Chess Speaks for itself

I don't know, but it does make them look like cheapskates. Of course I would never pay money to play a grandmaster because there is no value in it for me. But that's just me. 

If the GM wont pay 10 dollars to help a charity then that just reaffirms their cheapskate status. In other professions the high level participant would be ashamed and embarrassed if they refused to help out. Often it's the complete opposite, the people at the very highest level pay even MORE than everyone else because they want the perception of helping more, caring more. Which in turn motivates more people to also help out or participate. 

Maybe GMs have spent so much time playing chess they haven't learned the social skills necessary to recognize when they should be embarrassed. I don't know, but either way it's not a good look. 

I personally feel like it was acceptable not to pay but he should have been more respectful about it. And you also have no knowledge with gms not paying so perhaps your taking this harshly 

You are right, I have no knowledge about what they pay, other than what has been presented here. So that is what I'm going by. If they squawk at paying 10 dollars for a charity event, that's a bad look. If they pay several hundred or several thousand to enter a regular tournament, then that would be more appropriate. 

Me personally, I wouldn't want someone like that even associated with the event with that kind of attitude. If I were the event promoter, I wouldn't want them there, because if people hear about it, they will figure if the GM doesn't care about this event, why should I?

If they want to draw a bigger crowd, the GMs should pay a substantially larger amount greater than everyone else. That would send the message they really care about this charity event. I would compare it to a charity auction, where the person who has voluntarily given up something for the auction and they STILL bid on something similar. In other words buying something they don't need and are already giving away. That drives interest because it sends the message they really care about the cause. 

Colonel Charles Moreau went zero-for-26 in the 1903 Monte Carlo Masters tournament.

No wins, no draws, twenty-six losses.

ouch but i mean thats still kinda not comparable tho in terms of our modern age

I compared golf to chess because both are competitions, often to win money (at high levels anyway). I don't know about chess, but golf is a VERY popular avenue for charity events. It appears in this article the chess tournament was also a charity event. People will pay money to play with the professionals. 

So it seems like a reasonable analogy. But what if you learned that the professional was disturbed at the idea of giving up 10 dollars for this charity event? I recall a recent charity golf tournament where the winner gave every single cent back to the charity. I don't know the exact amount but it was north of a million dollars. Why? Because this drives interest. People say "hey, he really cares about this charity". So even more people will now participate and/or donate to this cause. I have no doubt many professionals were given a free entrance into the tournament (although I don't know for sure). It would be understandable if they were. So I guess the difference is so many of the golf pros aren't looking for a handout, it's the opposite. They are looking for ways to help the charity. 

I guess it comes down to promotion. If the promoters of this chess charity event feel what they are doing is the best thing, then that's what they should do. But I can certainly understand why it's controversial. 

Here’s what I understand: When Hans refused to pay a $5.00 fee for an event to raise money to fight cancer, he was being an ignorant, pompous fool. It isn’t anything bigger than that. $5.00 dollars. Let’s not be a d**k. Let’s fight cancer.  Go be a d**k another day.🤦‍♂️

Neither was the winner of the golf tournament. But the point is the golf pros were looking for ways to help the charity. Squawking over 10 dollars doesn't exactly give the impression he's excited about giving. 

Right, and in his spare time save puppies and kittens. How do we know he doesn't donate regularly to causes like fighting cancer? Because of articles and videos like the ones presented here. That's how we know.

$5.00. That’s it dude. He is a cheapa$$. 

It's not about looking righteous. It's about BEING righteous. I'm only going by what's been presented here, for all we know he secretly gives billions to hunger aid. 

But squaking over 5 dollars for a charity event he showed up for shows two things we know for sure. He's cheap, and he doesn't mind looking unrighteous in front of others. 

Surely you can do better than this can’t you? 

Now we’re on the same. Victor!

I hope you aren't implying that he would steal even 5 dollars. I will say that since he has enough resources and money to obtain not only means of video but also the means of becoming a grandmaster that indeed 5 dollars is not something he "needs". 

You know you can get a lot of stuff for five dollars...it doesn't matter its for cancer like the point is GM's shouldn't be paying for tournaments and that is his belief, and he won't change that. Plus he may not trust the organizer why only 50% going to charity what is the other 50% doing he will use that money to his own benefit.

OK, it seemed like you were saying if he didn't need it (which he doesn't) he must have stole it. I agree flaunting is bad. I'm guilty as well. I have maliciously flaunted 5 dollars before. At first I was ashamed of spending 5 dollars for a Starbucks, sheepishly pulling out the big bill. It occurred to me that some people in Starbucks have maybe never even seen a 5 dollar bill  before. But I gathered up the courage to shamelessly lay it down on the counter, ignoring the gasps and judgmental eyes of the common folk. 

Needless to say, I'm a big flaunter now. 

How right you are. But I'm not going to a fundraiser to complain about 5 dollars (and not tell anyone I'm going to blow the whole 5 dollars later on).

ok your not really seeing the other side of the story and only looking at yours, so there is no point in discussing this anymore with you.