Entry fee tesuji

[breakfast]

What do you think about this idea: We ask double entry fee (200 Euro instead of 100) from all supergroup members on EGC. And use the money as prizes for best 8 or 10.
In this case players who see that they have no chances, may prefer to start from the lower group with lower entry fee.

As a result we can get smaller supergroup - 16 or 24 members instead of 32.

[topazg]

Let's say we do that, and people go "I'm not paying that, even if I have winning chances", and decide not to enter. Someone who considered themselves without a supergroup chance and has entered at 100 is told he has to stump up the extra cash because the bar has dropped to include him in it. He says "no thanks" so the bar goes to the next person, and so on, each of whom has to be individually approached with regards to fees - This sort of thing could be an administrative nightmare, even though I approve of the general idea

[breakfast]

Super-group candidates have to sign the paper before the first round "I want to be in the supergroup and promise to play all 10 rounds".
We can ask them to add additional 100 euro and return them back, if necessary (if there are too many candidates, for example).
It's not that difficult

[topazg]

Yes, that would make sense if the administration would happily take on the financial aspects of it.

[RobertJasiek]

Expenses are already considerable: No income from regular work, travel tickets, accommodation, more expensive than home food on average, congress basic fees. Already that is so much that quite some can't afford to attend the congress. E.g., Jürgen Mattern often explained that he would have won more European Championships if only he could have afforded the travel. Making congresses yet more expensive is thus counter-productive. Not the richest shall win but the most skilled players.

Quite contrarily, as we can learn from the Toyota-Denzo-Oza, travel support greatly increases participation.

[breakfast]

If you think that you cannot get your extra 100 Euro back, you can start from the next group. It's fair, no?

[RobertJasiek]

If you think that you cannot get your extra 100 Euro back, you can start from the next group. It's fair, no?

It depends how prize money is distributed. If you want to let it have any sense, then the top gets money while the bottom (of the supergroup) loses money. Necessarily. This amounts to bangneki. I do not think that it is fair to force players to play for money. Go is a game about playing skill - not a game necessarily about betting money.

I think and have always thought that the current system (used in the EC and many small tournaments in Europe) of all participants playing a small entry fee and the top players getting the most of the prize money is fine because then everybody can afford the fee and those only spending it essentially pay for learning from the stronger players.

[rubin427]

Strong armature go players are not necessarily wealthy. I think it would be a shame to create additional financial barriers to competition.

I've met strong players that would take this kind of proposal as a penalty against strong playing ability. If a strong player perceives the idea as penalizing strong players, they may refuse to participate on principle, even if the higher entry fee is within their means.

The whole idea seems politically risky to me.

[kokomi]

If you think that you cannot get your extra 100 Euro back, you can start from the next group. It's fair, no?

I think a supergroup of 4 people with entrance fee 5,000 Euro per person would be more fair and even exciting . Winner gets all 20,000 Euro. Then we can also boast Go event outside Asia has the same high prize as Chess. Join?

[Matti]

What do you think about this idea: We ask double entry fee (200 Euro instead of 100) from all supergroup members on EGC. And use the money as prizes for best 8 or 10.
In this case players who see that they have no chances, may prefer to start from the lower group with lower entry fee.

As a result we can get smaller supergroup - 16 or 24 members instead of 32.

An interesting idea.

[LovroKlc]

I am not sure this would be a good idea - if the Russian proposal is validated by AGM(I hope it will be) there will be no need for this, and if it doesnt get validated, neither will this.

[richardamullens]

If you think that you cannot get your extra 100 Euro back, you can start from the next group. It's fair, no?

I do not think that it is fair to force players to play for money. Go is a game about playing skill - not a game necessarily about betting money.

Let's put this a different way.

How much would you be prepared to pay in order to be in the supergroup ?

I don't think that anyone could object if it were 10 Euros - and 15 Euros would add 480 Euros to the prize fund.

It is not uncommon to have reduced tournament entry fees for weak players - is this not the same thing ? Moreover the strong players consume more resources, they have the better boards and a more spacious playing area so why not ?

[topazg]

It is not uncommon to have reduced tournament entry fees for weak players - is this not the same thing ? Moreover the strong players consume more resources, they have the better boards and a more spacious playing area so why not ?

Ah, so contentious, so political, and so true. The fact this has both grass roots support and support from those who would have to pay money (Alex!) makes this ever the more endearing. If you really believe your chance of winning is low enough not to be worth the extra fee, then what are you doing in the supergroup?

[RobertJasiek]

Richard, I do not take your bait. I think excess payments are fundamentally wrong, see above.

Let me point out though that yes indeed we top players are consuming more resources: also those needed for teaching you for free during congresses.

topazg, by your argument and if all players considered as if playing for the invested money only as a sheer financial investment independently of other expenses, then we would be having a supergroup of only 4 or 5 players but on average only Dinerstein would be making money while the others would lose it. If this is what you want, you might as well set the rule to play quadruple round-robin for only 4 players...