If I were the chief arbitrator of MC, the important factor that I would take into account is maintaining the integrity of the tournament. MC has the right to make a final decision, and it is not illegal to deny entry to a player if he/she has a suspicious history of rated games. Common sense and basic research is all it takes to weed out a sandbagger.
Millionaire Chess 2!!
Sort:
DragonSavage wrote:
If I were the chief arbitrator of MC, the important factor that I would take into account is maintaining the integrity of the tournament. MC has the right to make a final decision, and it is not illegal to deny entry to a player if he/she has a suspicious history of rated games. Common sense and basic research is all it takes to weed out a sandbagger.
Intergity is not the purpose of MC right now.
Right now, its main goal is to find ways to get as many players in as possible so that Amy Lee wont jump ship and leave Captain Gimmick all alone.
Tourists visit LV for entertainment. Few have visions of striking it big. They save their bucks for a vacation, fully expecting to lose it at the tables/slots. Casinos make their $ from the average Joe who gladly gives it away. The MC survey lists cities with big casinos for MC 3. Is chess to be linked to gambling? Before you know it, odds will be given on who will win the tournament. Place your bets! Prop bets such as how many moves and which variation of an opening is played will be popular.
Well yeah, there's a certain segment of kinda, sorta professional chess players (spearheaded by Ashley and the Shahade siblings) who, for whatever reason, seem hellbent on tying chess in with poker and gambling.
No one is suing MCO because they couldn't enter the U1200 section.
Nov 8, 2015
0
#1327
Watch for an enterprising lawyer to start a class action suit on behalf of the <1600 entrants!
awesome!!
Nov 8, 2015
0
#1329
Not only didn't they have a fair chance to win the big bucks. They've probably suffered some form of mental duress. Ought to be worth, say, a million dollars.
Nov 18, 2015
0
#1330
AmyLee says: “We know all about this circumstance but the reality is if you take away the fact that he won our tournament then what grounds do you have to prevent him from playing in the first place?” [November 3, 2015 at 6:40 pm]
Thanks for this Amy. Still somewhat confused though – to clarify, is your team in agreement that (based on all the evidence) this was in fact an instance of sandbagging…? And you’re saying that the problem is one of early detection…?
On this point, as a statistician who has worked in fraud-detection (specifically match-fixing), I’d quickly draw a parallel here with a bank’s fraud detection system, which is based around rejecting anomalies. I submit that no genuine beginner, having never played any competitive chess, would suddenly play 50 matches in the space of 3 months (over in Russia, no less), lose 80% of these matches, and then spend thousands of pounds to enter a hugely competitive tournament where their chances would apparently be non-existent. No genuine chess player would act this way, as it defies logic. To how many MC entrants in the graded sections would this description have applied?
Of course, if you wished to take on the risk of such players (in the knowledge they might spoil the tournament for genuine competitors), it would also be completely reasonable and legitimate to cap the available prize that can be won by a player who does not have a genuine, properly established rating – limited to the equivalent of 5th place, say, or 10th place. I should note that in the UK this is a common way of avoiding issues and disputes surrounding players without a grade – for instance, the rules of one local tournament state: “Any ungraded player may not win more than the value of the 3rd prize, except in the Open tournament.” I would gently suggest that those without a properly established grade who refuse to compete under these sort of rules have something to hide – and you’d be very much better off seeing the back of them!
-
You make a lot of good points Tim. We instituted a 50 game rule despite objections from seasoned arbiters in order to protect us from possible sandbaggers. We actually liked the idea that unrated players with the means to do so would be motivated to play in tournaments in order to take part in our event (and visit glamorous Vegas). We had a few low and Unrated players in the Open section who had absolutely no chance of winning a penny. After speaking with one of them for quite some time, Maurice actually encouraged him to try to play enough games to have a chance in one of the Under sections. The person refused because he said his life was just too busy and that he could more than afford to pay for the trip.
It is certainly difficult to read the motivation of each player. If we do this event again, we will institute even stiffer rules that protect each section but do not keep away well-meaning people. Thanks for your advice.
Nov 18, 2015
0
#1331
The dilemma MC faces is first they need 1500 entries to break even. They are falling far short in all rating categories, but they especially need many entries below 1600. If the unrated sharks and sandbaggers keep coming, few long time U1600 players will bother to play.
I would be interested in the number of players for whom they actually refused entry.
Is there an official statement about that anywhere ?
Cause if my guess is right, then the number of potential customers who were refused is exactly zero, and all that anti-sandbagging talk is just an attempt to create the illusion of strong rule enforcement in order to maximise the amount of both honest and dishonest players who pay their entry fee.
You were guaranteed a million dollars if your entry was rejected.
I think Amy is quite confused when saying " it is certainly difficult to read the motivation of each player". Is that the criteria? What is meant by motivation? All can enter because motives are not decernable? 1/2 the players would respond with ...To Win! Any way...I noticed the "if" word regarding staging a tourney next year. She must be quite discouraged with the short comings and mistakes of MC 1 and 2.
mdinnerspace wrote:
I think Amy is quite confused when saying " it is certainly difficult to read the motivation of each player". Is that the criteria? What is meant by motivation? All can enter because motives are not decernable? 1/2 the players would respond with ...To Win! Any way...I noticed the "if" word regarding staging a tourney next year. She must be quite discouraged with the short comings and mistakes of MC 1 and 2.
Yeah, just about every post she's made on her website since MC2 finished seems to indicate that she's done with financing Maurice's ego.
You know for a woman who was successful enough with her financial ventures to retire in her mid 30s, Amy Lee isnt very intelligent to stick with Maurice Ashley and his Millionaire Chess circus.
Nov 18, 2015
0
#1337
In a June 15, 2014 item titled "How a Typical Chinese Family does Business, Amy Lee discusses the help that she received from her family in her business dealings. With MC, it appears that she was on her own.
Excerpt: " For example, because my family is into the real estate development, we established realty business, insurance brokering, property management, design companies, and builders. "
Nov 18, 2015
0
#1338
Well, we knew this thing was doomed from the start. The entry fee was too high. That's all it ever was...a tournament with an entry fee that was too high. The chess market was never going to sustain that, no matter how much glitter they threw at the occasion.
I was surprised as anyone that they went for a second time. And by all accounts, the event had been taken over by sandbaggers and rule-breaking grandmasters and I'm sure it left a sour taste for everyone - to say nothing of the continued loss of money.
Ms. Lee will hopefully take her energy to brighter pastures.
Maurice Ashley has no stable source of income.
He does commentary for St. Louis events, but i cant imagine getting paid a lot of money to work 5 or 6 times a year.
Seirawan does chess lessons and Shahade dabbles in poker, lessons and both of them are resident GMs at the club.
If you cannot see that MC is Maurice's way of trying to make some money from the get go, then you deserve to pay him $1500.
I think the US is a special case as far as lawsuits are concerned, with amounts of money being given to people that the rest of the world can only shake their head at.
So a location outside of the US might be best. Europe (including Russia) should have more active chess players anyway. The only reason why the US made sense so far was to link the event to the prestige of Vegas.
If that is gone anyway, no reason to not hold the Tournament in Europe then, either centrally or in Eastern Europe where hotels and rooms for MC itself cost a lot less than in Vegas.