No prize funds?

Hey all,
To start, for the record, I’m not a TD (nor do I play one on TV).

I was talking to a friend of mine who plays a lot of Bridge (local, regional, and national tournaments). One thing he said caught my attention. Basically the Bridge playing world has tournaments with no prize funds. He said that was mostly due to cheating. While I’m sure cheating exists in chess it doesn’t seem to be a huge problem but…
What would the impact be if chess tournaments dumped the idea of prize funds?

I can easily see entry fees dropping (what percent of entry fees go to prize funds?)
Perhaps, also the removal of rating floors (I’d think no $$$ means little to no sandbagging)

Would participation go up?

----- Ed

Thoughts?

It might work for small club events, but it would be hard to attract out of town players. Often a good prize fund will bring in many out of towners, but many in town still will not attend.

There are tournaments with no (or very small) prize funds. They seem to work OK for scholastic play, but in open play they haven’t proved very popular.

Alex Relyea

Each year our club (A6002200) does two quick-rated nights (G/10, G/15) and two regular-rated multi-week tournaments (G/90) with only trophies for those four events, one quick-rated quad night (G/29) with no trophies and one non-rated G/5 night with a trophy. The trophy for each of the three quick events comes to about $5. The entry fees to all events are included in the annual dues ($12 per year for an adult) and the rating fees are covered by the club (as a park district associate program we have a free site as long as we are a non-profit - 501c7 in our case - and we cover our own insurance). That said, we actually have a slight drop in attendance for the 16 weeks of tournament play as opposed to the 35 weeks of non-rated ladder play (some league play as the home team is included in those 35 weeks).

Cheating is mainly due to a lack of integrity. Those with integrity lapses will always have
excuses (no matter how seemingly foolish), for their actions. A guy I know who wrote bad
checks said it was not his fault that the checks bounced, but rather the entity that cashed them
because they cashed them two weeks later. So by the check writers rationale, if the vendor
did not take checks, then they would not have bounced.

I would be willing to bet that a lack of a prize fund does not eliminate cheaters. “Winning”
itself is enough of a “prize” for many. And, somehow, their mind is shortcuits them into
believeing “a win is a win is a win” no matter how achieved.

Rob Jones

I agree. There’s even a fair amount of cheating in the “guest” area of playchess.com (and I’ve similar reports about other sites), where nothing is at stake, not even a rating, and most play under anonymous handles.

Those who sandbag need to do so a couple of months before they go to the big money tournament. Any rated tournament is a potential place to drop some points, whether there are prizes or not.

True, it may not eliminate cheating. That isn’t the primary goal. The goal would be to reduce entry fees. We recently had a 3-day tournament with a $70 entry fee plus $10 if you were not part of the state association. I’d be curious to know the breakdown of entry fee applied to expenses. What percent of the entry fee goes to prize fund vs site costs, etc.

Just curious. Not trying to start a movement. :smiley:

----- Ed

Why, I’ve managed to drop points nearly every single time.

The masters would stay away, because there is no money. Then, the experts would stay away, because there are no masters. Then, the A players would stay away because there are no experts. Then …

Bill Smythe

You and I both, sir. :blush:

Perhaps we are the proverbial gnats drinking from the sea that is chess.

The problem a 'sandbagger" faces is the assumption that he is the only cheater, and that
their opponents are “real” even though they are not. An interesting assumption and
expectation–to desire others to play fairly while they themselves are not. Another
“problem” they face is that they assume TDs do not look at rating history and
assign a correct rating to them, making their self-sacrifice of rating points pointless.

Rob Jones
Denton, TX

Is prize money the primary motivation for chess players?

Frederick Herzberg would likely say that money is a hygiene factor, not a motivator.

Apparently it isn’t for the 52 players we had at our no-prize tournament last Saturday.

Some players just want to play rated games against suitable opposition in a reasonably decent environment. Some only want to play for prize money. Still others want some of each.

No-prize-funds tournaments do work very well in Bridge. A Bridge Tournament even a small one will out draw the vast majority of Chess Tournaments. One thing of course is that Bridge is more popular.

I think it does prove that Cash Prizes are indeed overrated. Bridge and Chess Players actually play for PRIDE and FUN. However Cash Prizes are traditional in Chess and that is alone the reason why they are used, IMO.

Another structure difference between a Bridge and Chess Tournament is that in a typical Bridge Tournament you can play just part of the time. Another difference is that they tend to have more varied events. A typical Chess Tournament usually is just Swiss. Note I do know that a Chess tournament can have some varied events. I think these two structural difference should be explored by Chess Organizer and adopted whenever possible. Swiss can be a bore after awhile, IMO.

Note that “Bridge Pros” typically earn their money by being Bridge Bridge Partners with “Bridge Ams”. I think this difference might explain why Chess has adopted Cash Prize Fund. Details can follow if this isn’t clear.

Michael, are you referring to official sanctioned duplicate bridge tournaments?

Until you get to the really competitive levels (where Bill Gates and Warren Buffet play), bridge is a far more social activity than chess, though possibly one that has contributed to more marital problems than chess. (My wife never even learned to play bridge because of the fights she saw between her parents, and she’s been known to leave when other card games, such as euchre, got too heavily into post-mortem analysis.)

I suspect that among young adults there may be more chess players than bridge players, but probably quite a few more who play other games, such as Magic. My older son is involved in a gaming group, they get together every few weeks and play a variety of games, such as Settlers. They’ve played some chess, but as far as I know they’ve never played bridge at these gatherings.

Yes I am referring to Sanctioned Bridge Tournaments. But still the head count (and apparently the wealth) is much greater in Bridge Tournaments then Chess Tournaments. You are right in your implied argument, there is “age” gap in Bridge, which Chess doesn’t have. But when I am referring to general popularity I was referring to all ages. Most of our converts are Rubber Bridge Players. Rubber Bridge is basically family and social oriented. Many Rubber Bridge Players who convert to Duplicate stop playing Rubber. Not all of course.

Actually I think Bridge would be a fine game for young people. The ACBL does have programs for that.

Of course Chess is too :slight_smile:

The importance of my head count argument is that it refutes the notion (rather decisively) that Cash Prize Funds are necessary for a well attended Chess Tournament.

I played Bridge in college.

There’s very little, if any, prize money for amateur-level players, and not all that much for the pros.

One of the main sources of money for pros is paid to them by amateur partners. Amateurs CRAVE “master points”, and the fastest way to get them is to pay a pro to carry you.

Bridge players do tend to be more well heeled than chess players - yet another reason why prize money is not important. It would take a HUGE prize fund to motivate the average high-amateur Bridge player.

Now, cash games…that’s another story. BIG money there.

And then there’s the cheating…it’s a game of communication, how can you possibly avoid it?

No-prize rated games work well for weekly play at the club where I play. The organizer successfully used this to generate a fair amount of participation in an area that previously had limited options for adult players.

I’m involved with two clubs in my area. On Mondays I direct a 3 round g30 with a $10 entry fee. All the money minus enough to cover the rating fee goes back to the players. We’ve been drawing between 14 and 22 players on a pretty regular basis.

On Wednesday night the other club runs one game a week tournaments. There is no entry fee and no prizes. We currently have 3 round robins going simultaneously with 6 players in two sections and 4 in the other.

We have a few masters and experts that play on Mondays. On Wednesdays the highest rated player is 1950. Both clubs serve the needs of the players that come. Some prefer the slow time control and only come on Wednesdays. Some prefer playing 3 games a night, and only come on Monday. Some of us are hopeless addicted and play both nights.

I think both groups of players like the low or no cost aspects of the tournaments.

I met Tom Sprandel of the Evanston CC on Monday and was impressed by the numbers they are drawing to their $5, no prize tournaments. I presume this is the tournament mthorpe was referring to in her post. I think many players want inexpensive local tournaments, but it doesn’t mean the big money tournaments don’t fill a need also.