A chess tournament prize fund: raising it and splitting it

The logic is simple: the more open the event, the more the fund matters. Inside a company or a club people play for the experience; at an open tournament a strong player spends a day off, and wants to know what for.

• Entry fees. The classic open-tournament model: part of the money goes to the fund and part to the running costs. The transparent rule is to state what share of the fees comes back as prizes.
• A sponsor. A company gives money or goods in exchange for a mention. Chess is easy to sponsor: the audience is educated and there is no reputational risk.
• The venue. A bar, restaurant or coworking space will often provide vouchers and drinks - cheaper for them than cash and better at bringing guests back.
• A federation or local authority. For junior and community events this is a real source, particularly once the tournament is in a calendar.
• A company budget. For corporate events the fund comes from the events line.
• Barter with partners. A chess shop provides sets, a bookshop books, a café vouchers. Often easier than finding money.

The main mistake is giving everything to the top three. Then the event is interesting only to the people genuinely fighting for the podium - five out of thirty.

A working split:

• The main places - first, second, third. Roughly half the fund.
• Rating bands - best under 1600, under 1400 and so on. Gives everybody a chance.
• Age categories - best junior, best senior.
• Special categories - best woman, best newcomer, best game, a fighting spirit prize.

A rule worth announcing: one player takes one prize only, normally the largest. Otherwise the winner collects both first place and their category prize, which reads as unfair.

How to write it down - the regulations.

The commonest and most awkward situation: two or three players finish level, and the prizes for those places differ. Deciding it after the event guarantees a conflict, so the method is chosen in advance and written into the regulations. There are three workable options.

• Prizes are pooled and split equally. Two players share first and second: add both prizes and halve them. The commonest option in opens - the tie-break then affects only the line in the table, not the money, and there is nothing left to argue about.
• The tie-break decides. Whoever ranks higher takes the larger prize whole. Sporting and honest, but this is where most protests come from: a tenth of a coefficient acquires a cash value.
• The Hort system - a compromise.Half of the pooled prizes for the shared places is split equally between all the claimants, and the other half is distributed by the places the tie-breaks produce. The tie-break keeps its meaning without taking a neighbour's entire prize. Used at European opens and supported by arbiter software.

Indivisible prizes - a trophy, a medal, a trip - need separate treatment, since they cannot be pooled. For those, state plainly that a tie is broken by the coefficients, and announce the list of them before round one - the tie-break reference.

Wording for the document: «Where players finish level, the prizes for the shared places are pooled and divided equally between them. Indivisible prizes are awarded on tie-break.»

An entry fee does three things: it builds the fund, it covers the running costs and it improves attendance - somebody who has paid is more likely to turn up.

The other side: a fee reduces entries, particularly among beginners and at the first event of a series. The workable compromise is a small fee with reductions for children and pensioners, or free entry where a sponsor funds the prizes.

What must be announced beforehand: the amount, how to pay it, what it includes and whether it is refunded if somebody does not appear. That last point produces the most questions, so answer it explicitly.

• Approach whoever wants your audience. Tech companies, education projects, bookshops, cafés near the venue.
• Offer specifics, not «partnership». The tournament name, a logo on the banner and in the announcements, a mention at the prize-giving, photographs from the event.
• Show numbers. How many players, what audience, what reach the announcements had. Even modest figures beat none.
• Start with goods. Providing prizes is easier than providing cash: a different budget and a different approval.
• Report afterwards. Photos, the table, the number of players, the coverage. That is what decides whether there is a second time.

Material for the report - photography and content, the proposal.

A few things to remember once real money is involved:

• the size of the fund and the way it is split are announced in the regulations before the event and do not change afterwards;
• handing prizes out is recorded on a signed sheet;
• if the fund comes from entry fees, it helps to state what share goes to prizes;
• cash prizes raise tax and accounting questions - check them with an accountant or a lawyer beforehand, particularly if the event runs under an organization.

We deliberately do not expand the last point: the rules depend on the country, the legal form and the amounts, and advice from an article would do more harm than good.