Millionaire Chess 2!!

While i remain drunk, let me add that - you can't to top floor of a building without crossing the middle ones. To get 1500 players, first you have to get 500 players. Well, wasn't mc#2 supposed to get less than 200 players? Well...

Yes, obviously 500 comes before 1,500, but when you're counting on 1,500 to make your event financially solvent then 500 doesn't quite cut it.

Thank you. I guess the other guy was starstruck so he missed the point.

you don't invest for an event - you invest for a series of events. otherwise business would be too easy and an ametuer like me would invest too....

Obviously my opinion is worth nothing, but you seem to be missing that yours is also worth nothing, including your opinion that we should cheer on some people trying to change chess into some big money event, as if it's somehow going to make the world, or even the chess world, a better place.

Perhaps this fundamental misunderstanding is why internet forums seem to enrage you, as they are nothing more than a bunch of people giving worthless opinions. That is the nature of them, and if you can't handle that you might find your time better spent on other things.

I find it amusing that some folks unquestioningly buy into each iteration of Ashley and Lee's ever-changing narritave. Has a bit of a "Ministry of Truth" vibe to it.

>So all the negative trolls who don't actually do anything for chess<

If by not doing anything for chess you mean playing in four to five major opens a year, as well as scads of small local tourneys, for the past 21 years, been an active USCF member for all that time, did volunteer chess tutoring for four summers at a camp for poor kids...guilty as charged. 

No, I didn't just sail in from Canada last year out of nowhere with a giant bankroll and start a Las Vegas chess tournament for a handful of wealthy players. I guess that's doing something for chess, in your eyes anyway. 

As for Nakamura...I think I mentioned in one of my "thousands" of posts that if MC survives at all it will be as a boutique tournament for Grandmasters.  They've already pruned down the payouts this time around for lower-rated players for that purpose. Or didn't you notice that?

>Well, wasn't mc#2 supposed to get less than 200 players? Well...<

No, Ashi, I said about 250, and a few others concurred. We'll see how it goes once the rates go up. 

In a way, Nakamura's entry is a double-edged sword for the organizers. It's nice for them to be able to promote his entry, but if they have to cancel because of overall lack of funds, it's more embarassing for them. 

Oh, the drama...

>So let's give them credit for helping a fellow chess player...the chance to make his dream come true.<

The only dream coming true here is the very light chance of winning a lot of money. This is such a shallow, materialistic, icky argument that's it not worth debating...other than pointing out that it honestly reveals the only point and purpose of this whole callow enterprise. 

If you think Nakamura entered for any other reason than to bank your checks, well, bless the ghost of P.T. Barnum. 

More important than Nakamura IMO:

When I look at Wesley So's background.  It consists of playing in major chess tournaments, playing in chess leagues, coaching chess, and playing on the Webster University Chess Team (there is even mention of his being paid by the Phillippine Chess Association).  I don't get the impression that he was a poor kid from the slums who made it big.  He's been a professional chess player for awhile.  MC#1 was just his biggest pay day.

Slumdog Chessillionaire.

Could someone explain why MC2 is such a terrible thing?  No-one is compelled to enter.  It's quite interesting (to me anyway) to see who does enter. If the organisers lose money, then, hey, so do lots of business ventures. If it makes money, then ditto. I am really at a loss to understand why so many people hate this tournament so much.

blitzjoker

I don't think that the MC concept (a high prize tournament for affluent players) is a terrible thing!  What piqued my interest was the hype:  Taking chess to a new level, bringing chess to the masses, providing the average player with a chance to make big money.*  When I (and others) started asking questions like how will this be accomplished, and where is the financial support, the debate began.  It sometimes becomes vitriolic.

*If it had just been advertised as a high prize tournament with a high entry fee, I'd have wondered how many people could afford it, and forgot about it.

Nobody is claiming that MC, in itself is a bad thing. What's bad is the idea that chess needs to be "taken to the next level", that the way to accomplish this is by elitist events that only a few can afford to enter, and the idea that somehow doing this will "bring chess to the masses". Another black mark on it is the fact that, thus far, promotion of MC has been inseperable from promotion of Maurice Ashley and Amy Lee. One gets the sense that these two are really less interested in promoting chess than they are in promoting themselves.

Ok, thanks.  So it's the 'taking chess to the next level' thing really.

To be honest though, this is just marketing non-sense isn't it?  And yes of course Maurice Ashley is a self-publicist, but he seems fairly harmless, and quite amusing to me really, though I can see how he could grate with people.

Also, from what I've seen of him at The Sinquefield Cup, he really is an enthusiast for chess, in an evangelical preacher kind of way that I find funny, but it takes all sorts.  

I don't think chess will be taken to any kind of next level any time soon.  It probably peaked in the 1970s, but I like the level it's at now, with excellent internet coverage for muppets like me who like to watch it.

blitzjoker

Among Maurice's endeavors, he is a motivational speaker.  A company that I once worked for hired one when things were going downhill.  The speaker was very good at creating enthusiasm and making us feel good.  It's part of the job.

Many people are haters, and many other are trolls  (which means they need attention, because they are nullities) or both.

Now why nobody of the trolls/haters complains about the Sinequefield Cup? What does such a waste of money do for chess? 

Nothing, because it doesn't increase the number of USCF players, it doesn't give a chance to the average player to make money, and for sure doesn't give to the more of 1000 GMs we have on earth anything, since the money goes always in the same guys.

Couldn't that money be used for making major amateur tournaments? Yes it could.

Still do you see a thread on chess.com pointing out the flaws of such model? No.

Do you see a thread with more than 2000 messages (mainly written by few trolls) who also make personal attacks on the Cup organizer? NO.

Why? The guy is rich, and for fun he throws away, year after year hundred of thousand of dollars. But nobody complains.

Instead Amy Lee and GM Ashley, for the average chess.com troll/hater are the problem in chess, and they shouldn't have organized MC1, and surely not continued with the clear success MC2 is going to have!

Some of the FM/IM I know, have participated to MC1, and went away with the money they make in one year, working hard. But of course the haters/trolls don't mention that fact.

But the most ridicolous thing is the idea that MC is an "elitist event" did these guys ever play golf? Do they know how much cost to be a member of a golf club? Or maybe how much the average family spend on a kid playing a sport?

The promotion of MC is not separated by GM Ashley and Amy Lee, because they are risking their reputations and money, not someone else!

But nobody of the trolls show us that they could organize a similar tournament, find sponsors and so on. NO , the trolls are just here to show their hate.

"Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a troll"... such a childish and weasley way to behave, surely the refuge of the desperate.