Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:43:04 09/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2004 at 15:00:38, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 26, 2004 at 14:03:24, Mark Young wrote: > >>On September 26, 2004 at 07:38:33, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>Uri, >>> >>>I understand your points and personally I agree with you, but here (in Italy) we >>>say "every mind is a small world" meaning that everybody think different and I >>>would add that also weak players wants tournaments where they can win money as >>>well. >>> >>>If we are not able to convince them, and I do not think it will be easy at all, >>>we have to make things as they want to avoid having no tournaments of all kinds. >>> >>>Sandro >> >>I don't agree with Uri. You must give value and respect to all players. We don't >>play to support strong players for the sake of supporting them. > > >If you support weak players by big prizes the result will be that strong >players will pretend to be weak players in order to win prizes. This is already been addressed. This is why you have rating floors. And why unrateds maybe forced to play in the open section of tournaments. > >You need to understand that in every sport strong players earn more money. > >It is absurd that some under 1600 player earns 10,000$ in USA when even GM's >usually earn less money from one tournament and it is bad for chess because >players at IM's level will have no motivation to show their real ability because >they can earn more by pretending to be players under 1600. This is a straw dog arguement. There are effective ways of stopping this a few I pointed out above. This is already the case. The open section have bigger prize funds. But it is insane to say it is unfair for weaker players to win 10,000 dollars or more. If you pay big money to play in a big open with 100's of players paying 100's of dollars. Why should that money go only to an elite few. Many times the stronger players pay nothing to play, or enter at a far reduced rated, or may get payed only for showing up. Uri this is not hard to understand. It is the lower players who have the money that supports all of chess. It is not the few strong players. Let me put it into chess terms for you. So you may understand. What is the sole of chess. Or the economic power behind the game of chess. A. Kings (world champ) B. Queens (GM's) C. Rooks (IM's) D. Bishops (FM's) E. Knights (NM's) F. Pawns (Weaker Players) If you answer F. You are correct. You must make the game attractive for all the pawns out there. As we all start out as pawns, or the game dies. You will close the door on all the pawns that could become of a higher rank. All to support the Kings and Queens... of today. It is business suicide. As someone said Italy found out by doing what you propose. > >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.