| 7-21-14 Four Chess Topics of Concern by NM Leland Fuerstman What Percentage Should Organizers Return in Prize Money? In deference to my old friend Thad Rogers, organizer of the LPO, I decided to wait until this year's tournament had concluded before I shared the sentiments of some of our members. As the years have gone by, some are concerned that his percentage of payback may have diminished?! In addition to the healthy profit he makes selling books and equipment, the numbers seem to indicate that he is profiting significantly from the entry fees?! -- This year, he advertised $15,000 based on 225 entries with a guaranteed payback of 55%. The clear 1st Prize winner of the Top Section, IM Ron Burnette (2464) from Tennessee, scored 4.5-.5 and won $770 while NM Peter Giannatos (2215) from Charlotte finished clear 2nd Place with 4-1 and received $385 for his efforts. But, curiously, NM Dominique Myers (2210) from Charlotte only scored 3.5-1.5 but won $440!... a half point lower score but more than the 2nd Place finisher? (go figure...) The first question is, why should the prize fund for the LPO be "based" on 225 players? A quick review of the information which is provided by the USCF database indicates that since American Chess Promotions took the event over, 1992 to present, it has never attracted 225 players? In fact, the average over the past 10 years has been 145 players and the average over the past 5 years has only been 132? So, if you are going to base the prize fund on anything, why not trust "statistics" and simply base the payout on the average of 132 players? That way, he would be able to pay out 100% of that which is advertised! However, if only 109 players participated this year, of the almost $11K collected in entries, was 55% actually paid back to the winners? Now, I hate to expose the solution to the magic trick, but for large chess events, every competent organizer I have ever known uses the standard system of "room night trade-off." When you make an arrangement with the hotel, you agree upon a total fee for the use of the playing areas. You then agree on a total number of room nights which will be occupied by your group. In my experience, 40-60 room nights has always been agreeable with most hotels but I have heard of one organizer who actually agreed to 200?! If your total is met, you use the hotel facilities for FREE! If you fall short of the number, the original amount agreed upon is prorated and you pay the difference. Considering the actual expenses associated with producing such a tournament, (don't worry, you will never find out what the actual numbers agreed upon were since no accounting of these events is ever published and organizers generally don't provide that information) on the surface, paying out exactly $8,279 and keeping approximately $3,000 seems to yield a substantial profit. Yet, rumor has it that Rogers claims he "lost $1,000 on this year's event?!" How could that be possible since all of the rooms which he "blocked" were apparently sold out and he actually ended up diverting players to other hotels? Other than paying a few hundred dollars to the Directors, lodging (the deal usually includes a few "free" hotel room nights for the Director), gas, food and rating fee what other expenses is he talking about? -- So, in the final analysis, you may choose from 2 separate formulas. When you multiply the guaranteed 55% X $15,000 you get a product of $8,250. But, in fact, $8,279 was paid out which actually exceeds the guaranteed 55% criteria! However, when you use the formula which compares total cash prizes paid vs. total entry fees received, (we must subtract "x" dollars for a few players who did not pay EF's as well as the discounted "early entries") the payout is over 70%! I guess it just depends upon how you look at it. But, there are some who are still curious as to how $1,000 was lost on the event? In retrospect, according to one of my less agreeable chess associates who jocundly accuses me of professional jealousy, it's "caveat emptor" or, "let the buyer beware?!" "Nobody is twisting their arms to play!" - Therefore, each individual is left to do the math prior to every event in order to determine whether the payback is fair!? But, exactly how much is fair? The CCC has returned 75% for all weekend events for almost 40 years. Yet, considering the cost of living, now I would argue that 70% might be more equitable. But, 55%? I believe that's a bit too low... Around the state, various organizers return differing percentages. Some as low as 50% and others as high as 95%+! (Asheboro CC) The problem is, there is absolutely NO oversight from the state level? There should be by-laws which require a minimum payback by organizers who advertise their events on the hopefully soon to be improved NCCA website. Furthermore, a financial statement of all events should be posted for all to see; particularly events which are sponsored by the NCCA. Unfortunately, the utter absence of leadership coupled with a profound lack of transparency of the organization will continue to allow promoters to pocket 4 times more than the 1st Place winner?! Some motivated officer needs to design and enforce a legitimate set of minimum standards in order to protect all North Carolina players. Isn't that what the organization is supposed to do? Volatile Mixture; When Adults Play With Kids, Bad Things Can Happen Over the recent past, I have been peppered with complaints from disgruntled adult chess players who have been required to play against young children. One Class "B" player indicated that 4 consecutive visits to a club which meets on Tuesday evenings in Charlotte resulted in his playing a 900, a 1000, an 1100 and a 1300 player -- who defeated him!? That scheme may be beneficial to the younger players, but it is patently unfair to the "B" player who expected to compete against other "adults" with a similar rating. But, worse, is the distraction of the constant buzzing around of some young players who can't seem to remain seated... During a recent tournament in Asheboro, one of the CCC's most congenial members became extremely exasperated by "a herd of little kids who swarmed around his board like piranha" in order to observe the time scramble with one of their friends. Despite the fact that the Director warned one youthful violator 3 separate times, it seemed to have had little effect. Finally, in the flurry, the adult blundered his Rook away but instantly noticed that his opponent's flag had fallen. Since he only ended up with a lone King, the Director properly declared the game to be a Draw! A loud barrage of colorful language followed with his proclamation that he will "never play a scholastic player again." I pointed out that there were still other games in progress whereupon he promptly egressed from the playing hall. Since then, he has apologized for the outburst, but vows the he will "never play with "little kids" again..." Scholastic players operate by a slightly different set of rules. Mixing them with adults can cause a myriad of problems. For example, in that same tournament, this National Master was paired against a 10 year old player with a rating of 1803! Early in the middle game, if I had played the dubious 13 Qb5?, my youthful opponent could have checked me with his Queen on "d4" and prosecuted a blistering attack! Thank goodness I came to my senses and retreated the Queen to "e2", defended to the hilt and successfully converted the position into a winning ending - with 3 extra connected passed pawns on the 5th rank! Yet, my stubborn opponent chose to play on? My first inclination was to promote to 5 Queens, but I promptly abandoned that notion so as to prevent acrimony. After all, the kid was younger than one of my 4 grandchildren! So, I promptly checkmated him and shook his diminutive hand. However, because of his deportment, I chose not to invite him to analyze the game with me. In fact, I consider his refusal to resign to a Master and drag out the game in the face of a completely dead lost position to be somewhat disrespectful. --- When I saw the player just prior to the next round, I stated to him, "Young man; did you not think I could win with all those extra Pawns?" He silently retreated to safety behind his fathers leg... The following day, I received a report that the "father" was upset with something that I did, or said? According to the Director, "scholastic players are taught to play the game out to the bitter end and never resign!?" -- Therein lies the problem. The general rule of thumb is that if one wishes to play in the Top Section of an "adult event," then one should attempt to act like an adult. Simply put, mixing standards and pairing scholastic players with adults will necessarily causes problems... He was my opponent, not his father. Believe me, that 10 year old kid would have checkmated me if he could have...Regardless, I was extremely impressed by the young man's level of play and predict that with the proper instruction and direction, we may someday address him as Master! He should simply "chalk it up to experience," and move on. Influx of So Many Conflicting Tournaments Causing Poor Turnouts When you look around at the results of all of the tournaments which have been crowded onto the schedule over the past year, in many cases, the number of participants have diminished significantly!? High entry fees and poor paybacks are two reasons. Adults being required to compete with little children is another. And, the sudden addition of events promoted by a "new" generation of organizers has occupied almost every weekend of some months. Sure, some energumens play tournament chess every weekend! But, most players don't.-- And then, last year, out of meanness, one well know organizer went as far as to send hate mail and publish unfriendly articles on the NCCA Forum suggesting that players not participate in a well designed weekend event sanctioned by the CCC? That certainly didn't help our numbers -- Still yet, another organizer complained that the "insiders" swing their weight around by including hastily planned events on the NCCA calendar (after the fact) which cause local promoters to either change their date, or suffer a poor turnout? (the CCC posted info for Knights Templar IX 4 months prior to the LPO showing up, hence it had to be postponed...) Again, no authority from the state organization has attempted to address nor control this issue. (Since some of those violators were and are officers of the NCCA themselves; can you say "conflict of interest?"). There must be a happy medium. There are 52 weekends in the year. A committee should oversee the distribution and assignment of those dates in order to be fair to all of the organizers in the state; including the 81 member Charlotte Chess Club! Until that happens, the numbers will decline and a certain amount of chaos will continue to prevail... Some Players Seem To Have Forgotten About Good Sportsmanship When I began my chess career in 1970, I was taught to greet my opponent with a handshake and conclude the game with a handshake...win, lose or draw. A certain amount of mutual respect was practiced by all who participated. Nowadays, some stoic characters arrive late, ignore their opponents greeting, play their game and promptly depart after it's conclusion without saying a word? (I sometimes arrive late, but at least I'm friendly!) Though it may not be a violation of the rules of chess to act like a unfriendly jerk, a few have become so offended that they question whether they even want to continue to play tournament chess? And, that is very disturbing to me. In Europe, after every round has concluded, both players will automatically retreat to the skittles room in order to review the game! Not to participate in that fashion is bad manners and a violation of club rules! To them, that is one of the most important facets of the entire chess experience! Furthermore, the high degree of emotion associated with the pressure of tournament competition has caused some of our top players at the CCC to become involved in a brand of post game repartee which has become distracting to their fellow members. The lower rated players will naturally observe and hopefully admire the Experts and Masters, not only for their level of skill, but also for the way they conduct themselves before, during and after their games. It seems that as of late, a few of our members have lost sight of that. I am well aware of the emotions associated with our Royal game, but that does not excuse offensive nor disrespectful behavior... Sorry guys, but the highest rated players of any chess club are appointed by default to be "ambassadors of chess." Therefore, like everyone else, they must demonstrate proper behavior in order to insure felicity within the ranks of their respective clubs. As the leader of the CCC, I wish to remind each one of our 81 valued members to maintain a certain amount of decorum and mutual respect when they attend the Charlotte Chess Club as well as other events around the state. There is far more to chess than just simply accumulating rating points!? Social interaction and sharing arcane information during friendly over the board analysis can be enjoyable as well as educational! Though everyone wants to win, some seem to be having more fun playing chess than others. I want everyone to have fun! Therefore, mutual respect and fun are the orders of the day. McAlister's Deli is an excellent venue where you can dine, socialize and play one rated game of chess each Wednesday evening at 7:30pm. Our club is comprised of players of all ages, from many origins and all walks of life who represent a wide range of skill levels! But, regardless of rating, each member is treated with equal respect. If you have never been to the CCC, now is the time to check in with us! Hope to see you at McAlister's Deli this Wednesday. I remain, NM Leland Fuerstman Charlotte Chess Club |