Millionaire Chess 2!!

I can play this one from both sides of the street.  From a player's point of view, it looks like a great tournament.  From a business point of view, it looks like an ill-conceived venture.

does it come with a free dinner?

It could be the only way to make a small fortune out of chess is to start with a large one.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pushing-wood-a-documentary

Certainly seems to me there's been a publicity push this last week to get the entries in, I follow Amy Lee on twitter and she's been very active recently tweeting about the event and retweeting "big name" chess players endorsing the event.

There was also this cryptic one:

We feel @ginger_gm & IM Pähtz misrepresented @HighStakesChess,tarnished its reputation to greater #chess community @AmyLeeBiz @MauriceAshley

As far as I can make out some of their comments related to sandbagging, although I didn't see the commentry.

Anyway arguing over whether the event will get 300 entrants or not is moot, if they don't significantly increase the number of entrants from last time or unveil some big name sponsors, they're still nowhere near making this financially viable.

This is about half correct. The other side, including myself, have said many times the tournament is a good idea. It was just implemented wrong and will do nothing for the sport because of the implementation. This tournament will not make the sport worse unless it steals people from other tournaments. I dont see this happening because, honestly, there are few people stupid enough to blow their chess budget on one tournament. Then you have these people that live in fairy tale land and think MC is the greatest thing ever. I heard the tournament went well. That is great but that doesnt mean it will continue. The fact of the matter is that the tournament lost a large sum of money and will not continue if this loss continues.  

MBeck

This may be buried in the other threads, but any ideas on how it should have been implemented?  They had to come up with something that topped CCA and was self-funded.  Not an easy task.

The way I suggested was, since they were obviously willing to take a financial hit, make the entry fee more affordable. Lets say they make it $200 dollars(comparable to other tournaments). This should get them more registrants... honestly, a ton more in my opinion. The more people you have, the better  your chance at getting sponsors. A big prize tournament like this needs sponsors to survive. This tournament can easily pull 1,000+ people since nobodys can win thousands. Think about it, what other sport can beginners win thousands of dollars? This fact will bring new players into the game.  

Basically my point is they should have taken a more "for chess" approach. But instead they only considered the players with money... which says alot about their character. 

@small potato,

I listened to the broadcast of Williams and Pahtz and they were not criticizing the tournament they only mentioned that there is motivation for sandbagging.  Europeans for the most part don't like large class prizes in tournaments.  But they hardly tarnished the reputation of the tournament, these statements have been made for years about the CCA tournaments.

RE Williams and Pahtz - just more candidates for the blame game. There will be a lot of finger pointing when this thing folds up.  

MBeck

Judging from Amy Lee's 4/9/14 blog, I don't think her original intent was to lose money big time.  The rhetoric about expecting to initially lose money surfaced when it was obvious the 1500+ player target wasn't going to materialize.  

MC – Looking back and moving ahead

Given the historical importance of chess, which has been in existence for over 1500 years, we believed that generating 1500 players among the millions of players out there was not hard.  The US Chess Federation alone has 80,000 members, and half of that are adults, which means 40,000 rated players. Surely 4% of that population should be interested in a tournament that could change chess history.

>he US Chess Federation alone has 80,000 members, and half of that are adults, which means 40,000 rated players. Surely 4% of that population should be interested in a tournament that could change chess history.<

Surely not. Belies a complete lack of understanding of and experience with US chess culture. But we knew that already...the real mystery is why Mr. Ashley thought it was a goer.

so thats 2% of the entire USCF, i guess

It is never anyones intent to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. The fact of the matter is they went along with the tournament after they knew they would take a hit. That shows they prepared for a loss. At the end of the day they are business people, and they account for potential loses. 

MC needs sponsors like EVO fighting game championship

Not much is going to happen until March 31. for what it's worth, didn't it launch about that time last year? With 280 willing to jump in for $880, keep in mind this is only half the total number for MC 1. It's hard for me to believe they can get 280 more by March 31. Still, whatever they have it's going to be more than they started with last year. The jump to $1250 will slow entries down to a crawl and they won't get many at all, especially when it hits $1500 on July 1.

i wouldn't put much weight on them not having a playing site yet. Last year, they had that committed up front. When it became obvious they would lose money, they ran it anyway, Bold move, can't fault them for that. This time however, it seems the "No Hotel Gambit" is in place. It gives them any easy out to cancel come April 1 if entries aren't where they want them to be. If the entries have hit their target, they will get the hotel and run it at whatever loss, or profit...remember, they told us they would be around awhile. However, they need to be very concerned they didn't get 500 entries at $880 by January 1.

So, this may be the action for the next 2 months:

1) Entries by March 31

2) Announcement of hotel

3) Sponsors acquired.

I wouldn't hold my breath on hearing about the last two by March 31.

I don't understand the continued raising of the entry fee. $1000 is enormous enough...why bump it up to $1250, then $1500? 

Certainly you can charge a "tax" for onsite entry, but even that shouldn't be more than $50 to cover the hassle. It's about five minutes of data entry.  And it's not like unregistered players flood into the hotel by the dozen on the first day to sign up. 

Rcredito and I are showing up at the next "Millionaire Chess" shindig and charging our own tax on everyone brah...

MB

They are trying to encourage people to sign up early.  Once a person signs up, it's unlikely that they will withdraw.  However, a person who waits to sign up may change their mind.

It's like the old ploy electonics stores once used, the 30-day free trial.  They knew that once the product was in the home, very few would be returned.

>They are trying to encourage people to sign up early.<

Yeah, how's that working for them?  I get the early bird business, but a staged entry fee that increases by 20-25% each time seems a little over-worked.  Especially for something that is hugely expensive to begin with.