Tournament sponsorship

Running Chess Tournaments
21

Yes, Douglas, I did consider byes.

However, I’m running one day G/10 events of 3 or 4 rounds. Byes aren’t that common.

Also, I’m the “house man,” or more accurately named, the “playing director” to take care of the odd number of players scenario.

I was wondering if my plus score with linear prize fund would actually work for an OCTO. Consider the score sheet on page 127 of the 5th edition rule book showing an OCTO with the following plus scores:

1-3.0
2-2.0

If my prizes are the traditional $$24-12 based on 8 entries at $6 EF, then the club gets the 25% ($12) and 3.0 gets $24 but the 2.0s share the second place $12 prize at $6 each.

In the plus score scenario we still have $36 (75%) for the prize fund, but 3.0 gets 3/7 of the fund and each 2.0 gets 2/7. In other words, $36 fund/7 plus scores ~ $5 prize unit. Therefore, 3.0 gets about $15 and each 2.0 gets about $10.

So which scenario is more equitable,
$24-$6-$6 = 4EF-EF-EF = 50%-12.5%-12.5% of $48 ~ 67%-17%-17% of $36
or
$15-$10-$10 ~ 2.5EF-1.8EF-1.8EF ~ 31%-21%-21% of $48 ~ 42%-28%-28% of $36?

BTW, would the exponential prize structure go like this:
each 3.0 gets $12 = 6x2^1
each 2.5 gets $6 = 6x2^0
each 2.0 gets $3 = 6x2^(-1)?
In the above OCTO, this prize structure would result in only $18 awarded instead of $36!

Regards,
AJG

22

The system will work only for the small tournaments, only if the director is willing to be the ‘playing director’ during a odd number of entries. Even with any tournament, players have the right too ‘withdraw’ (example: a expert lose game one to a class C player then withdraws) during the tournament.

As the prize funding are based on zero withdraws: if on round 1 and 2, having 20 players would grant round 1 and 2 10 points per-round; with two people withdrawing from round 3 making 18 players would grant 9 points, if 4 people withdraw during round 4 would be 14 players for round 4 granting 7 point for this round. Then would have 10 + 10 + 9 + 7 = 36 points, not the 40 points if nobody withdraw: with players withdrawing would make the ‘organizer/director’ make more money after the tournament.

23

I guess I did it backwards. I figured $100 is a nice round number for a perfect score, and each prize after that is half the previous one. The final prize, however, is less than half, in order to preserve non-linearity, which in turn is necessary to make draws undesirable for the players and desirable for the organizer.

As for the $20 entry fee, that seemed to result in a nice profit for the club based on Pascal’s triangle for the $100 top prize. Remember, the tournament theoretically COULD lose money, if you have an extremely small turnout like 6 players. Best to have some cushion.

You’re right, of course. The correct term is “geometric”, not exponential. The important thing is that each difference is less than the previous difference.

Not unless you want the truth-in-advertising police after you. 2.5-1.5 is, after all, a plus score.

I have also run 5-round plus-scores, with a payout matrix (as Mike Nolan calls it) of something like $100 / $60 / $35 / $20 / $7 .

You just say, “Prizes by score: 4-0 $100, 3.5-0.5 $50, 3-1 $25, 2.5-1.5 $10”.

Details make the world go 'round, so don’t apologize for being inquisitive. I’m a little less scientific about it than you are, though. I just do something that looks roughly geometric, except for the last prize which is lower than that, then plug it into Pascal’s triangle and see how it flies. In general, the more rounds, the smaller the ratio should be between each prize and the next.

Bill Smythe

24

This is a definite advantage (though not the main purpose) of the plus-score system. Each player can be given his prize as soon as he finishes his last-round game – no waiting around for other games to finish to see whether there will be a 6- or 7-way tie, etc.

True, this system does not award class prizes. I’m not too sympathetic, anyway, with lower-rated players who want to win money. I like lower-rated players, of course, if they’re there to learn and want to cut their teeth against the big boys.

I have found, however, that plus-score tournaments DO attract lower-rated players as well as strong players. Apparently there are a lot of C and D players who are willing to pay $20 for a challenging tournament experience.

Besides, what red-blooded American male chess player thinks he’s NOT going to have a plus score when he enters a tournament?

Bill Smythe

25

I still like the idea of a $100 top prize. Looks nicer (and less cheap) on paper, and probably attracts more players.

If the calculated profit for the club is higher than the club needs, just lower the entry fee, or raise (proportionally) all the prizes.

Bill Smythe

26

I agree that prizes should always be stated as dollar amounts, not percentages. Players never bother to figure out the dollars from the percents, or they mistrust the whole scheme.

Full-point byes hurt the organizer in a plus-score format. They should be avoided at all costs, either through the use of a playing director, or with cross-round pairings, etc.

Half-point (requested) byes HELP the organizer, just as draws do. (Remember the geometric prizes, and the fact that break-even wins nothing.) You need not be concerned about half-point byes.

Bill Smythe

27

Forget linear, go along with geometric. I assume by an “octo” you mean a 3-round Swiss in 8-player sections.

You can have a $20 entry fee, with the following prizes:

Top section:
3.0-0.0 $80
2.5-0.5 $40
2.0-1.0 $15

Other sections:
3.0-0.0 $70
2.5-0.5 $35
2.0-1.0 $10

Pascal’s triangle works just fine here. Having slightly larger prizes in the top section is a concession to the spirit of the plus-score format, which says that stronger players deserve more prize money.

Bill Smythe

28

Wrong. If you have 160 players instead of 16, you will have ten times the entry fee money, and ten times as many players with each score. You’ll have multiple $100 perfect scores, but gazillions of EF money to cover it.

Withdrawals help the organizer, big-time, in a plus-score event.

Bill Smythe

29

Draws also help big-time.

Suppose it is a 4 round event with a payout matrix of:

4.0 - $100
3.5 - $50
3.0 - $25
2.5 - $10

Every draw means one less possible 4.0 score.

Since the payout for a 4.0 is $100 and a 3.0 score gets $25, two 3.0 players paired in the last round have a maximum combined payout of $125. But if they draw, they only get $100 ($50 each).

Two 2.5 players paired in the last round have a maximum potential of $60. If they draw, they get a total of $50 ($25 each.)

Similarly, if two 2.0 players are paired in the last round, they could have a combined payout of $25. But if they draw, I only have to pay out a total of $20 ($10 each).

Thus I figured on average each draw by a high-rated player put an extra $15 into the tournament profit column.

30

That is true, the only reason why it would not work in a large tournament: the players in the bottom half would not make any money. If everyones rating are at their skill level, with a tournament of 160 players would have masters and experts with class D and below, making the players with ranking of 81 to 160 be in a class that should not win any prize money. If in a large tournament with 160 players, have a under 1200 section have a winner with 2.0 points when there are 7 rounds – under the plus-score players that are Class E would win nothing.

If the weaker players would not win any prize funds, why would anyone that has a weak rating ever go to this event.

31

Weak players go for the experience, not to win money. Sometimes they win class prizes, but according to this, they’d win that money anyway.

32

If I thought I could attract 160 players, I’d probably be willing to have two sections: Open and Reserve. (Around here I’d probably cut the reserve off at 1600.)

That way the low rated players are in their own plus score pool.

When I first built a plus-score payout matrix, I played around with the idea of giving people who are in the bottom third of the field an extra half point. That way they would only have to go 2-2 to take home something. I wasn’t quite sure how to deal with a low rated player who goes 4-0, though.

I also played around with a round-by-round payout matrix, but could never get it to work out. The advantage of such a system is that everyone has a chance to win SOMETHING by winning their last round game. Maybe it’s only $5, but that’s still better than nothing.

33

Thinking of having this format for my tournaments. Thinking around 20 players would show up, with a entry fee of $20 with 4 rounds. As a number of tournament directors around me have thought $5 per-round as the norm. If having the unit score of $10, would not give much money for the top ranking players, it would make the top ranking players feel they would be in the plus score group. The weaker players would get the experience with this tournament, or the weaker players that want to take a shot at the stronger rated player for rating points.

If having 20 players with entry fee of $20 would bring in $400: having 20 players would have 10 boards per-round, with 4 rounds would make 40 boards or 40 total points. With a total of 40 points x 10 unit prize would be $400. That would mean players that have 2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5 would not make any prize funding. In theory if the rent is cheap, the rating fee is not much of a issue as 40 games (computer disk: 40 x 0.20 = $8 paper: 40 x 0.40 = $16) would not be a issue. With a plus-score group should not lose money during the tournament.

It would make myself be a ‘playing director’ if there is a odd number of players. If someone does ask for a bye, would inform the player they would not get any credit for the half-point bye. As players that are on the bottom half would ask for the half point bye for the first round, feeling they would not win against someone that is 300 or more points higher then them. If given credit for this player of a half-point bye would force the director to grant one person a full bye: making two players have 1.5 points out of one missed game.

It would also make sure that during the last round, if a person has a plus-score to win a prize – they can take the money after their game. As a large number of people would be standing around till one person in there section or score group ends their game. It does become very annoying for players when a person knows they: 1) know they won a prize fund and do not know if they would have to share the prize; 2) if that one person lose the game they could win the prize out right without sharing the prize; 3) only able to win a prize only if the players at the board agree to a draw. As players understand walking around the tournament hall after the last game, not know the final prize they won.

The other factor with this system, the people that do win a prize fund: they will always win more money then they gave for entry fees. It is a little annoying to spend $20 for entry fee and win a prize of $12.25: or having to hold on till the last game to make $12.25; would feel insulted spending that extra time walking around the place to find winning a prize fund that is less then my entry fee.

34

I say, go ahead and give them the half-point bye, and give them credit for it. A player in the bottom half isn’t going to have a plus score, anyway. Since break-evens don’t win money, every half-point (whether bye or played game) helps the organizer.

What happened to your playing director, to avoid full-point byes?

You should, of course, have a reasonable bye policy, in this format or any other. For example: No limit on how many half-point byes. Round 1 and 2 byes must be requested before pairings are made. Round 3 and 4 byes must be requested one full round early.

Another good policy in a plus-score: No prizes for drop-outs. An A player at 3-0 should have to face his executioner, the local master, before walking off with his $25. (A last-round half-point bye would be OK, of course, if he had requested it by the deadline.)

Bill Smythe

35

OK, 100-50-25-10 is nearly a base-2 geometric sequence. However, 100-60-35-20-7 is less than base-2.

As far as listing a plus score event TLA, could I simply write something like:
“$$Prizes By Score: 4.0 $100-3.5 $50-3.0 $25-2.5 $10”?

OK, lets see if we can expand the geometric sequence using a base-2 common ratio.
Case in point: 5SS with 32 players and a $6 entry fee, ie: $192 prize fund and 80 rated games.

5.0 = $48 = 62^8 = 8EF
4.5 = $24 = 62^2 = 4EF
4.0 = $12 = 62^1 = 2EF
3.5 = $6 = 62^0 = EF
3.0 = $3 = 6*2^(-1) = EF/2
2.5 = $0
2.0 = $0
1.5 = $0
1.0 = $0
0.5 = $0
0.0 = $0

Assuming no draws or 1/2 point byes, lets say we get the follwoing Binomial Score Distribution (Pascal assuming wins 50% of the time):

1 - 5.0 pays out $48
5 - 4.0 pays out $60
10-3.0 pays out $30
10-2.0 pays out $0
5 - 1.0 pays out $0
1 - 0.0

toal payout = $158
club coffers = $34 - $16 rating fees = $18

Regards,
AJG

36

Sure – that’s what I did, except I used a comma followed by a space where you used a hyphen (I think the comma is less confusing) and you omitted the other half of the score (e.g. 3.5 instead of 3.5-0.5) which should be perfectly OK.

Yeh, you’d have to use a ratio smaller than 2 for a larger number of rounds. But, as I said before, I’m less scientific than you are about such things. I just eyeball it and then check it through Pascal’s triangle – but I still like the idea of $100 for a perfect score!

Bill Smythe

37

It has been my standard of having a one day event, everyone pays at time of registering. Having someone take a half point bye during the tournament is a little strange: other then wanting to take a half point bye at the last round. As the tournament would need USCF and MCA (Michigan Chess Association) membership, the rules of the MCA are clear that players can not get half point byes on the last round. As a player with a perfect score going into the last round would not face the other player with a perfect score. Say it is a seven round event with two players at 6.0, with a number of players at 5.0. If one of the 6.0 withdraws with a half point bye, would get 6.5 points making sure they would get second place. As the other players with 5.0 should win one game making the fianl score 6.0: as the 6.0 at the end of round 6 withdraws with a half point bye would make sure the 2nd place prize. This is the theory why there is no granting of half point byes in the last round.

The idea of having a withdraw player not being able to win a prize, ‘if they withdraw is a good theory’. With a plus score, a person that has 3.0 points going into the third round could withdraw, feeling they would not win the game against the other player: then asking for the prize fund after round 3. As the masters could know each other, they could have pre-planned that one would withdraw so they would not face each other in the last round. That could make the last master get a much weaker player, making it much better for the master to win the game.

As being the ‘playing director’ could perform that duty, in theory would want my assistant being the ‘house man’ if needed could perform this task. Have made it my policy that if being the ‘playing director’ would not take any of the prize funds. As in most of my tournaments: have been the organizer and director, there is know way for myself to also pay for the entry fees of my own tournament. If the profits of the tournament is $50, if did pay the entry fee would have as a profit of $70 if adding myself. If the ‘playing director’, would be forced to play for free, then would not take any prize fund: in my theory if you play for free you should not earn any prize money. Unless having a player play for free, would take the entry fee if the player wins a prize fund.

Will work on the theory if there is a bye: it will take me a few weeks to think it over.

38

How about a 6SS with 64 players and a $6 entry fee, ie: $384 prize fund and 192 rated games.

6.0 = $96 = 16EF
5.5 = $48 = 8EF
5.0 = $24 = 4EF
4.5 = $12 = 2EF
4.0 = $6 = EF
3.5 = $3 = EF/2
3.0 = $0
2.5 = $0
2.0 = $0
1.5 = $0
1.0 = $0
0.5 = $0
0.0 = $0

Assuming no draws or 1/2 point byes, lets say we get the follwoing Binomial Score Distribution (Pascal assuming wins 50% of the time):

1 - 6.0 pays out $96
6 - 5.0 pays out $144
15-4.0 pays out $90
20-3.0 pays out $0
15-2.0 pays out $0
6 - 1.0 pays out $0
1 - 0.0 pays out $0

toal payout = $350
club coffers = $34 - $38.40 rating fees = $4.40 loss!

So, this structure breaks down after a while. Maybe there’s some way to modify the base such that the club always gets 25% - rating fees (in this case $81 - $38.40 = $42.60).

Regards,
AJG

39

Garcia:

What about a 70 - 30, entry fee of $20 with a 4 round event: the room rent is $30.

40

In addition to the cash prizes, if you eventually want to get local sponsorships, I’d recommend trying to find businesses that chess players frequently visit and go for maybe a small book of coupons to begin with to pass out to those that play in the tourney. And at the stores, use a business card for tournies far in advance (or ones that are weekly) for a discount off the entry fee. Or just be allowed to post the flyers for the tournaments/club. Win-win.

Maybe they’d even go for a tshirt along the lines of maybe tourney name and logo on front and on back the local sponsors with something like ‘We shop at these stores, so should you.’

Just some thoughts.

Edit: For the kiddies, if there are parks and such nearby, ask them for discount coupons. Or ask at a local bookstore for a kids day where you can have kids come play for a couple hours and they allow say 10% off for kids’ purchases. Our local Books A Million has Yu-Gi-Oh on Saturdays though I don’t know if they do the discount or not. But I don’t see why they wouldn’t to encourage a smart activity and smart reading.