Millionaire Chess 2!!

It doesnt excuse him at all but if there are gullable people, then there will always be someone there to take advantage of them.

One thing that really surprised me was that someone willing to invest that much money into a chess buisiness would not select a partner who already has a history of organizing successful big chess tournaments.

Yeah, Amy thought she could make a quick buck

then got thrown under the bus brooklyn style.

While this is, admittedly, speculation on my part some I almost get the feeling from some of Ms. Lee's posts that their relationship is (or at least has been) more than just business. People are often willing to put money one someone they have an close personal relationship with, whether it's good business sense or not.

Maurice's website states that he is a motivational speaker.  A company that I worked for hired a motivational speaker when things at our plant were going south.  After a 60 minute talk, most of us in the audience were feeling great and were ready to go out and conquer the world.  Motivational speakers are very convincing people.

The 2005 HB Global Challenge didn't do that badly.  It drew 1500+ players.  It lost about $200,000, but first attempts usually lose money.  The excuse was that it was held in Minneapolis and would have done better elsewhere.

From the available information, I think that Amy Lee's big mistake was not performing adequate market research.  She found some information that stated the USCF had 40,000 adult members and assumed that 4% of them would play in the MC Open (she really needed to find out how many could afford the entry fee, and, of those, how many would be willing to pay it).  What she didn't discover is that only 13,000 adult members are active.  She got her 4%, but it wasn't the 1600+ that she was expecting.  She found out the hard way that organizing chess tournaments is far different from property management.

What?

Maurice Ashley's only 'motivating' aspect is being the first African American GM.

Other than that, whatever he's done is because of Mr. Sinquefield deep wallet.

Think "motivational speaker = super salesman."  Their job is to make you feel good about yourself and the world.  If they can use their personal experiences to do this, fine, but it's not necessary.  The one that I listened to told some "personal stories" that I later found out were jokes that had been around for awhile (I just hadn't heard them).

I really don't understand this personal animosity. 

SmyslovFan

I don't see how stating some facts is personal animosity.

If you look at Amy Lee's early musings, she expected the tournament to be self-funded and attract 1600+ entrants.  That's how she arrived at the $1000 entry fee.  She also stated that a survey that they conducted produced no usable results because of its wording (she was trying to  hide what she and Maurice were attempting from the competition).

Maurice Ashley advertises that he is a motivational speaker.  As such, he gives speechs that have to be uplifting (he has to sell people on the concept that things aren't as bad as they seem). There are several techniques for doing this.  If he is a typical motivational speaker, he will use most of them.

there are cheaters

Money tournaments are for GM's. Professionals get paid for excelling. For the rest of us it is a hobby. Get it? Tournaments are great for amatures. Low entry fees to encourage participation, payouts to cover expenses plus a bonus. This absurd notion that profits are to be made from hobbyists ruins the spirit of chess...imo. Back in the day, payouts were based on # of entries. Nothing was guaranteed. Percentages of entries were paid out, 90% returned. Organizers volunteered, rental fees were paid. We rented cheap rooms and played chess 24/7.

Good thing the opposite seems to be happening; MC buisiness is getting ruined and the spirit of the hobby we share remains intact

Chess is not the Holy Grail.  It is a game that people play.  If someone can make a buck either playing in or organizing tournaments, more power to them.

What Ashley and Lee have shown so far is that there is not enough interest in high-stakes tournaments to make the concept viable.  Also, the amount of sandbagging in the <1600 section was an abomination that will act as a deterrent to potential entrants in future high-stakes tournaments.

If oyu look at the winners of each section (except for the open) they were all players that hadnt played in years, and or had a provisional rating.  A friend went and played and he was not happy with how rules/pairings were changed.  I understand what Ashley is trying to do, but offering tens of thousands of dollars to players that have played in 1 or 2 tournaments, and then play in this event and make $40,000 is rediculous.  Praying on peoples greed isnt going to help chess grow. 

The provisional rating for some players is misleading.  They were foreign players who had FIDE and/or national federation ratings (either of which had to meet the MC 50 rated game requirement), but no USCF rating.  Their FIDE or national federation rating was coverted to a provisional USCF rating for the rating report (I guess that the USCF prefers a starting point other than zero for these players).

I read somewhere that "play in tournaments" (if that is correct term) were held a few weeks or even days before MC2. Thusly new players could get rated and enter. The 50 games was reduced to 24. Am I mistaken in this?

Here says 50, and there´s no mention of 24, maybe they wrote something in some other place:

"Provisional ratings:

Players with Provisional Ratings must play in the Open section or the Unrated/Provisionally rated section.
In order to be considered as having a non-provisional rating for MCO #2, a player must have played 50 officially Rated Tournament games under a single rating system (USCF, FIDE, or otherwise). The games must have been rated before September 30, 2015. The 50 games are to ensure that the player’s rating is a very reliable indicator of their actual playing strength."

https://millionairechess.com/faq

TY, but I recall reading of tournaments being held just before MC2 that took place for the explicit purpose of new players establishing a rating. Thus, they could enter MC2. I recall a few posts here, but alot of posts to sort thru. I'm on a phone.

>This absurd notion that profits are to be made from hobbyists ruins the spirit of chess<

EXACTLY. And the flipside notion that hobbyists should make enormous sums in prize winnings. It was never about chess, it was a dollar chase.

And, as a few of us predicted after the first one, after circling the air watching the MC1 go down, the Grandmasters descended like a flock of vultures and quickly gamed MC2 into a farce.

I myself said they might as well cut Nakamura the check before it started and save themselves a lot of aggravation - instead they went through the motions, let him change the rules, and then cut the check. 

MB

How exactly did the GMs game MC2?  Is it any surprise that some top GMs entered the tournament (after all, Maurice was overjoyed that they did) and that they won the money?  Face it, the top section is for the big boys, and anybody entering the Open Section knows that the competition will be stiff.  

Nakamura's GM draw might be questionable, but, it was Maurice who tried to implement something that didn't comply with FIDE rules, and, as a result, couldn't be enforced (Maurice was more concerned about disappointed spectators than GM draws per se).  Also, if Ray Robson had won his seventh round game, Nakamura would have been tied with several others for fifth rather than fourth place, and his strategy would have backfired (that actually added some drama as I wondered if Robson would beat Lenderman).

The real travesty was the <1600 section where the tournament was truly gamed (it was, however, amusing when the commentators showered accolades on Rigoberto who was "playing in only his second tournament" --- somewhat difficult to believe since he had met the 50-game requirement).