Musing on ties for prizes
Study of the crosstables from the Western and similar events reveals some interesting patterns. There are several interesting observations one can make, but the most prominent one is, of course, the way top players rarely play against each other, even when paired. The draws are quick and lifeless. In the recent Western, for example, draws were as short as 3 moves, and several under 15 moves.
I can understand the approach. This is the real world, after all, and players want to ensure they get something for their effort, but I can’t help but wonder if there’s a better way, one that rewards the spectators, organizers, and other players with the spectacle of a well-played game, even if then the outcome is a draw.
One technique I’ve seen used by the Canadians is a lotto-style rollover prize for a perfect score. An extra bonus is offered a player with a perfect score, and if no one gets a perfect score, then the prize rolls over to be included in the next event. It has its attractions, and it’s tempting to subtract something from the top 3 prizes to put into this kind of a bonus.
It’s something to think about; next year’s first prize will be $1k. Maybe I’ll drop every top three prize by $100 and add a $300 bonus for a perfect score. Would that make for a few more fights? Or would they just agree under the table to split the bonus as well?
March 8th, 2006 at 9:38 am
It is interesting that top players do that. I am not convinced that the only reason they ‘draw’ is financial. One wonders if there isn’t some ’self protection’ in not playing games out to a logical conclusion?
March 8th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Could be. Paul Keres once said that title norms were ruining tournament chess. Players were so concerned about making the norm that they never really tried to win the event. They simply wanted to do whatever it took to reach the specified “norm” score, and if drawing the last four games was all they needed, then why should they risk losing?
He had a point. There’s also some ego protection involved, as well as energy conservation, though I’m less inclined to accept that second point in weekend swisses; it’s more a strategy for week-long (and longer) events.
It could even be laziness. Why work any harder for the money than you absolutely have to?
Whatever it is, there’s more than one organizer who’s considering quitting because of it. If your name isn’t Goichburg or Cuchi, you’re not making much out of organizing events. Organizing is work, and as a reward for the effort it’s nice to see some good games. When there are just a few excellent players in an event, the opportunity for that is reduced considerably. When they decide not to play each other, the opportunity is completely eliminated, and the organizers begin to ask themselves “Why am I doing this?”
As both a player and an organizer, I can understand both points of view, better than those who just play, or just organize. I can’t find it in me to condemn either viewpoint, but something has to give or there won’t be many opportunities to play.