Monday March 2nd 2009

I have been playing chess for thirty-plus years, and throughout that time span the winners share in tournaments have not been up to par with the current cost of living; I would like to witness a higher percentage for the players with the top tier via three for each winning section or an open section.

Sincerely,

John Paul Morgan, New York City

This has been a complaint forever. I'm guessing that getting great participation in events means getting the common player there in large numbers. Yet, that is made more difficult if prize funds are shifted towards the the top and the few. Quite frankly, I love OTB chess, but the cost per game to play in the typical OTB event is too much for the level of enjoyment I get. I am able to satisfy a great deal of my enjoyment from chess by paying $30/yr here. Indeed, after 20 years of constant play, our local club closed its doors, in large part - in my view - due to the Internet access to chess satisfaction.

I could be dead wrong. But I suspect I'm onto something. Perhaps a sad something, but change is always loss.

I have to agree.  The Canadian open only offers a top prize of $3000 ... and that's for the IM/GM class.  Rediculous.

Speaking for me personally, Internet play does not even BEGIN to replace over the board chess.

There is something very tangible, very real about playing against a living breathing competitor just a few feet away. I personally don't play for money. If I ever were to win a few hundred (or heaven forbid a couple thousand) dollars for my troubles - that's fine, but it's not why I go.

[Closing Sarcastic Comment]

Now, if I were to lose my Nike and/or Depends undergarment sponsorship...I'm leaving the chess world for Majong.

[\Closing Sarcastic Comment]