Why class prizes are wrong?
======================

Chess players are often divided into
classes according to their playing strength.
E.g. in the US there are, in the increasing
order of strength, classes E D C B A then
experts, then masters (never mind details
and variations/extensions). There is also
the harmful custom of providing the class
monetary awards at USCF tournaments
which are open to more than one class.

The class prizes (in mixed competitions)
are wrong for the following reasons:

1. It is unethical for a player to win $$,
when another player who had a better
result won less or nothing;

2. Class prizes induce some players into
the unethical sandbagging;

3. Class prizes cause a higher entry fee;
on the total, more chess players are pushed
away from the tournament chess by the extra
cost than are attracted by the gambling on
winning the prize; the true chess enthusiast
play for the pleasure of chess and not for
winning $$; actually, the class prizes affect
some chess players, especially the young ones,
in a negative way--thus the tournament
atmosphere suffers.

*******

However, if one insists on something like
class prizes, then, in order to avoid the
sand-bagging, one could apply my solution,
proposed in 1995:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...f56781c?&hl=en

or http://tinyurl.com/q2jtl

It goes as follows:

USCF should keep track of how much $$
each player has won in all USCF rated
tournaments. Then participants of the
tournament, for the purpose of class prizes,
can be divided into those who until then
won nothing; the next class would be
those who won a total up to $50, then
those who won more than $50 but less
than $200; etc.

*****

Amateurs should strive for cheap tournaments
without monetary rewards rather than at
winning $$ even for a relatively lousy performance.

Wlod