Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:09:58 09/26/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2004 at 23:17:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 26, 2004 at 18:43:04, Mark Young wrote: > >>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. > >Yes but it is easy for strong player not to win games on purpose in order to >pretend to be a weak player and I see no way to prove that he is cheating. > >You may suspect a strong player that suddenly starts to lose but if a strong >player train a lot against the computer and get level of 2400 but does not show >his ability in tournaments and get performance of 1500 you cannot prove that he >is cheating. > >> >>> >>>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. > >I thought that there is some sponsor who decide to give money to weak players. >If the prizes are from the entry fee then there is no problem but I am surprised >that many weak players pay a lot of money for it because it seems clear to me >that real weak players have no chance to win the prizes and it is better for >them to play in tournaments with a smaller entry fees. We have some kind of disconnect here Uri. Maybe tournaments not the same for me here in the USA. I don't understand your logic or why you say somethings. It must be some kind of disconnect with the tournaments. Here tournaments have class prizes and the players pay entry fees. With the best players paying nothing to play. (In some cases) So I will speak from experience. I Payed around $100 and won many hundreds of dallors in one tournament back in the 80's when I was a active tournament player. I did not win the tournament outright, only my class. This is how tournaments are run here. You must play in the open section to win the biggest prize. But you can be a lesser player and still win 100's or 1000's of dollars. It is not that easy to sandbag, if you win your rating goes up. Here in the USA you rating has a floor. So you can't fall back after winning a big tournament. > >In Israel the entry fee for tournaments is usually not more than 30$ and I do >not think that more players are going to play if you increase the entry fee >significantly. > >There are 30-40 players in a typical swiss tournament in Israel but I guess that >with entry fee of hundreds of dollars you cannot get even 30-40 players >to play because most of the players know that they are probably not going to win >money prizes. > >If the prizes are very high it should be clear that the winner of under 1600 >will need to be significantly stronger than 1600 even if we assume no cheating >of losing on purpose or of using a computer. > >A player with rating of almost 1600 can decide to train seriously and avoid >tournaments for 1 or 2 years so his rating does not get higher and he will have >good chances to win high prize in the under 1600 section. > >I believe that 400 elo improvement in a year for 1600 player is possible for a >lot of players if it is important enough for them to spend some hours per day on >playing with the computer and learning from the games(it is also easy to play on >chess servers against humans today). > >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.