ErmNot really, because people might be willing to "donate" a certain amount of money in total within a period, say, in 1 year. Therefore if you put too much resources into 1 event, you might have the rest affected. For example, in year 2000, Singapore had a lot of chess events and many of them gave high cash prizes. In year 2001 the circle became much more quiet, probably even more quiet than 1997. Afterward it became worse and worse with the economy until about 2005.
In the recent few years we can see many tournaments had the cash prizes cut short, partly due to funding issues. Sadly to say, the reason why more team tournaments instead of individual tournaments are organized is mainly due to the ratio of funding vs number of participants.
However on the other hand, we can see that organizing a tournament might not need that much money, regardless whether it's a team or individual one, even though every winner wishes the figure to increase. :) The more important thing is still whether there are clubs or peo (more...)
Donations?:P
in the first place i don't think we can find many so called "donations" and every year it's pretty obvious that the usual people are the ones making the donations but is that sufficient? That is also one of the main reasons why chess cannot be a professional sport. Because we do not have many rich people playing the sport. If there are, everything would be different. People would be more willing to do it if they're paid. Of course if you're talking about doing it for free than it's probably different. But mainly the driving factors are money and people that have the ability is usually people that are either more well to do themselves that desire to manage the commitee or has someone behind them to support them. But i totally agree that you'll have different organisers organising and deciding who to take part but ultimately, it is money's fault you can't blame organisors not inviting some teams though it is not very fair. Most of the time, i believe they are more like the middleman being manipulated. The fear that in future these so called "donations" would not be donated again.