Millionaire Chess 2!!

 Not sure what that has to do with anything.  I know that sandbagging occurs (In U1400 sections, you see a lot of sandbagging for $150 - usually a strong club player or a street hustler), and the higher the prize money, the greater the number of sandbaggers.  That's why I don't bother to play in the big tournaments.   But suspecting  a person of sandbagging and proving it are two different matters.

Very well said Kingandmate. Let me attempt an answer.

There are 3 categories of people (all chess players except afew strolls whom we can ignore) that are criticizing or discussing about MC and why its doomed to failure.

First, those who are interested in chess, doesn't strongly oppose the idea of high stake chess but can't play in MC either due to schedule conflict or doesn't think the cost is worth playing or doesn't like the format or the location. Some of them are bringing criticisms in the form of discussion that is healthy. We need to accommodate such discussions and MC team may benefit out of them. I believe some of them may decide to participate in a future MC if conditions prove favorable to them (closer location, better format, lower entry fee etc).

Second, a small group of people are criticizing MC because they can't accept high stake chess morally i.e. in principle. It wont matter what changes come in MC, they are very much against the birth of the idea and will never get convinced that high stake chess may have any good for chess. People who think playing chess for money is a sin will also fall under this group or people who may have a personal grudge. I am happy that the number of people in this category are very very few in number. In fact its difficult to see who else other than maskedbishop is a member of only this group. May be richi_and_oprah too.

Third, some people who have time and simply jumping on the wagon. They are passing time and depending on the mood at that day either they are talking like the people of category 1 i.e. sensibly or passing some harsh comments. They are volatile. If MC succeeds as a venture they will quickly move to category 1.

Let's assume all the others are under fourth category, who playing or not, supports the idea of high stake chess. I and you are a small percentage of this large group. We have seen two 600 players' MC tournaments so far and the next one is happening in Atlantic, New Jersey this October.

This diversification is natural for any community even if that's chess community. We just have to live and let live and be a little decent on the words we choose when attacking others' ideas.

Special prizes don't count towards the one prize per player rules. Things like top senior, top scholastic, etc are usually smaller prizes to spur participation and can be won in addition to place prizes.

If a player qualifies for an overall place prize and a class prize, for example, then they would get the prize that is largest and the other prize would go to the next in line if someone qualified, as you mention. 

Also, MC should probably implement their own floors, like the CCA does, to prevent some returning players from winning the same section next year. Assuming they haven't already decided to do something like that. 

Martin_Stahl

Makes sense.  Thanks for the clarification.

Well, that is certainly your opinion. However,  they say they are running the third one,  so having their own floors is probably a good idea.

I agree that they have misjudged the market. However, I don't agree that bigger money tourneys a necessarily bad for chess.

I am opposed to awarding exorbitant prizes to hobby players in principle. The principle is simply that I think it is an unhealthy way to "promote the spirit" of chess and sportsmanship. In the long run we will see its detrimental effects for the majority of players.

It appears the main arguement on the side of supporting such events is that it is a high stakes business venture. It is the "American" way to promote and make $ for enterprising entrepreneurs.

I find many possible issues of integrety and deception with this view. Another being the gullibility of participants thinking they have fair chanches to win prizes.

It comes down to 99.5 % of us are hobby players. Leave the big $ for the pros. and sponsors. Chess should be encouraged and promoted by other means than winning large sums of money. I am all for team events, low cost tournaments with low entries and hotel rates. Tournament payouts based on # of entries, cover expenses and return the rest to the players.

If a tournament gets 1000 entries, award more place prizes. Imo top heavy prizes is not the way to go.

I seriously doubt Ashley is in this "business" because he is a huge fan of chess wanting to promote the game itself. Rather he gives all appearances as that of someone out to make personal financial gains.

I have a slightly different take. I get a benefit out of a robust group of really strong players, such as great games to study, potential coaches, etc.

Having a system in place that can motivate strong players to get better, to stay with chess instead of leaving since there is no way to make a living, isn't a bad thing. How many players, that could have been great, left chess because they really couldn't afford to pursue it?

I'm not going to claim this tourney is the way to go about it. That sub-experts or sub-masters deserve a huge payday. There are probably better ways to do it but if MC doesn't find the right formula, the next event will likely be their last,  short of doing some 2000+ only tourney. Or, making the other sections be lower entry with lower prizes, in addition to a higher entry one for stronger players.

I quite agree. That "American" way of promotion works for quite a lot of things, but chess obviously isn't one of them. Europe seems to be doing something right there. 

If chess was promoted more as being fun and inexpensive while training your mind, then it could become much more popular. What it needs is a real and sustainable grassroots movement. If millions and millions of players play in small cheap OTB tournaments, then we will have enough players to support a few high stakes events.

Trying to create such a high cost event artificially when there in not enough of a chess player base to support it was a bad business decision right from the start.

Chess isn't poker; either you have sandbaggers or if you put everyone in the same section then patzers will know with 100% certainty before that they won't win. Even with sections, looking at MC shows the deck is stacked against the regular, non-cheating, non-sandbagging players.

Martin.. in ur estimation how many players actually make a living from playing chess? Very few from winning prizes except for the elite players . Coaches/instructors would be 1st? Journalists, a few Web sites offer oppertunities but, if someone gives up their pursuit for lack of monetary compensation, I wonder about their motives to start.

A player need not be a Master to be a great instructor, which is more of a specialized ability than strict chess skills imo.

I see where more and more Universities have chess teams and offer schlorships for students, meeting financial burdens.

In the US, that grassroots process is called scholastic chess. Very few players, in the scheme of things, stick with chess after they graduate. Improving that situation will possibly improve the number of tourney players. 

That's kind of my point. There isn't much money in chess so most players don't stick with it. The idea of MC-style tourneys, not MC specifically,  is to try and make it possible to make a living with chess.  

Many people give up their passions to make a living, not just in chess and I don't see why someone should question the motivation for a desire to follow a passion and do better than just survive.

You are also right that being a strong player doesn't mean one is a good coach. However, when people look for teachers, they want someone with demonstrable skills. Being a master level player goes a long way towards that. 

Martin_Stahl wrote:

In the US, that grassroots process is called scholastic chess. Very few players, in the scheme of things, stick with chess after they graduate. Improving that situation will possibly improve the number of tourney players. 

I taught with "Academic Chess" for several years. Their approach was directed more towards making the game "fun" for grades 1-12. Often the lessons were kinda "goofy" imo. But it did get interest started. Ur right, after a short time many simply lose interest in chess. I think it's normal. Those that want to continue playing I would hope are not motivated by the possibility of winning $ in tournaments. The majority will find failure.

Steve got it right by saying motivations need to be changed. The result will make for better players in the long term.

I am all for players at the Master level pursuing goals to reach an even higher level. They should not be restricted for lack of financial resources. My arguement is with awarding large prizes for hobby players.

Would not young, talented players reach a lofty status anyway? Is large prizes in tournaments the right incentive?

I don't know why people think that chess should be any different from other games.  Only a handful of football, baseball, and basketball players make money playing the game.  The majority theoretically play for nothing hoping to make it to the big time.

Yeah, part of the problem, especially for scholastic chess, and pretty much most things really,  is that only those that are pretty good stick with it for long. Though,  many of the stronger players also stop playing.

The amount of money in chess is chump change compared to many sports. I also understand there is a difference in how many people are willing to spectate chess and other sports and how that impacts the discrepancy. 

Nothing really wrong with trying to have a better ecosystem to support strong players or to try and get chess to a point where more promising players want to stick with it. 

Again, I'm not advocating that lower tier players should get big paydays. There will always be hobby players that have fun at regular tourneys and those that want to break into the ranks of the masters.

There's nothing wrong with trying to improve things.  However, the reality is that there is not much money available to chess players, so not every strong chess player will be able to make a living playing the game.

Thus the desire to change the reality