Galway Chess Congress 2017: March 10 - 12

Pete Morriss

Entries are now open for the 2017 Galway Congress, which will be held in the Menlo Park Hotel (the same venue as for the last three years) on the weekend of 10-12 March. Full information can be found on our website including methods of entry (scroll about half way down): you can enter and pay online, should you wish, or the old way, by post.

Please note that we are aware that, like most Irish weekend tournaments recently, we seem to have suffered from a lack of the strongest Irish players. So in an attempt to attract these players, we are offering free entry to anybody with an ICU rating of 2200 or over, provided they enter at least a month before the Congress (i.e. on or before 10 February). You can enter by emailing your details to galwaychess@gmail.com. Further, anybody rated from 2000 to 2199 (ICU) can have a €20 discount on the standard entry fee, providing again that they enter (and pay) by 10 February. The reason that this offer will close a month before the tournament is that we now publish the list of entrants as the entries come in; last year most of the early entrants to the Masters were at the bottom of the rating band (or indeed below it, floating up) which made it seem as if the tournament would be weaker than it actually was, and we think that might have discouraged some people from entering. Hence we want the stronger players to enter earlier, and so are offering this incentive to them to do so. (We have also tightened up a bit on who is allowed to 'float up'.)

So please put the date in your diary, and get your entries coming in!

brilliantboy

http://www.galwaychess.com/galway-congress-2017/ wrote:

(b) Players who have had a published ICU rating in the past 2 years which is on or above the floors specified in the table above (i.e., 1800 and 1200), may use that rating to float up if they wish.

I have to say I don't see the logic behind this rule.
Why should a player receive privileges based on a level they achieved in the past but no longer maintain?

sodacat11

brilliantboy wrote: »

I have to say I don't see the logic behind this rule.
Why should a player receive privileges based on a level they achieved in the past but no longer maintain?

I agree completely with brilliantboy.

Maybe if you (Pete Morris) stopped people from playing "up" altogether you would get more of the strong players that your excellent congress apparently has been missing in recent years.

I intended playing in Galway myself this season but the Menlo Hotel is very expensive with no reduced rate for chess players and I couldn't find any other accommodation in the nearby vicinity. Any ideas?

sodacat11

sodacat11 wrote: »

I intended playing in Galway myself this season but the Menlo Hotel is very expensive with no reduced rate for chess players and I couldn't find any other accommodation in the nearby vicinity. Any ideas?

OH...I see on your website that you do have special hotel rates for chess players and that you list some other accommodation so apologies for the above. I still don't see why hotels charge so much more for a single room though, it is still only one bed and one breakfast per person.

Pete Morriss

brilliantboy wrote: »

(b) Players who have had a published ICU rating in the past 2 years which is on or above the floors specified in the table above (i.e., 1800 and 1200), may use that rating to float up if they wish.
I have to say I don't see the logic behind this rule.
Why should a player receive privileges based on a level they achieved in the past but no longer maintain?

This has been part of our regulations for several years; it was introduced before I was the main organizer. I think we added it because the rating of one of our regular visitors had dropped just below the threshhold; he had played in the over-1200 (or whatever level it was) for well over a decade, and regarded that as his natural level. He had consistently had decent results at that level in Galway. He wrote to us saying that he would enter if, and only if, he could play in the over-1200 section, claiming that the drop in ratings was a blip due to some fluke bad results (which we all think, of course, so we didn't take that that seriously). We decided to accommodate him; he did reasonably well in that section; and his rating did indeed soon get back over the 1200 level.

As far as I can recall, this rule has never been called on since.

So this was a judgement call: we do try to accommodate players who support us, if we can do so without inconveniencing anyone else too much. Others might have decided differently, and maybe two years is a bit generous, and one year would be better. But these are the sorts of judgements tournament organizers have to make.

Pete Morriss

sodacat11 wrote: »

I agree completely with brilliantboy.

Maybe if you (Pete Morris) stopped people from playing "up" altogether you would get more of the strong players that your excellent congress apparently has been missing in recent years.

For what it is worth, I personally agree with you, and it would make life much easier for us if 1800 and 1200 just meant 1800 and 1200. But we have to give people what they want, not what we want, and it is very clear that many players like floating up, and expect to be able to do so. Every year we get emails (sometimes quite aggressive ones) from people who will play only if they can float up. Of course we tend not to hear from the people who won't play if others are allowed to float up: if we had evidence that they were more numerous than the floater-uppers, we would take the demand to abolish floating up more seriously.

I think the idea of floating up has some point: nobody can say that someone with a rating of 1799 is clearly inferior to one of 1800; the rating system is just not that accurate. Playing in a weekend tournament is time-consuming and often expensive, and so it is reasonable for people to decide they don't want to do it if they are not getting the games they want. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we have decided to allow a 50-point leeway (last year it was 100 points). By the way, I do enforce this rigidly: last year we had an application to float up from someone who was 101 points under the advertised rating floor; I rejected the application, and he declined to play in the lower section. So we try to please people as much as we can; I can't see what else we can do.

Pete Morriss

sodacat11 wrote: »

OH...I see on your website that you do have special hotel rates for chess players and that you list some other accommodation so apologies for the above. I still don't see why hotels charge so much more for a single room though, it is still only one bed and one breakfast per person.

Again, I agree with you: as a single person myself, I find hotels' pricing policies infuriating. But Irish hotels seem only to have double rooms nowadays, and they basically charge a rate for the room, but don't say that, for some reason. It's slightly cheaper for us singletons because we only eat one breakfast not two, but that's about it.

You will also see on our website that, because of the hotel's pricing policy, we offer to provide a "room share" service, by putting in touch with each other any singles who would like to share a room to save money; which is doing what we can. But unfortunately we have very little say over how the hotel charges for its rooms - particularly as they would have no difficulty filling the rooms they reserve for players with non-chess-players: Galway is a popular place, and life would be much easier for me if I lived somewhere less popular!

checknraise

Hi Pete,
Do you expect many titled players to play? The best way to get 2000+ rated players down would be to get a couple of IM/GM's registered so there is a chance of a scalp.

sodacat11

Pete Morriss wrote: »

I think the idea of floating up has some point: nobody can say that someone with a rating of 1799 is clearly inferior to one of 1800; the rating system is just not that accurate. Playing in a weekend tournament is time-consuming and often expensive, and so it is reasonable for people to decide they don't want to do it if they are not getting the games they want. We have to draw the line somewhere, and we have decided to allow a 50-point leeway (last year it was 100 points). By the way, I do enforce this rigidly: last year we had an application to float up from someone who was 101 points under the advertised rating floor; I rejected the application, and he declined to play in the lower section. So we try to please people as much as we can; I can't see what else we can do.

I see your point about 1799 v 1800 and would go so far as to say that there are probably some 1500 players who are stronger than some 1800 rated players but this is not the point. Someone who is "underrated" compared to their playing strength should only need one tournament or a few league games to rectify this and if they haven't done so then they simply aren't good enough (or as good as they may think they are) . I don't understand why tournaments instead of having an 1800 floor and allowing 1750s to play up don't just have a 1750 floor with no exceptions.
Bunratty is coming up soon and my rating is below 2000 so I can't make up my mind whether to play in the Masters or the Challengers . The Masters is appealing because of the very strong field and the chance to pick up a scalp but the reality is that I will be little more than a punchbag for most of them and will probably only score something around 2/6 . The Challengers is inviting because I could reasonably expect to score 4 or more and the prize money is very tempting. Quite honestly I would prefer not to have the choice and to have to play in the Challengers along with all the other 1900+ players who will enter the Masters but should really be in the Challengers.

reunion

checknraise wrote: »

The best way to get 2000+ rated players down would be to get a couple of IM/GM's registered so there is a chance of a scalp.

This is the higher rated version of playing up a section.

sodacat11 wrote: »

Someone who is "underrated" compared to their playing strength should only need one tournament ....

Bunratty is coming up soon and my rating is below 2000...

Put your money where you mouth is and play the Challengers, you should gain enough points to go above 2000 again. There is a decision made for you.

brilliantboy wrote: »

I have to say I don't see the logic behind this rule.
Why should a player receive privileges based on a level they achieved in the past but no longer maintain?

Well considering players get titles for life (or ratings if you never play a rated game again), I think it's not unreasonable. I would say it is easier for someone who once was a certain rating to get back to that rating (in comparison to an individual who never achieved that rating in the past).

Pete Morriss

checknraise wrote: »

Hi Pete,
Do you expect many titled players to play? The best way to get 2000+ rated players down would be to get a couple of IM/GM's registered so there is a chance of a scalp.

We're working on that; unfortunately IMs/GMs don't grow on trees. We've invariably had several IMs/GMs, and certainly hope to keep that up this year. I'll post further info as soon as I have it.

sodacat11

"Put your money where you mouth is and play the Challengers, you should gain enough points to go above 2000 again. There is a decision made for you"
I am very tempted to and may well do so. I would definitely play in the Challengers if there was more 1900+ players than have so far entered but most 1950s will probably play in the Masters
Dunno about ever getting over 2000 again, I am not getting any better as I get older and even holding my rating in the Challengers section would be no formality, but when the day comes that I am only eligible to play in Intermediate or Junior tournaments I will happily do so. I certainly won't be writing to tournament organisers looking for an exemption because I was once over 2000.

Tim Harding

sodacat11 wrote: »

Quite honestly I would prefer not to have the choice and to have to play in the [Bunratty] Challengers along with all the other 1900+ players who will enter the Masters but should really be in the Challengers.

Personally I would prefer more clarity in Bunratty's Terms and Conditions than is provided by the line

Players with a FIDE rating of over 2000 may play in the Masters.

Probably that should be "should" ? If a player with a 1900+ ICU rating but over 2000 FIDE were to win a prize in the Challengers I foresee there could be complaints.
I agonised over this for a while but decided to enter the Masters though I certainly don't expect to do very well. Playing two or three games in a day, even in the Challengers (with all those talented juniors), at my age is not likely to be easy but I prefer the toughest available opposition while I am still playing some overseas events.

However I would like the organisers to be more careful with the seedings of overseas players. I hope they get them all right when the February lists are published. Last year when I played the Cork congress and Ennis congress the latest ICU ratings of many early entrants were not used and consequently the seedings (and so many high board pairings) were skewed.

Last time I played Bunratty (2015) some UK players were down with converted English ratings which were significantly different from their FIDE ratings. For example in the current entry list they have Aidan Rawlinson down as 2045 but his FIDE rating is 2213, whereas Malcolm Pein's son Jonathan is listed with his FIDE rating 2019.

sodacat11

Tim Harding wrote: »

If a player with a 1900+ ICU rating but over 2000 FIDE were to win a prize in the Challengers I foresee there could be complaints.

That's a very good point !!

Pete Morriss

Tim Harding wrote: »

If a player with a 1900+ ICU rating but over 2000 FIDE were to win a prize in the Challengers I foresee there could be complaints.

But that has often happened (including last year) and I have never heard any complaints. Anybody with an ICU rating under 2000 is perfectly entitled to play in the Bunratty Challengers, should they wish.

However, this thread is about the Galway Congress; if people want to discuss Bunratty, can they please use the Bunratty thread?

Pete Morriss

checknraise wrote: »

Hi Pete,
Do you expect many titled players to play? The best way to get 2000+ rated players down would be to get a couple of IM/GM's registered so there is a chance of a scalp.

Job done: currently one GM and two IMs are registered (Alex Baburin, Alex Lopez, Mark Heidenfeld) and I'm waiting to hear back from a few more. So now we'll wait for all the would-be scalpers to flock to enter.:)

sodacat11

Where is a good (not a hostel and not overly expensive) place to stay that isn't too far from the venue?

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

Where is a good (not a hostel and not overly expensive) place to stay that isn't too far from the venue?

http://www.booking.com/hotel/ie/a-copper-beech-house.en-gb.html?aid=304142;label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggJCAlhYSDNiBW5vcmVmaFCIAQGYAS64AQbIAQzYAQHoAQH4AQuoAgM;sid=61d62f06585559a902e75d13440c7144;atlas_src=sr_iw_title;checkin=2017-03-10;checkout=2017-03-12;dist=0;group_adults=1;group_children=0;no_rooms=1;room1=A;sb_price_type=total;type=total&

€100 for 2 nights including breakfast. 25 minute walk or 6 minute taxi. Only 1 room left though.

Pete Morriss

Thanks Reunion.

We have some names on the website of the nearest places, and also links to lists of accommodation in Galway. We are a bit hesitant to recommend places that we haven't tried out (and since we live in Galway, we don't have much reason to stay in B&Bs in Galway ...), and everybody has a different idea of how much is too expensive, and how far away they are willing to stay.

If the place Reunion has highlighted has gone, there are several other B&Bs and Guest Houses near to it shown on booking.com, and also on tripadvisor. If you bring your car (and note that there is ample free parking at the venue) then anywhere in Galway city is only a short drive away.

Pete Morriss

Just a reminder that Friday is the closing date for our special reduced price entry for people over 2000 (ICU): half-price for those between 2000 and 2199, and free for everybody over 2200. So far, nobody has taken us up on this generous offer; so now’s your chance to be the first!

Note that we have already secured entries from one GM (Alex Baburin) and two IMs (Alex Lopez and Mark Heidenfeld) and have had strong expressions of interest from another two (overseas) IMs, who are currently in the process of booking their travel; so the Masters section looks as if it will be strong.

sodacat11

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Just a reminder that Friday is the closing date for our special reduced price entry for people over 2000 (ICU): half-price for those between 2000 and 2199, and free for everybody over 2200. So far, nobody has taken us up on this generous offer; so now’s your chance to be the first!.

I would jump at it if my rating was still over 2000, I've always enjoyed your tournament and done well there too!

brilliantboy

sodacat11 wrote: »

I would jump at it if my rating was still over 2000, I've always enjoyed your tournament and done well there too!

Maybe you can float up to the reduced entry fee too

sodacat11

brilliantboy wrote: »

Maybe you can float up to the reduced entry fee too

Normally I am against "floating up" but in this particular case I think it's a brilliant idea!!
No doubt my participation and the easy rating points I tend to shed these days would encourage others to enter

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

Just a reminder that Friday is the closing date for our special reduced price entry for people over 2000 (ICU): half-price for those between 2000 and 2199, and free for everybody over 2200. So far, nobody has taken us up on this generous offer; so now’s your chance to be the first!

Note that we have already secured entries from one GM (Alex Baburin) and two IMs (Alex Lopez and Mark Heidenfeld) and have had strong expressions of interest from another two (overseas) IMs, who are currently in the process of booking their travel; so the Masters section looks as if it will be strong.

Is there any offer available to players after that deadline? I imagine Bunratty would be the perfect place to advertise this!

sodacat11

reunion wrote: »

Is there any offer available to players after that deadline? I imagine Bunratty would be the perfect place to advertise this!

Good idea! I think too that every year Irish players going to big tournaments like the London Classic, Hastings and Gibraltar should be asked to bring a few fliers or a poster with them to advertise upcoming tournaments here like Gonzaga, Bunratty, Galway,Cork etc I always try to plug Irish tournaments when I play abroad but often that is only to a few opponents or people that I meet. Obviously the written word would reach a far greater audience.
It was through good advertising and personal contacts that Gonzaga got such a great entry this year. Also,there is a real scarcity of decent weekenders in the U.K so it is a ready market for us.

Pete Morriss

Tomorrow (Friday) is the last day of free entry for players rated 2200 or over (ICU), and the reduced rate of €20 for 2000-2199. After tomorrow, the entry fee will revert to the normal early-entry fee of €30 (€25 for concessions).

Another IM confirmed entry today (Craig Pritchett, from Scotland), bringing the number of titled players so far to four: one GM and three IMs. I expect that another one or two IMs will also enter in the next few days.

Pete Morriss

A reminder that the reduced price for early registration for the Galway Congress ends on Sunday 26 February. Entries are flowing in nicely, and it looks like being another good tournament. In the top section there will be (at least) one GM, three IMs, and one FM plus a raft of untitled players.

Also, there are still rooms left in the hotel which are being held exclusively for chess players' use, but they are only being held until Sunday, so if you want to make sure of staying in the tournament venue do make sure to book your hotel room before then.

Full details of the tournament arrangements and information about the hotel accommodation are available on our website, from which you can enter directly.

Pete Morriss

This is a final reminder for the Galway Congress, which takes place this coming weekend (10th to 12th March). If you haven’t entered already, then please make sure to get your entries in soon: it only costs €40 (€35 concessions) which is next to nothing for a full weekend’s enjoyment. You can enter online (scroll down to just before the end), or by post to the address given in that link. Please note that on-line entry will close at midnight on Thursday/Friday, while postal entries must be received by Thursday. If you fail to enter and then have a last-minute rush of regret, you can still enter by turning up at the venue (Menlo Park Hotel, Galway) before 7.30 on Friday, though you will have to pay a late-entry surcharge of €15.

We are delighted that we have just secured the participation of Grandmaster Oleg Korneev, who will be playing in the Masters section. Oleg was born in Russia and learnt his chess there; he now represents Spain, where he is currently the fourth highest rated active player. His highest rating was 2671, when he was number 35 in the world, so he is a seriously strong player. As far as I know he has not played in Ireland before, so, if you are rated over 1750 (ICU), this is a unique opportunity of having a chance of playing against Oleg. As well as Oleg Korneev, Ireland’s own Grandmaster Alex Baburin will be playing, in addition to three International Masters, two from Ireland and one from Scotland, so the Masters section has a very strong field.

Of course, if you are not rated above 1750, you can still enter the appropriate section for you, and play against a range of excellent opponents, whilst also having the chance of winning prizes, and also of chatting to Oleg and Alex (between games) and also buying yet more chess books for your collection, and chess equipment, from Alex Baburin’s bookstall, which will be open throughout Saturday and Sunday.

sodacat11

Korneev played in Enniscorthy and Bunratty last year

Pete Morriss

sodacat11 wrote: »

Korneev played in Enniscorthy and Bunratty last year

Sorry, he didn't tell me that! He obviously likes Ireland.

sodacat11

Very strong entry for Galway! I am looking forward to playing there. It's a pity that there aren't a few more entries for the Masters given the quality of the field. Perhaps there are a few too many events at this time of the year and too close to each other Gonzaga, Bunratty, Galway, NCC, Cork, Tralee and that perhaps at least one of them could be switched to August or October or some other month when the calendar is much quieter. I know that Enniscorthy planned on repeating their excellent tournament this year but put it off for now just because there are so many other events on.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

Very strong entry for Galway! I am looking forward to playing there. It's a pity that there aren't a few more entries for the Masters given the quality of the field. Perhaps there are a few too many events at this time of the year and too close to each other Gonzaga, Bunratty, Galway, NCC, Cork, Tralee and that perhaps at least one of them could be switched to August or October or some other month when the calendar is much quieter. I know that Enniscorthy planned on repeating their excellent tournament this year but put it off for now just because there are so many other events on.

I rather like having the option to play chess a weekend I'm free however I do feel the same. Cork, NCC, Bunratty, Galway and 2 Munster League dates makes 6 out of 8 weekends with chess events.

I would like to play Galway as (irrespective of my play) I've found the tournament enjoyable any time I've played. Maybe next time!

Pete Morriss

reunion wrote: »

I would like to play Galway as (irrespective of my play) I've found the tournament enjoyable any time I've played. Maybe next time!

Maybe this time, it's not too late!

sodacat11

The Galway chess congress was, as always,very well organised and very enjoyable and the Masters section in particular had a very strong (if disappointingly small) field. So small in fact that the advertised grading prize of 250 euro turned out to be only a paltry fifty euro. I can understand that the 250 was "subject to entries" but an 80% reduction?????????? !6 played in the Masters so presumably for the 250 to have been paid the entry would have had to reach 80. There has never been eighty entries in the Galway Masters (or Kilkenny or Bunratty for that matter) and the organisers were well aware of this fact when they advertised the 250 prize. At best it was false advertising. The prizes for the winners were also reduced but nowhere near by the amount of the grading prizes. Galway is not the only tournament to advertise unrealistic prizes, it is something that the ICU should look at as they provide a certain amount of sponsorship for tournaments run in Ireland.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

The Galway chess congress was, as always,very well organised and very enjoyable and the Masters section in particular had a very strong (if disappointingly small) field. So small in fact that the advertised grading prize of 250 euro turned out to be only a paltry fifty euro. I can understand that the 250 was "subject to entries" but an 80% reduction?????????? !6 played in the Masters so presumably for the 250 to have been paid the entry would have had to reach 80. There has never been eighty entries in the Galway Masters (or Kilkenny or Bunratty for that matter) and the organisers were well aware of this fact when they advertised the 250 prize. At best it was false advertising. The prizes for the winners were also reduced but nowhere near by the amount of the grading prizes. Galway is not the only tournament to advertise unrealistic prizes, it is something that the ICU should look at as they provide a certain amount of sponsorship for tournaments run in Ireland.

The prizes were realistic based on previous entry numbers though with free entry given to some players, maybe this reduced the prize fund available which wasn't factored in appropriately? If everyone in the masters section paid the €40, the prize fund is €640 in that section (excluding grading prizes). So before grading prizes that's a loss of €260 in that section alone (if everyone paid €40). Obviously the losses increase when people pay the €10 discount or even the further reduced entry to some players or booking the venue. So in reality the losses are more (6 players rated above 2200 so free entry, 1 player rated above 2000 so only paid €20 with the rest paying ~€30). Entry fees were probably something like €300 which again is a loss of €340 for the masters section (before grading prizes).

For a prize fund of 640 along with 250 in grading prizes that is a total of 890 divided by 40, that is 22.25 players or 29.67 if you said everyone paid an average of €30 to enter. Of course that's not including money from entries in other sections (to cover losses) so that was a realistic prize fund in my opinion.

Pete Morriss

sodacat11 wrote: »

... the advertised grading prize of 250 euro turned out to be only ... fifty euro. ... The prizes for the winners were also reduced but nowhere near by the amount of the grading prizes. ... the ICU should look at [this] as they provide a certain amount of sponsorship for tournaments run in Ireland.

First, two facts. The winners of all place-prizes (first, second, and third) received the full amount advertized. The ICU has provided no sponsorship to the Galway Congress since 2014.

The amount allocated to grading prizes was indeed reduced, to reflect the fact that the number of entries was lower than the number on which we had budgeted (which was a realistic number as we had exceeded it in 2014; in that year we paid out more in grading prizes than the amount we had advertized). The number of entries was particularly disappointing in the Masters section, so that took a larger cut than the other two sections. If the numbers in the Masters had been (say) 50, then there would have been three or four grading prizes, none of which would have exceeded €100, so we mainly reduced the number of grading prizes rather than their size. It should be fairly obvious that with only ten paying entries to the Masters this year, only two of whom paid over €30, a prize fund for that section of €950 (as was paid out this year) is insanely generous.

All that said, thank you sodacat11 for your kind assessment of the tournament, grading prizes apart. A full report, including a full list of prize winners, will be posted on our website shortly

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

A full report, including a full list of prize winners, will be posted on our website shortly

Hopefully also some update on the ICU site too about the Galway tournament?

2bts

No sign of the results of the final rounds. Who won the various sections.

sodacat11

Korneev won the Masters with Lopez second.
I fully understand why the prizes had to be reduced but the low entry was known well in advance so the advertised prizes could have been adjusted on the website beforehand to give a more accurate reflection of what was on offer. I am delighted to win a grading prize no matter what the value but to wait for the presentation and open an envelope expecting at least 100 euro and possibly 250 and find a cheque for only fifty was disappointing to say the least.
I have won prizes in three of my last four visits to the Galway Congress, two grading prizes and a shared second so it is still by far my most profitable tournament regardless of cutbacks.
The venue was great,as were the playing conditions and the quality of the field. I hope next year that more people will support what is an excellent event.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

I am delighted to win a grading prize no matter what the value but to wait for the presentation and open an envelope expecting at least 100 euro and possibly 250 and find a cheque for only fifty was disappointing to say the least.

If you were expecting €250 you were always going to be disappointed. You honestly thought the grading prize was higher than 3rd or on par with 2nd place prize money?

The entry form said that this would be adjusted up or down depending on entries. It was 100% going to be adjusted down.

Most tournaments don't advertise a grading prize amount or number of grading prizes (unless guaranteed before hand) until after round 5 at best. Most just state how many grading prizes.

Pete Morriss

Thank you again sodacat11 for your (now slightly amplified) praise for the tournament, and we do of course hope that your comments will encourage more people to play in 2018: if they do then we will be able to pay out all our advertised grading prizes - or, indeed, even more - in which case the one complaint which you have will be solved. And we are glad that Galway has been a good hunting ground for you.

However, this passage

sodacat11 wrote: »

... the low entry [to the Masters section] was known well in advance so the advertised prizes could have been adjusted on the website beforehand ...

really is nonsense. We never have any idea how many people will enter in the last few days: in some years we have had nearly half our entries in the final 48 hours. It makes no sense to calculate and announce the grading prize structure in advance, and then recalculate it every day as more entries come in; and to do that would not be particularly helpful to potential entrants. And, since we now display the list of entrants and update that daily, anybody knowledgeable about how tournaments work would know that with few entrants the grading prizes on offer are likely to be reduced. Whilst I understand that it was a bit of a shock to open the envelope after your good performance and see less than you expected, that was in large part a consequence of unrealistic expectations.

reunion

Pete Morriss wrote: »

anybody knowledgeable about how tournaments work would know that with few entrants the grading prizes on offer are likely to be reduced.

While I agree with what you are saying, I don't think Sodacat's complaint was due to a reduction of the number of prizes or the amount but rather not being informed until after receiving the prize how much it was. I think he was referring to after the tournament has started (i.e. when participants are known). From previous tournaments I've run, prize funds aren't concrete until Sunday after round 5/6 when people requesting bye's and pairings are no longer required. I think he would have preferred (say after round 5) for the grading prize amount to have been displayed.

sodacat11

reunion wrote: »

While I agree with what you are saying, I don't think Sodacat's complaint was due to a reduction of the number of prizes or the amount but rather not being informed until after receiving the prize how much it was. I think he was referring to after the tournament has started (i.e. when participants are known). From previous tournaments I've run, prize funds aren't concrete until Sunday after round 5/6 when people requesting bye's and pairings are no longer required. I think he would have preferred (say after round 5) for the grading prize amount to have been displayed.

Exactly!!
A 250 euro grading prize never should have been advertised in the first place as it was a totally unrealistic expectation, not just on my part but also on the part of the organisers unless they deliberately set out to mislead people by offering prizes they knew that they could never award.

reunion

sodacat11 wrote: »

Exactly!!
A 250 euro grading prize never should have been advertised in the first place as it was a totally unrealistic expectation, not just on my part but also on the part of the organisers unless they deliberately set out to mislead people by offering prizes they knew that they could never award.

This I disagree with. You are saying that it's either intentionally misleading advertising (fraud) or unrealistic expectations (duping players) which is both grossly wrong and insulting to the hard work put in to run such an event and to me seems like you are ignorant of running one of Ireland's top chess tournaments.

Could you clarify how the advertised prize fund (including grading prizes) was unreasonable (prior to knowledge of entries)? To me it was a more than reasonable expectation (Which they also said was subject to entries).

Once the tournament started it would have been nice to know the grading prize amount, however, in no way was it essential or required. So your complaint is a feedback comment and not an accusation of fraud or dupe players as it is currently phrased/presented.

brilliantboy

What would be nice is if the ICU actually acknowledged the existence of this tournament. The lack of coverage on either the ICU website or the Facebook page over the weekend was noticeable, particularly in the context of the fantastic job they've been doing with the promotion of other events recently.

sodacat11

reunion wrote: »

This I disagree with. You are saying that it's either intentionally misleading advertising (fraud) or unrealistic expectations (duping players) which is both grossly wrong and insulting to the hard work put in to run such an event and to me seems like you are ignorant of running one of Ireland's top chess tournaments.

Could you clarify how the advertised prize fund (including grading prizes) was unreasonable (prior to knowledge of entries)? To me it was a more than reasonable expectation (Which they also said was subject to entries).

Once the tournament started it would have been nice to know the grading prize amount, however, in no way was it essential or required. So your complaint is a feedback comment and not an accusation of fraud or dupe players as it is currently phrased/presented.

If the grading prize was reduced by 80% because there were only 16 entrants in the Masters then it follows that there would have had to have been a completely unrealistic 80 entrants for the full 100% prize money to have been paid. The other possibility to boost the kitty would have been for the total entrants in all sections to have been up hugely on what could reasonably have been expected. Considering that about 118 in total played in 2016 where did the organisers expect all these extra entrants to come from? And don't forget that there was a 5 euro discount on entry fees this year.

sodacat11

Next year it would be better if the grading prizes were advertised as being 50 euro minimum depending on entry then if 300 people turn up the prize winners would all be pleasantly surprised when they opened their envelopes .
In general, I think that if grading prizes were better in tournaments it would attract more entrants. I was certainly attracted to Galway by the 250 euro carrot offered. As it is in most tournaments it is only the select few who can win decent prizes.

Pete Morriss

sodacat11 wrote: »

Exactly!!
A 250 euro grading prize never should have been advertised in the first place as it was a totally unrealistic expectation, not just on my part but also on the part of the organisers unless they deliberately set out to mislead people by offering prizes they knew that they could never award.

As I have said before, this is just wrong. If there had been entries at the 2014 level overall, and 40-50 players in the Masters, there would have been €250 paid out in grading prizes in the Masters, if not more. Frankly, I'm the main tournament organizer, so I know what I am talking about; and you don't. It is wrong and offensive to talk about deliberately misleading people.

sodacat11

Pete Morriss wrote: »

As I have said before, this is just wrong. If there had been entries at the 2014 level overall, and 40-50 players in the Masters, there would have been €250 paid out in grading prizes in the Masters, if not more. Frankly, I'm the main tournament organizer, so I know what I am talking about; and you don't. It is wrong and offensive to talk about deliberately misleading people.

We will just have to agree to disagree, if your way of estimating the entry is to go back three years . The entry in 2014 was 105 in total,as far as I can see that was only about 15 more than this year so I still don't get how you could have reasonably expected to pay out a 250 euro grading prize or why that was reduced by as much as 80%. What was the grading prize paid out in 2014?

Ficheall

As a matter of interest, sodacat, since you are always generous with your constructive criticism, and are in the section affected - would you prefer more/higher place and grading prizes, OR more titled players?

In 2014, there was one IM, this year there were 2 GMs and 3 IMs - that, I suspect, would account for any difference in prize money.

sodacat11

Ficheall wrote: »

As a matter of interest, sodacat, since you are always generous with your constructive criticism, and are in the section affected - would you prefer more/higher place and grading prizes, OR more titled players?

In 2014, there was one IM, this year there were 2 GMs and 3 IMs - that, I suspect, would account for any difference in prize money.

It is nice to have titled players in tournaments and this undoubtedly attracts lower rated players like myself but the chance for us minnows to win a tasty prize is also a huge attraction as can be seen from the Gibraltar Tournament.
It is a bit of chicken/egg scenario. Generous prizes attract entrants but obviously these aren't feasible without the requisite numbers.