At the Portland Chess Club, we currently use under prizes instead of class prizes. I’m thinking of running an event with class prizes instead of under prizes. What are the advantages and disadvantages to having class prizes instead of under prizes?
Stick with Under prizes.
It makes no sense for an A player with 3 points to be eligible for a prize, but a B player with this same score not to be eligible for this same prize (in the same section).
Also, do not allow unrated players to win Under prizes – especially the lower Under prizes like Under-1200. Unrated players should be eligible only for place prizes. Or, there could be separate prizes for unrated players.
In a multi-section event, unrated players should not even be allowed to win place prizes, except in the top (Open) section. Or, again, there could be separate Unrated prizes, or even a separate Unrated section.
Keep in mind that unrated does not mean unskilled. It just means unmeasured.
Bill Smythe
Can anyone give even one reason why class prizes might be considered superior to under prizes? The best I can come up with is fewer characters in a TLA.
I like class prizes better than under prizes. They are easier to calculate at the end of the event. The results on the wall chart are easier for the players to track and understand. They provide an incentive to enter and compete. It is possible to do class pairings in the final round to determine class prizes rather than have a class player get beaten up by a much higher rated, while a lucky under player may get a favorable pairing against a much lower rated opponent in an under prize tournament. When there are class prizes there is a tournament within the tournament, which has an additional entertainment value for the players. You can also give equal prizes in the classes rather than fiddle with the under prizes to avoid prize problems. There is something more democratic about doing it this way. As a TD, I prefer to treat the players equally in all ways.
For much lower rated players, there is an incentive to hang around and not drop out as they still have a chance for a prize. I have seen enough tournaments with class prizes to note that they tend to have more entries. With Under prize tournaments there are usually fewer prizes. With class sections, there is an opportunity to have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd class section prizes. More prizes usually leads to more entries in future tournaments. Also note that the US Open gives out a number of class prizes rather than one under prize.
There is an argument about what if there are only a few players for a class. For example, there are only 3 Class E players while there are 20 Class C players, but the Class E player gets the same prize as the Class C. So what? Who is to say that they both are not working just as hard to win as the higher rated players? They showed up and paid the same entry fee. If it happens that there is only one player in the class, well, good for him. He had the guts to show up. I saw that happen in a tournament, a Grand Prix event, where there was only one Class B player who showed up to play in the top section, and won the Class B prize of $400 even though he scored 0-5. His fellow B players were afraid to get beaten up by masters and experts and huddled in the Reserve (U1800) section, bashing bunnies for several rounds rather than test themselves.
To the argument that there will be more sandbagging by players to keep their ratings low enough to win class prizes, I shall note that sandbaggers do this to win under prizes, too.
In general I prefer under prizes. Yes, they can be a bit more complicated to calculate, but it’s not rocket science. The “tournament within a tournament” aspect is still there with under prizes, too; it’s just with a different grouping of players. To me under prizes are fairer. A low rated player who scores exceptionally well should get a higher valued prize, such as a Class B player winning the U2000 prize instead of the Class B prize he would only be eligible for if class prizes are used. Which brings up another point…the idea of giving equal valued prizes to several different classes because it is “more democratic” strikes me as fundamentally wrong. A chess tournament is a meritocracy. Increasing skill should be increasingly rewarded. Having several rating classes eligible for the same prizes not only defeats this aim, but it encourages sandbagging. If you can win the same prize in a low rating class as you can in a higher rating class you have less incentive to move your rating up.
I largely agree with and accept Mr. Magar’s points above, although I still prefer to offer under prizes. I would note that I strongly disagree with the second paragraph. The problem is not class vs. under, but one vs. many. For example, the New Hampshire Chess Association frequently offers first, second, and third under prizes. I would also note that it is highly unlikely that the Grand Prix example would have changed had the prize been U1800 rather than class B.
Alex Relyea
So you’re thinking of switching from under to class, but you don’t know why? Sounds like a good decision-making process. BTW, bad idea. Stick with under.
Are you sure you meant to write this? I think you meant to say, “For example, the New Hampshire Chess Association frequently offers first, second, third and under prizes.” The way you wrote it implies that we offer three under prizes, which is not correct. We typically offer three places prizes and a single under prize in each section.
– Hal Terrie
Perhaps I am mistaken? I (mis)remember that from flyers.
Alex Relyea
In general, I prefer under prizes to class prizes. (If one really wishes to use class prizes, I’d probably recommend using class sections instead.)
However, it’s quite conceivable that in a local market where an organizer has a solid grasp of both typical player distribution in his events and the preferences of those players, class prizes would be preferable.
I would submit that they are only “easier” when the results are dubious. If two A’s and a B tie for class money, it’s likely to be the same results whether you call the prizes U2000 and U1800 or A and B. It’s when a A and two B’s tie where with under money the likely result is the three way split of U2000 and U1800 money, but with class prizes, A would get the full share of the A money and the B’s would split the B money (and thus get less than the higher rated player with the same score).
Note that it also doesn’t change the “problem” of players “sharing” in money for which they aren’t personally eligible (addressed in another recent thread). If there is a tie for place and class/under prizes, you still may very well have to add a mishmash of prizes and divide equally.
The prizes at the 2015 New Hampshire Amateur Championship were:
Championship Section (U2100/Unr): $150-100-50; trophies to top 3, top 3 U1850
Intermediate Section (U1750/Unr): $120-60-40; trophies to top 3, top 3 U1500
Novice Section (U1300/Unr): Trophies to top 3, top 3 U1100, top Unrated
Yes but those include trophy prizes. I thought the discussion was about cash prizes.
– Hal Terrie
I thought the discussion was about the Oxford comma.
The one problem that you can encounter with any prize fund is the distribution when there are ties. A prize fund of $100 for first, $60 to top X, $60 to top A; when an expert and class A player tie for first is the same problem is the prizes were $60 top U2200 and $60 top U2000. In the class example I know of cases where half the top X and half the Top A along with first were given to the 2 players tied for first. I do not know of a case where that was done with an under prize fund. There is a question in any prize structure of what is viewed (by the players &/or organizer) as to the “fairness” of the prizes. Something that it appears is often discussed, but never agreed upon.
Larry S. Cohen
My golden rule for creating prize funds is: “Never make any two prizes the same.” That-a-way when you go to distribute money when ties occur it is clear which prize (the highest available) gets used in the pool that gets split, and where it came from.
If they are under prizes instead of class prizes then both $60 U2200 is higher ranked that $60 U2000 AND both players are eligible for the U2200 prize. Thus an expert and A in a two-way tie for first clearly split $100 first and $60 U2200 leaving $60 U2000 untouched.
If first place plus half of the Expert prize plus half of the Class A prize were split between two players, then the prizes were distributed incorrectly. No more than one cash prize may go into the prize distribution for each winner. Two prize winners, two prizes. In this case the two most valuable are the First Place and the Expert Prize (Expert is a higher rating class than Class A, so the Expert prize outranks the Class A prize even though the two are of equal dollar value.) The two prize winners mentioned should have split those two prizes leaving the Class A prize for another player or players.
Mr. Just taught me the above lesson many, many years ago. I can’t recommend it highly enough.
I don’t believe that the rule book actually has language that the X prize “outranks” the A prize. It only describes what happens if “a” player qualifies for more than one prize, but no one qualifies for both of those. With the X and A prizes of equal value, a TD could justify having the A player pull in the 1st money, the X player pull in the X money; or could have the X player pull in the 1st money and the A player the A money. (I think one could even argue that having each player pull in 1/2 the 1st place and 1/2 their class prize isn’t extra-legal since they really do only bring in 1/2+1/2=1 prize each). This is why you should
- avoid having prizes of equal values, and
- use under rather than class prizes
If the eligibility sets for prizes nest (which rules out class prizes, special categories, and prize limits), then there is one and only one “legal” way to distribute the prize money even if you don’t follow (a). If not, then hope that the results work out.