was predicting a reasonable possibility of Hurricane Ike hitting Miami directly as a major hurricane. Since that’s about the latest that anyone from out of town might have considered scheduling a trip down here, I’d say it’s a safe bet that anyone who still hadn’t made their reservations by that point probably chose not to risk it. It’s just a matter of how many people that is.

That said, this is a tournament that is advertising prizes based on 650 entries for the second year in a row, despite only getting 335 players last year. I wondered last year where they thought they were going to get 650 players from, and I was even more surprised when they didn’t lower that estimate this year, based on last year’s attendance. But now that the tourney is better known, I think if it hadn’t been for the storm, we probably would have gotten more players this year than last year, which may be what they were thinking.

–Fromper

8

Point well made on the income/expense…however I think the overall criticism is unwarranted. The organizers have went through the office and are taking the steps required of them based on a possibility. These forums would electronically tar and feather any organizer who cut the prize fund without advance notice.

Fromper’s weather explanation is perfect justification for the organizers getting out in front of the issue.

9

A few years ago there was discussion in the Rules workshop about raising the threshold for tournaments advertising a total prize fund of at least $10,000, requiring the entire prize fund to be guaranteed, largely over concerns about an organizer (not Mr. Lugo, I hasten to add) advertising really large tournaments that it was felt had no chance of making their based-on number.

The Delegates did not approve that change.

This tournament raises both that question as well as the Force Majeure issue (which the ED has already granted.)

It’s tough for new tournaments to get off the ground, as the 1st (and last) Annual HB Global Chess Challenge so rather expensively demonstrated. They have to have really large prize funds to be noticed, and it’s tough to meet those just from entry fees. Add to that the somewhat crowded ‘big money’ calendar (at least around major holidays) and the base of players likely to play in those events, and you’ve got a formula for losing money that beats anything Wall Street ever came up with.

BTW, here are some stats on the number of Grand Prix events by the number of points since 2005:

[code]year 6 10 15 20 30 50 50 60 80 100 120 150 200 300

2005 82 74 34 31 30 8 7 8 5 4 7 2 6 1
2006 59 68 34 28 19 10 8 2 3 9 2 3 6 0
2007 92 88 39 36 19 12 8 4 4 8 3 5 4 0
2008 56 61 25 23 18 13 9 2 5 5 6 1 5 1[/code]

A $10K prize fund is a 150 point event (200 points if Enhanced GP.)

10

Well, yes, I would “tar and feather” any organizer who cut a guaranteed prize fund without advance notice in the absence of overwhelming justification. An earthquake making it impossible to enter the building is justification. A blizzard in which the governor shut down the highways is justification. Bad weather which might discourage some people from playing … is not justification. I fault the organizers for asking, but the real culprit is the ED for granting the request.

11

I am pre-registered for this tournament and did not receive e-mail notification that the guarantee percentage may be reduced.

The 70% guarantee has been advertised for longer than 6 months on various websites such as miamichess.com/ and in print advertising. Even now, the $100,000 prize fund scrolls atop both of these sites even though that number is apparently highly misleading. As far as I’m concerned, Bill Hall does not have the right to alter what I consider to be a binding agreement between a player and an organizer. If I end up in the money, I am going to expect 70% of the guarantee.

12

John if you disagree with the ED’s decision to use the authority given to him in what I suspect he feels is in the best interests of chess in Florida, come to Indianapolis next August and vote to change the rules.

13

An interesting argument, but do we really need more lawyers?

What the ED clearly has the right to do is to waive any USCF sanctions for failing to pay out the full guarantee. That doesn’t mean it was prudent for him to do so.

14

It isn’t clear to me that the ED has waived all possible sanctions here, though I think he is not likely to move to suspend either the TD or sponsoring affiliate. But some restrictions on Grand Prix events for a year or two may be appropriate.

15

Some questions:

a) has the “Miami Open” been held in the same place, at the same time of year, for a number of years?

b) if so, how many players has it attracted?

c) how does the number in b) relate to the “based on” number in the advertising for this event?

d) why “guarantee” 70% in the first place?

16

a) This is the second one.

b) 336.

c) This year’s prize fund was based on 650, 70% guaranteed. 70% of 650 is 455, a bit optimistic but not completely absurd.

d) Presumably they thought it would attract more players. I have no problem with that, except that they should have to pay it, good times or bad.

17

I agree that “they should have to pay it”.

I disagree with the notion that it’s acceptable to be that optimistic in setting up a “based on” prize fund. In my opinion, the “based on” number should be realistic. I don’t think it’s realistic to think that an event will go from 336 to 650 in one year.

If the advertising had simply said “based on 650”, I would have grumbled, but realized that that’s just the way it works with some organizers. I would consider that enough information that I would not personally attend the event. But, here, the organizers went further - they GUARANTEED 70% instead of the required 50%.

I like organizers who stand behind their prize funds and GUARANTEE them. I prefer organizers who guarantee 100% of their advertised prize fund, but I recognize that is a matter of taste.

Organizers who game the system for maximum advantage, removing the safety cushion already built into the system, are asking for trouble. In my opinion, rules should not be bent to give them an EXTRA cushion when something actually does go wrong and attendance is below (reasonable) expectations.

Based on your answers above (which I assume are correct, for the sake of discussion), it looks to me as if that’s what happened here. I think everyone involved has slid WAY down the slippery slope. It would be nice if we could somehow get back to a more fact-based “based-on” system - but I don’t really see that happening. I think the organizers brought this on themselves; I think the USCF helped them do this to themselves by tolerating this sort of prize-fund inflation; I think the Office was probably correct to grant the extra dispensation - but I fervently hope that this incident will cause someone to re-think the system and prevent the same situation from happening again.

Eventually, some organizer will go TOO far, the Office will say “no - you must pay”, and there will be lawsuits left and right, with the organizers saying “but, but, you let them off the hook in the same situation” and the Office saying “well, no - what they did was bad, but what you did was worse”.

Won’t that be fun?

18

A, b, and c are correct. I don’t make statements like that without being able to back them up. D is opinion.

19

Many years ago the president of the Georgia Chess Assoc., Earle Morrison, ran a tournament for youngsters with scholarships as prizes. His son, Justin, who now owns KID CHESS, won one. The turn out was very small and the GCA lost all the money it had. The GCA would have gone bankrupt if Thad Rogers had not stepped in and used his own money to keep the GCA solvent.
Also many years ago, two brothers decided it was “easy” to make money by putting on chess tournaments. Rather than starting small, as Thad did, they decided to put on an extravaganza. After the fiasco, I heard they had to sell their furniture and were sleeping on the floor of their apartment, until evicted.
Last night John Williams came to the House to play Oddo Fox. As Oddo was late arriving, we talked about the state of chess, including the ill-fated Georgia Senior, and the Miami Open, during the course of the conversation. John posited that USCF would rule to let the organizers pay as little as possible, “because there will be money passed under the table.”
Now, I do not know whether or not that will be the case. All I’m doing is reporting what was said. Please, DO NOT KILL THE MESSENGER!
I write this because it was said out in the open, in public. If John thinks this, and voices it, there will be others thinking, and saying, the same thing.
Sloan made an excellent point in his post (“Won’t that be fun?”) as to why whoever it is that makes the decision make the right one. The “fix was in” allegations will abound. There will most probably be inquiries and investigations.
I agree with Mr Hillery completely. It is unfortunate that the tournament has bombed. --it happens in a capitalistic society. They must find a way to deal with it.

baconlog.blogspot.com/
blog.chess.com/nocab

There’s a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause.-P. J. O’Rourke

20

I voiced my opinion to Bill Hall stating that he’s walking into a field of mines by allowing the organizer to reduce the guarantee from 70% to 50%.

I personally find numerous reasons why this tournament won’t hit the 650 mark for quite some time if ever.

One of the more established tournaments in the US - the Chicago Open - has a guaranteed prize fund of $100k and is over a holiday weekend. The event drew in 703 this year, 677 last year, 546 in 2006, 577 in 2005, and 726 in 2004. This is an established, guaranteed prize fund, centrally located, and holiday weekend event. And it’s varying from mid-500 to low-700.

For an event like the Miami Open to come up out of nowhere and put a based on 650 PF is silly at best. It’s not centrally located, any school bound player (K-12, college) isn’t going to have a chance to play unless they are local to the area. It’s not a holiday weekend, it’s not centrally located, and without a solid guarantee people are hesistant to show up and spend a good chunk of change to play. Let’s also remember that it’s the height of hurricane season and you are willingly placing a large prize fund tournament during that time period.

I also don’t agree that after all of this the organizers have not updated the home page - you still see $100,000 scrolling across and if you scroll down you’ll see that it still says $70,000 guarenteed. You see the notice that the organizers made in very small print near the bottom of the home page.

Today was also the last day to start the faster schedule (3-day). There is no complete listing of players so see how many in total there are. We’ll have to wait until it’s rated to find out.

I understand that people want to do more chess, want to have bigger prize funds, and make it a great experience but caution can’t be thrown to the wind.

I would hope that the decision of the ED does not put the USCF is legal’s harms way (we already have enough of that going around). I can just see a player that comes in the money and doesn’t get what the advertised mininum guarantee, collects all of print, email, and postal advertisements that were done, checks road conditions with AAA to see if there were advisories not to drive, etc and checks with airlines to see how many cancellations or late arrivals there were and goes in front of a judge to say 'Look they cheated me out of my money because they didn’t plan out an event well enough and the USCF let them get away with it. A stretch? Maybe, maybe not.