Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Professional Entry Fees

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 13:23:09 10/13/97

Go up one level in this thread

On October 13, 1997 at 01:55:42, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>On October 12, 1997 at 18:47:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>>Why must professionals pay more than amateurs anyway?
>>Is the absolute world microcomputer chess champion title worth more
>>if you are professional than if you are amateur?
>Take someone like Martin Zentner.  He's a college student.  If he wins a
>title it will be a big upset.  Obviously an amateur, obviously a
>hobbyist, obviously has little to gain, directly.  Sticking him with an
>entry fee might keep him out of the competition.
>Take a big diversified commercial software house such as Interplay,
>Sierra, Mindscape, etc.  They sell their work (or someone else's).  They
>have a good chance to win a title, and if they do win a title, they will
>put it on their box and plaster it across their ads.  To these people an
>entry fee might not be a large consideration.  To pay for a
>representative from the company to go to Paris, stay in a hotel and eat,
>and to pay that person's salary while they are there, would cost way
>more than a paltry $1000.
>I think at least this is the idea behind it -- to raise some cash from
>people who can afford it and who are likely to benefit financially from
>a good result.
>I think part of the break-down here is that there is an intermediate
>group, people who are not making a huge amount of money, but who have
>very strong programs which are available commercially.  I don't know how
>much money you make by doing chess programs, but I bet that in many
>cases, you don't make a lot.  The thousand bucks might tend to really
>matter to these people.  But the consumer might not see much difference
>between them and the big software houses -- the program is as strong or
>stronger, and costs as much or more.
>They tried to solve this problem by making a new category -- emerging
>professional.  This is tailor-made for someone like Stefan Mayer-Kahlen,
>who became professional after the tournament last year.  He probably
>hasn't sold a ton of units, but on the other hand, he's not Martin
>Zentner, either.
>But it is harder to find a perfect fit for Mark Uniacke, who has a
>strong program that is available commercially (and is in no way
>"emerging"), but apparently he doesn't make a lot of money from it.
>There is also a problem with Marty Hirsch, since he is apparently
>struggling due to his problems with Eurochess, but he is also in no way
>"emerging".  Apparently both of these guys are put off by the entry fee,
>although we only have Thorsten's word for that.
>It sounds like this system needs overhauling, again.  Unfortunately,
>while it is easy to complain about the system, it is harder to devise a
>better system.
>Last time I asked, in r.g.c.c., for constructive suggestions about what
>to do about this, I didn't get a lot of response.  The response that I
>did get was mainly, "flatten out or eliminate the fee structure and get
>rid of amateur/professional distinction", if I remember right.  Is that
>the best solution?
>What percentage of the event cost is generated through entry fees, and
>would this make it less likely that we could hold these events in the
>future, if these fees were eliminated?

In non-computer chess tournaments Grandmasters also don't have
to pay extra fee, just because they are strong, and are making lot of
money out of it.

They usually even get a free entry, because this makes it more
for other participants to join.

Vincent Diepeveen

This page took 0.01 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.