Didn't rdecredico say MC#1 was dead?
http://www.thechessdrum.net/blog/2014/10/22/reflections-of-the-millionaire-chess-open/
MC#2 is already in the works.
Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks
Sort:
MC#1 was resuscitated by an infusion of cash from Amy Lee. Will MC#2 require the same?
woton wrote:
MC#1 was rescuscitated by an infusion of cash from Amy Lee. Will MC#2 require the same?
Without sponors, yes. That will be a huge problem as all chess organizers have known for years.
I'd never spend $2,000 to enter a chess tournament so I don't really care if it lives or dies.
woton wrote:
MC#1 was resuscitated by an infusion of cash from Amy Lee. Will MC#2 require the same?
======================
http://mauriceashley.com/high-stakes-chess-is-serious-business/
Let's revisit what Maurice said on behalf of MC team few months back on the above post -
2. Making money this year is the goal. Another false assumption. This first year is an investment year, as likely will be Year 2, and maybe even Year 3. The vision is for real returns to begin in Year 3-5, when more player entries will stabilize the expenses and the revenues mentioned above will (hopefully) kick in.
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
I'd never spend $2,000 to enter a chess tournament so I don't really care if it lives or dies.
==============================
Entry fee was not $2000. It was $1000 until 31st July, $1500 until 1 day before the tournament and $2000 on-site. Some of us formed a team and got 10% or 12% refund. So for me the effective entry fee was $880.
Ashik I see you play chess on the board and in life, you have to find the best deals. Ashik did you also recieve hotel or airfair for signing up early?
yyoochess wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
What are the odds of a 16xx player winning 7 games in a row? Close to 100% if there are 128 or more players in the section, especially if all the players go all out for the win and avoid draws at all costs.
Yes, you see such results happen all the time, and I've even seen players who do clean sweeps have poor results the next. Are they all sandbaggers? Nope. Even grandmasters have good tournaments and bad, and those who are not grandmasters are even more prone to streaky play. Simply being in a good mood, or having two or three opponents make incredibly stupid blunders can get you a clean sweep in a tournament in the lower sections. My son once won the U1800 prize of a tournament with a 2150 performance that included a draw against a master (my son's rating at the time was in the 1500s), but in an event just a week or two prior he lost to a 1200-rated player.
With that said, I suspect the U1600 winner at the MCO may have been gaming the system given his tournament and rating history. But I don't think there was anyone at the MCO who was naive enough to think no one would try to game it. I'm sure many participants avoided getting bumped to a higher class by simply not participating in tournaments in the run up to the MCO or even by throwing a game or two. However, the very fact that very few adults get that much better over a relatively short period of time implies that there were plenty of players who were at the strength that their ratings put them at or at least not significantly above it. At any rate, we entered the event with no illusion that our son would win one of the top prizes given that he was one of the lowest rated in his section. We wanted to have a good time at an exciting event...an event made exciting by the large cash prizes, even if the odds were stacked against us. If you enter tournaments with that attitude, anything you win is just gravy.
Not true for the big tournaments. I checked the last few US Opens and North American Opens and I didn't see any 100% scores in the U1400, U1600 and U1800.
I've seen quite a few crosstables where the top players agree to draws at the end to guarantee prize funds. If the prizes were distributed differently, as here, it would reduce the number of late round draws.
vizio23 wrote:
Ashik I see you play chess on the board and in life, you have to find the best deals. Ashik did you also recieve hotel or airfair for signing up early?
===========
Hahaha. Yes. My son Ahyan was one of the 10 winners of hotel. A huge saving!
Cezar99 wrote:
yyoochess wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
What are the odds of a 16xx player winning 7 games in a row? Close to 100% if there are 128 or more players in the section, especially if all the players go all out for the win and avoid draws at all costs.
Yes, you see such results happen all the time, and I've even seen players who do clean sweeps have poor results the next. Are they all sandbaggers? Nope. Even grandmasters have good tournaments and bad, and those who are not grandmasters are even more prone to streaky play. Simply being in a good mood, or having two or three opponents make incredibly stupid blunders can get you a clean sweep in a tournament in the lower sections. My son once won the U1800 prize of a tournament with a 2150 performance that included a draw against a master (my son's rating at the time was in the 1500s), but in an event just a week or two prior he lost to a 1200-rated player.
With that said, I suspect the U1600 winner at the MCO may have been gaming the system given his tournament and rating history. But I don't think there was anyone at the MCO who was naive enough to think no one would try to game it. I'm sure many participants avoided getting bumped to a higher class by simply not participating in tournaments in the run up to the MCO or even by throwing a game or two. However, the very fact that very few adults get that much better over a relatively short period of time implies that there were plenty of players who were at the strength that their ratings put them at or at least not significantly above it. At any rate, we entered the event with no illusion that our son would win one of the top prizes given that he was one of the lowest rated in his section. We wanted to have a good time at an exciting event...an event made exciting by the large cash prizes, even if the odds were stacked against us. If you enter tournaments with that attitude, anything you win is just gravy.
Not true for the big tournaments. I checked the last few US Opens and North American Opens and I didn't see any 100% scores in the U1400, U1600 and U1800.
What you'll find is that the winners were undefeated heading into the last round and a draw guaranteed winning 1st place. So you need to account for that also.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Cezar99 wrote:
yyoochess wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
What are the odds of a 16xx player winning 7 games in a row? Close to 100% if there are 128 or more players in the section, especially if all the players go all out for the win and avoid draws at all costs.
Yes, you see such results happen all the time, and I've even seen players who do clean sweeps have poor results the next. Are they all sandbaggers? Nope. Even grandmasters have good tournaments and bad, and those who are not grandmasters are even more prone to streaky play. Simply being in a good mood, or having two or three opponents make incredibly stupid blunders can get you a clean sweep in a tournament in the lower sections. My son once won the U1800 prize of a tournament with a 2150 performance that included a draw against a master (my son's rating at the time was in the 1500s), but in an event just a week or two prior he lost to a 1200-rated player.
With that said, I suspect the U1600 winner at the MCO may have been gaming the system given his tournament and rating history. But I don't think there was anyone at the MCO who was naive enough to think no one would try to game it. I'm sure many participants avoided getting bumped to a higher class by simply not participating in tournaments in the run up to the MCO or even by throwing a game or two. However, the very fact that very few adults get that much better over a relatively short period of time implies that there were plenty of players who were at the strength that their ratings put them at or at least not significantly above it. At any rate, we entered the event with no illusion that our son would win one of the top prizes given that he was one of the lowest rated in his section. We wanted to have a good time at an exciting event...an event made exciting by the large cash prizes, even if the odds were stacked against us. If you enter tournaments with that attitude, anything you win is just gravy.
Not true for the big tournaments. I checked the last few US Opens and North American Opens and I didn't see any 100% scores in the U1400, U1600 and U1800.
What you'll find is that the winners were undefeated heading into the last round and a draw guaranteed winning 1st place. So you need to account for that also.
Not really. In most cases people lose at least 1 point. At the 2014 World Open U1800 the winner had 7.5/9, U1600 the winner had 8/9; at the 2013 NA Open, the winner in U1700 had 6/7
Cezar99 wrote:
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Cezar99 wrote:
yyoochess wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
What are the odds of a 16xx player winning 7 games in a row? Close to 100% if there are 128 or more players in the section, especially if all the players go all out for the win and avoid draws at all costs.
Yes, you see such results happen all the time, and I've even seen players who do clean sweeps have poor results the next. Are they all sandbaggers? Nope. Even grandmasters have good tournaments and bad, and those who are not grandmasters are even more prone to streaky play. Simply being in a good mood, or having two or three opponents make incredibly stupid blunders can get you a clean sweep in a tournament in the lower sections. My son once won the U1800 prize of a tournament with a 2150 performance that included a draw against a master (my son's rating at the time was in the 1500s), but in an event just a week or two prior he lost to a 1200-rated player.
With that said, I suspect the U1600 winner at the MCO may have been gaming the system given his tournament and rating history. But I don't think there was anyone at the MCO who was naive enough to think no one would try to game it. I'm sure many participants avoided getting bumped to a higher class by simply not participating in tournaments in the run up to the MCO or even by throwing a game or two. However, the very fact that very few adults get that much better over a relatively short period of time implies that there were plenty of players who were at the strength that their ratings put them at or at least not significantly above it. At any rate, we entered the event with no illusion that our son would win one of the top prizes given that he was one of the lowest rated in his section. We wanted to have a good time at an exciting event...an event made exciting by the large cash prizes, even if the odds were stacked against us. If you enter tournaments with that attitude, anything you win is just gravy.
Not true for the big tournaments. I checked the last few US Opens and North American Opens and I didn't see any 100% scores in the U1400, U1600 and U1800.
What you'll find is that the winners were undefeated heading into the last round and a draw guaranteed winning 1st place. So you need to account for that also.
Not really. In most cases people lose at least 1 point. At the 2014 World Open U1800 the winner had 7.5/9, U1600 the winner had 8/9; at the 2013 NA Open, the winner in U1700 had 6/7
In 3 of the sections in the 2013 NA Open, the winners lost just half a point. Can't really do a comparison with the World Open since that's a 9-round event, not 7 like the MCO and the NA Open. There was only one section in the MCO where someone achieved a perfect score for 7 rounds. One 7/7 isn't statistically significant given how common it is to see 6.5/7 in tournaments.
They were offering bounties if you could knock off someone who was undefeated after a certain amount of rounds. That may increase the likelihood of someone going undefeated if people are going for wins instead of draws.
yyoochess wrote:
Cezar99 wrote:
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Cezar99 wrote:
yyoochess wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
What are the odds of a 16xx player winning 7 games in a row? Close to 100% if there are 128 or more players in the section, especially if all the players go all out for the win and avoid draws at all costs.
Yes, you see such results happen all the time, and I've even seen players who do clean sweeps have poor results the next. Are they all sandbaggers? Nope. Even grandmasters have good tournaments and bad, and those who are not grandmasters are even more prone to streaky play. Simply being in a good mood, or having two or three opponents make incredibly stupid blunders can get you a clean sweep in a tournament in the lower sections. My son once won the U1800 prize of a tournament with a 2150 performance that included a draw against a master (my son's rating at the time was in the 1500s), but in an event just a week or two prior he lost to a 1200-rated player.
With that said, I suspect the U1600 winner at the MCO may have been gaming the system given his tournament and rating history. But I don't think there was anyone at the MCO who was naive enough to think no one would try to game it. I'm sure many participants avoided getting bumped to a higher class by simply not participating in tournaments in the run up to the MCO or even by throwing a game or two. However, the very fact that very few adults get that much better over a relatively short period of time implies that there were plenty of players who were at the strength that their ratings put them at or at least not significantly above it. At any rate, we entered the event with no illusion that our son would win one of the top prizes given that he was one of the lowest rated in his section. We wanted to have a good time at an exciting event...an event made exciting by the large cash prizes, even if the odds were stacked against us. If you enter tournaments with that attitude, anything you win is just gravy.
Not true for the big tournaments. I checked the last few US Opens and North American Opens and I didn't see any 100% scores in the U1400, U1600 and U1800.
What you'll find is that the winners were undefeated heading into the last round and a draw guaranteed winning 1st place. So you need to account for that also.
Not really. In most cases people lose at least 1 point. At the 2014 World Open U1800 the winner had 7.5/9, U1600 the winner had 8/9; at the 2013 NA Open, the winner in U1700 had 6/7
In 3 of the sections in the 2013 NA Open, the winners lost just half a point. Can't really do a comparison with the World Open since that's a 9-round event, not 7 like the MCO and the NA Open. There was only one section in the MCO where someone achieved a perfect score for 7 rounds. One 7/7 isn't statistically significant given how common it is to see 6.5/7 in tournaments.
It is perfectly fine to look the World Open for comparison because we are looking at %s and not total points. Also, 7/7 is very significant statistically for two reasons:
1. Some people got 6.5/7 (draw not in the last round), some got 6/7 in the NA Open but no perfect scores
2. The winner's track record (hint: non existant, he started playing a few months before the competition)
I am going to make a prediction here - this guy's rating is not going to go up significantly (as many people seem to expect) and we will going to see him at the NA Open U1700, World Open U1600 or U1800 and next MCO U1600 or U1800 (if there is one). In short, if you or your child paid $1K to play at the MCO, you thought that you had a shot at 40K but in fact you never did because you got scammed.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
They were offering bounties if you could knock off someone who was undefeated after a certain amount of rounds. That may increase the likelihood of someone going undefeated if people are going for wins instead of draws.
It may also increase the likelihood of someone losing unless that person's real strength is 400 points above the cap
Cezar, there are USCF rules which state that if you win more than $2000 in a class, you are automatically bumped up a class in rating regardless of your performance rating.
SmyslovFan wrote:
Cezar, there are USCF rules which state that if you win more than $2000 in a class, you are automatically bumped up a class in rating regardless of your performance rating.
Okay, so he will probably play in U1700 at the NA Open and U1800 at the next MCO. My point is that his rating is not going to shoot up to 2000 as one would expect from someone who just won a major tournament with a perfect score.
Cezar99 wrote:
yyoochess wrote:
Cezar99 wrote:
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Cezar99 wrote:
yyoochess wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
What are the odds of a 16xx player winning 7 games in a row? Close to 100% if there are 128 or more players in the section, especially if all the players go all out for the win and avoid draws at all costs.
Yes, you see such results happen all the time, and I've even seen players who do clean sweeps have poor results the next. Are they all sandbaggers? Nope. Even grandmasters have good tournaments and bad, and those who are not grandmasters are even more prone to streaky play. Simply being in a good mood, or having two or three opponents make incredibly stupid blunders can get you a clean sweep in a tournament in the lower sections. My son once won the U1800 prize of a tournament with a 2150 performance that included a draw against a master (my son's rating at the time was in the 1500s), but in an event just a week or two prior he lost to a 1200-rated player.
With that said, I suspect the U1600 winner at the MCO may have been gaming the system given his tournament and rating history. But I don't think there was anyone at the MCO who was naive enough to think no one would try to game it. I'm sure many participants avoided getting bumped to a higher class by simply not participating in tournaments in the run up to the MCO or even by throwing a game or two. However, the very fact that very few adults get that much better over a relatively short period of time implies that there were plenty of players who were at the strength that their ratings put them at or at least not significantly above it. At any rate, we entered the event with no illusion that our son would win one of the top prizes given that he was one of the lowest rated in his section. We wanted to have a good time at an exciting event...an event made exciting by the large cash prizes, even if the odds were stacked against us. If you enter tournaments with that attitude, anything you win is just gravy.
Not true for the big tournaments. I checked the last few US Opens and North American Opens and I didn't see any 100% scores in the U1400, U1600 and U1800.
What you'll find is that the winners were undefeated heading into the last round and a draw guaranteed winning 1st place. So you need to account for that also.
Not really. In most cases people lose at least 1 point. At the 2014 World Open U1800 the winner had 7.5/9, U1600 the winner had 8/9; at the 2013 NA Open, the winner in U1700 had 6/7
In 3 of the sections in the 2013 NA Open, the winners lost just half a point. Can't really do a comparison with the World Open since that's a 9-round event, not 7 like the MCO and the NA Open. There was only one section in the MCO where someone achieved a perfect score for 7 rounds. One 7/7 isn't statistically significant given how common it is to see 6.5/7 in tournaments.
It is perfectly fine to look the World Open for comparison because we are looking at %s and not total points. Also, 7/7 is very significant statistically for two reasons:
1. Some people got 6.5/7 (draw not in the last round), some got 6/7 in the NA Open but no perfect scores
2. The winner's track record (hint: non existant, he started playing a few months before the competition)
I am going to make a prediction here - this guy's rating is not going to go up significantly (as many people seem to expect) and we will going to see him at the NA Open U1700, World Open U1600 or U1800 and next MCO U1600 or U1800 (if there is one). In short, if you or your child paid $1K to play at the MCO, you thought that you had a shot at 40K but in fact you never did because you got scammed.
Your observation about the guy's track record is relevant. However, the rest of your argument doesn't hold water.
In both 2009 and 2010, there were section winners at the NA open with perfect 7/7 scores.
And if you want to talk about percentages and not number of games, there are many events where 100% won. Look at events with 4, 5 or 6 rounds total. You'll find lots of 100% results.
Simply, you can't compare a 100% in a 9 round event to a 100% in a 7 round event to a 100% in a 5 round event.
small_potato wrote:
I don't see Amy Lee continuing to fund MC as a philanthropic gesture if it never turns a profit. If MC#2 -assuming it happens - doesn't open with a boatload of sponsors the format will surely die pretty quickly, they have a long way to go to even break even, let alone recoup the initial investment and then start making an actual profit.
=========================
As rdecredo MC is already dead. But seems like you are saying either MC "will" die or "may" die. Being an optimist in this venture, I will take "may".