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? > >bruce 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 interesting for other participants to join. Vincent Diepeveen
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.