Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks

I also don't see the hurry.  From what I've read, Amy Lee is comitted to MC 2.  She should have already analyzed a worst case scenario to determine what her financial risk was.

I can tell you from personal experience (I was the executor of a large estate), you can't make any money out there with "safe investments" (0.1% was the best I could do while meeting the fudiciary requirements).  So trying to earn some interest on the advance entry fees is an exercise in futility.

The whole thing was, is, and will be an ill-conceived disaster, both as a financial endeavor and as a chess event. 

MC has done nothing for US chess. 

derp

>> As of today, 545 pre-paid entries. 

https://www.chessaction.com/tournaments/advance_entry_list.php?tid=m6Cl
As I suggested previously, they will have no problem hitting their numbers and the MC does not seem to have canibalized much from the North American at all.

------------

@redecredo, that actually takes off one accusation against MC that they might monopolize the market. Your comment only proves that there are room for co-existence amongst the tournaments and there are different sectors of potential customers available in USA for tapping. All this I see in fact as a very positive sign for the market.

North American Open is now up to 589 entries. I arrived in Las Vegas about 6 hours ago. As noted, I'm playing. I will support Goichberg and the CCA but not an endeavor which insists on having playoffs at fast time controls for the big money. I know I am not alone with this opinion.

For #1, yes, I agree it was never a serious accusation against MC here. But there was some. I forgot exactly from where I picked it from. But one conversation was, other tournaments like National Open in las Vegas may not get enough entries just because couple of months back another major tournament was held here in Las Vegas. I myself have been playing National Open in Las Vegas for last several years - but skipped this year just because I went to play there 2 months back. No other chess tournament (may be World Open aside) gives enough to average chess players like me that I can afford to go out of town to play a chess tournament alone. There has to be a certain amount of "chess vacation" in it - otherwise its not cost-worthy. Hawaii Chess Festival in March is thats why in my list although prize was there is nothing much - its mainly the chess vacation part of it for me. Also once MC starts arranging 2 tournaments a year in USA (from 2016 that will happen) - they are bound to step over some other major tournaments - be it CCA or what. The idea was this way other tournaments who are barely holding themselves now - will get impacted. There were discussions also about MC no grandmaster draw (playing known lines of an opening to reach to an agreed draw) rules may over time influence USCF enough to make changes in their official rules. If you have seen how MicroSoft have monopolized the software industry for a very long time, its easily imaginable that a large organization has certain opportunity to monopolize an industry. For example CCA might have though of monopolizing the chess tournament market, but probably understood their is not enough money here to go for it. Or simply because Bill is a nice guy and just did mind his own business.

For #2, whether there really is a market or not - the success or failure of MC will tell us that over time. As of now, its sure MC is not dead (contrary to a few comments in this thread) and they are going to hold the next event this in October 2015 with all the lessons learnt applied in it. In fact the entry fee, sections and prize structure already has had a good amount of change.

For NM aww-rats, I understand what you are saying is similar to the classical debate of Test Cricket vs One Day Cricket. And I think just like in cricket, they have scope for co-existence.

ashikazzuman: I don't think MC learned the lesson from the first event with the entry fees and prizes. With MC 1, entries virtually stopped once it went to $1500 on July 31. MC 2 allows you in for $880 if you enter by 1-31. No need to find 9 other players to sign up with you and save $100, you may save $120 on your own. After 3-31, it climbs 25% to $1250, pretty steep with a 25% hike, then to $1500 after 7-31.

Take the NA Open. I think it was $225 by 7-15, $255 by 10-15, and $275 by 12-23. Now it's $300 and a few entries are rolling in still. Players do not mind a 10% or increase nearing the event, but a 25 or 50% increase months out will keep most of them away from MC for good, especially since it's 4 times the entry of CCA's NA Open to begin with. As  I said earlier, once 3-31 arrives as soon as the registrants are listed, this will be close to what they end up with for MC 2. People are not going to flock to join for $1250 as July ends.

Compounding the situation, taking the 21st to 50th place consolation money and padding other prizes  with it will be another nail in the coffin. Those prizes were a great selling point as many players entered knowing that even if they didn't make the top 4, they had confidence they had a great shot to at least win most, if not all, their entry fee back. Now the situation isn't so clear and many will take the risk of profitting from chess to a much less expensive tournament.

My estimates for MC 1:

550 players = $800,000 loss.

1500 players = break even.

Hold $1000 entry until 9-1, then increase to $1100, might have gotten them 850 entries and only a $500,000 loss.

No Millionaire Monday playoffs: 100 more entries, and only a $400,000 loss.

Now MC 2 has gone the wrong direction in the above critical areas.

How many who didn't win a prize in MC 1 will be back for MC 2? Probably very few.

How many who won a consolation prize in MC 1 will be back for MC 2? Again, probably very few.

 How many who won a large prize will be back for MC 2? Probably most, but there aren't that many of them, and their ratings have gone up! (Plus don't forget the sandbagging rules they enforce! a U1800 winner won't be eligible for U 1800 again i believe, he already got his payday for this class).

MC 2's structure has alienated them from their base they treated to the exravaganza of MC 1, who they are counting on by having them come back year after year. They will have to tap into a new market and there isn't one. Most who could pay $1000 were:

A) at MC 1

B) It was too far away for them to undertake the risk

C) couldn't commit at $1000 price months in advance.

Earlier I predicted 200-300 entries for MC 2. It's Las Vegas. I say odds are more likely that < 200 will play then > 300. This would mean MC 2 is at least a million $ loss.

Yes, there seems to be room for 3 big events in Las Vegas each year but two will remain consistent and always be there and the other will last as long as Amy Lee has money and a desire to toss it away.

We shall see I suppose....

As I've said before, I was hoping MC would succeed, and I attended MC#1, but everything NM aww-rats said is point-on accurate. These tournaments can only survive if they can get the lower sections [heavily] involved, but as pointed out they have now pushed them away with the new payout schedule and new entry fee rules. For some odd reason they didn't learn from MC#1, seemingly, at all.

A comparison with the World Open 2014 is clear. In the under U1400 and below, the WO had 223 players, whereas MC#1 had only 70. Since the payout for the U14 and U12 is only the top four players, they will not increase the number of players from last year.

While a couple on this site obviously wanted MC to fail, I was hoping for the best; however, I believe it is time to throw in the towel.

Just as an opinion and nothing more, I believe Amy Lee had the best of intentions, but was led down the garden path by someone else who had dreams of making chess into a spectator sport. (Not going to happen by-the-way.) This could be looked at years from now as nothing more than a big, blown opportunity, ruined by poor decisions made by the "chess side" of the partnership.

Well NM aww-rats and niemker, you both have good intentions too just like Amy Lee (and MC team)... we shall see if you end up being correct or not. Just remember that nothing good has happened without enough pain in the way... but if it succeeds I assume you will be as happy as I will be.

10 hours ago · Quote · #2743

ashikuzzaman

>you both have good intentions too just like Amy Lee (and MC team)<

I'm curious as to what the standards for "good intentions" are on this board.  Since when is attempting to launch a business venture a "good intention?" It may be harmless, it may be desired by its potential customers...but the "intentions" behind it are to make money and be profitable. This is what qualifies as a  "good?"  

The most irritating aspect of MC is the continued promotion of it as some kind of munificent, sacrificial act, to enhance or even save amateur chess. I personally find it a cynical marketing ploy by the organizers to position it as such...and that many of its players and supporters seem happy to parrot this premise leads us right back to the very first sentence of this entire thread. 

TMB

rdicredico I was a college classmate and teammate of Maurice Ashley. What you've written about his early years as a young master is a kind of insane lowbrow comedy. Nobody in our peer group was even close to wealthy, but come to think of it Maurice was quite possibly in the greatest financial difficulty in our group, or close. I can remember when Maurice literally did not have a warm winter coat until he won the master prize at the World Open one year. We shared expenses to cut costs for tourneys many a time. Maurice first learned to use Chessbase on my computer, because he didn't own one for many years after becoming an extremely strong player. This required Maurice to travel from Brooklyn to the Bronx, a very long trip, but he did so with dedication and shocked me with the hours he was willing to put in.

I honestly think you need urgent and extensive psychiatric help for your wild delusions and your obsessive hatred of one of the most classy and respected individuals in the game of chess,
Grandmaster Maurice Ashley.

Since when does criticism = "obsessive hatred"?

:/ you seem like you need to chill out bro.

>I honestly think you need urgent and extensive psychiatric help for your wild delusions <

JonesMurphy, Resident Behavior Therapist. So where where did you get your qualifications to make such an assessment, sir?

>you seem like you need to chill out bro.<

Siddyg! Bringing....nothing...to the table. What, are you just waiting for the microwave to finish heating your pizza rolls?  Or this really all you've got?

>Since when does criticism = "obsessive hatred"?<

Oh, that's the latest trope in social networking idiocy. Any form of criticism is now branded as hatred, and if you suggest something is too expensive, or stupid, or ill-concevied, or unnecessary, you are now a "hater."  

Isn't that special?

It's all I've got. Listen to the two of you ranting, man. Nobody is taking anything more away from what you guys have to say. We've all labeled you as haters in our minds because honest to god, that's what you've come off as. Nobody's listening anymore. None of this matters. If you want me to bring something to the table, here's something - and this is very important. Bringing somebody and their vision down is the easiest thing you can do. You can start huge comment threads over it, and you can try and make libelous claims about the individuals in question. If you want to make a difference in any kind of environment off of *somebody else's* project, the way to do that is respectfully. People's hard work, sweat and sleep must have gone into making this project a reality. Why do you think that you have the right to come and expect somebody else to change their vision because you seem to have some kind of problem with it? You can suggest changes, but nobody gives a hoot if all you're going to do is sit back and play armchair judge to somebody else's work


If you still feel really passionate about things, go ahead and start your own after school chess program or whatever it is you want to do. Be *for* something, you can spend your life being against things and that's all you'll be... a harbinger of negativity, and then nobody likes you anymore. Even if it's just an anonymous account on some (in the grand scheme of things)irrelevant chess website.

I dunno, the fact that people, including yourself, are still commenting indicates that people are still listening. And whoever indicated that they think they have the right to make Ashley/Lee change MC? That's just nonsense. When you do something publically, such as running a public chess tourney and kicking up a lot of publicity about it, you invite public commentary, including criticism (and there's been plenty of valid criticism of MC here). Too many people make the mistake of thinking that criticism = demanding something be taylored to the critic's whims.

Im all for valid criticism of MC. I know that they are too because they've said so many many times. But libelous defamatory nonsense that's being spewed here has no space in an actual discussion about an event.