[joshenberg]

Especially in tennis where tournaments are designed to be 'open', that is semi-professional and allowing for amateur entrants. If he were professionally affiliated with a particular country, that might be an extenuating circumstance.

But as he is a private citizen seeking glory in AU, it's inappropriate to make an exception in this case.

[darrenf]

The "open era" in tennis refers to the opposite situation: where the grand slam tournaments are open to professionals. Amateurs were always allowed in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#Open_Era

[mfer]

The exception was a process provided by the Australian Open tournament. More than 20 people applied for it and a handful of people were approved.

Should all of the people who got exceptions be turned away now?

Was the Australian Open tournament wrong for providing this process? Was Novak wrong for taking advantage of a process provided by the tournament?

[megous]

> Should all of the people who got exceptions be turned away now?

Some (or maybe all) already were.

[chrisseaton]

> in tennis where tournaments are designed to be 'open'

I thought 'open' meant 'open to people from outside the host region' not 'open to amateurs and professionals alike'?

[tzs]

OT: what sports and games have the most open major "Open"s? Are any more open than US chess?

The US Open in chess is open to anyone who is a USCF member, which is anyone who wants to buy a membership ($45/year, $40 for seniors, $27 for young adults, $20 for youth, $85 family plan covers parent and children under 19 and college age students up to 24, $55 family plan that covers all children under 19 in the same household). Obtain a USCF membership, pay the US Open entry fee, and you are in.

When you play in the open, regardless of whether you are an experience pro grandmaster or some newbie who barely knows the rules that entered on a whim, everyone is in the same group. It uses the Swiss system rather than a knockout system, so every plays the same number of games.

There's really not much difference as far as the tournament goes between that top grandmaster and that newbie, except that the press and spectators will be a lot more interested in watching the grandmaster play, so the top boards will usually be set off in some place making it easier for observers, and they might be fancy wood boards and set instead of the paper or vinyl boards and plastic pieces most players will be using, and maybe nicer chairs.

If that newbie wins enough to be a leader, that newbie will be playing on those top boards.

If that grandmaster has some bad games and ends up in the middle of the pack, they will be down playing with the hoi polloi.

BTW, if you win the US Open you are automatically invited to the US Championship, an invitation only round robin tournament.

Every other year the US Championship also serves as the "zonal" tournament for the US in the World Championship cycle. Doing well in your zone's zonal earns you a spot in the FIDE World Cup. Doing well in the World Cup earns you a spot in the Candidates Tournament. Win that and you are the next challenger for the World Chess Championship.

In chess then if you sell your soul to the Devil in exchange for winning the next 50 games of chess you play you should be able to become World Champion!

9 to sweep the US Open, 11 to sweep the US Championship, 8 for the World Cup, 14 for the Candidates Tournament, and 8 for your match with Carlsen for the Championship.

Is there any other individual sport or game where selling your soul gets you such a short path from complete unknown to World Champion?

[SamReidHughes]

Golf has a shorter path to "world championship." Compete in local qualifiers, then sectional qualifiers, and then win the British Open ("The" Open). I suppose you'd need a some number of rounds (6? 20?) before then to build up an official handicap first, so that they'd let you into the local qualifier, or you could fake those.

[boringg]

Opens are for amateurs - see the golf open tournaments as well. Its kind of like open enrollment

[Scarblac]

The tennis Grand Slams used to be for amateurs only (I think the Olympics were the same). Professionals used to be looked down on as selling out to money etc.

Eventually tournaments became Open as they also allowed pros in.

[boringg]

My bad I thought the opens were amateur and professionals. I.e. giving the amateurs a chance to take on the pros.