Millionaire Chess 2!!

If somebody can find a way to do it, more power to them.  But, if I were a strong player, I wouldn't hold my breath.

It's a dim new trend out in bloggy-land to call anyone who criticizes anything a "hater."

Think Donald Trump would be a bad president? You're a hater.

Think Hillary Clinton is not trustworthy? You're a hater.

Think Millionaire Chess made huge errors with sandbaggers in their last tournament? You're a hater.

There is good criticism, bad criticism, and plenty in between. But calling any of it "hate" is just a lazy and insulting attempt to chill conversation by attacking people as intolerant. 

The best way to deal with it is to totally ignore the person saying it, since they are patently ignorant and have nothing else to say. 

In this particular case, the poster put up a long thread on Millionaire Chess 3 that revealed him/her as a shill for the company, because he/she announced information about the tournament that has not been publicized anywhere else.  So the call to ignore is even stronger.  

Personally if I had had time and money I would have been in MC.

I've seen images, videos, and it's spectacular with new ideas. I understand that a lot of Chess player are quite shy or so genuine people and perhaps they can't like this kind of event, but that does not mean that it can appeal to other people. If you do not like just do not go.

Yes there's a critical point, the sandbagger. I think with intelligent rules or different rates they will be able to avoid this. 

@richie_and_oprah:

I take offense to your comment and generalization. On the contrary, I was an actual participant at the first two MCs, and I bet I am better informed on the FACTS than you are. Sandbagging is a problem at EVERY major chess tournament (and I have attended many others besides MCO). I think MC has done more than most organizations and tournaments to combat this, although it's almost impossible to completely weed them out or prove sandbagging in some suspected cases. For example, MC's policy is to use a player's HIGHEST post-event rating in the last few years to determine the section a player qualifies for. That means the players cited before, despite trying to intentionally lower their ratings after MCO, will NEVER be able to play in the same lower section again. As an extra safeguard, MCO rules also state that a previous winner of a top section prize may not enter and play in the same section in future tournaments. So the only sandbagging that is feasible is one of a player who is NEWLY rated and who intentionally loses games on his way to an established rating. It's very difficult to fight this form of sandbagging, but I believe MC will have some new rules and measures in place for MC#3 to at least dramatically reduce this nonsense.

@themaskedbishop:

I already responded to your comment in the other thread, and I want to stress that I do NOT work for MC and I am not a "shill". "Hate" is just a word I chose to describe the sentiments of some posters and comments about MC. It may not be the perfect word, but I simply meant a general negativity and criticism. I believe that is a fairly accurate description of the tone of some comments. It doesn't seem fair or logical to dismiss a poster using the word "hate" just because you don't like the particular word choice.

You are actually doing the very thing you are accusing me of. You do not agree with my opinions or sentiments, so you immediately and automatically dismiss or ignore what I have to say or call me ignorant without actually considering the merits of my statements, facts, and arguments. I have not done the same with you. I read your comments and considered them, and I have posted my rebuttals to some of them.

I do believe there should be more money in chess for strong and serious amateurs. MCO is one small way of improving this, although I certainly don't think it's the only or even the best way. US Chess, in my opinion, should do much more to promote career paths for chess amateurs, such as being a chess teacher, coach, or journalist. Ongoing training and support should be provided for such high-level and interested players, almost all of whom leave chess because there is little or no money in it. Scholastic chess is great, but there must be paths and financial incentives for players to stick with the game long after their "scholastic phase" has ended!

>It may not be the perfect word, but I simply meant a general negativity and criticism. <

As I said to you on the other thread, this "general negativity" which you label hate is coming from about FIVE people on ONE thread on ONE Internet forum. Compare that to the hundreds (maybe thousands) of people giving MC positive and glowing coverage all over the Internet, in the chess print world, in the general media, from endorsements from famous grandmasters, from hosannas from the USCF...the compliments and support for MC and its organizers have been constant and overflowing from day one.

So I think JUST MAYBE you are over-stating your case when you come screaming in here at a very small group of people who think that MC is less than the most wondrous thing to ever happen to chess, and of being venomous and hateful, etc. 

Your church is already full, my friend...but you can't stop one or two people in the back from laughing during the service. 

Hmmm. ... I see Diakonia started another thread on MC3 besides mine. Seems the ""usual bashers" are there. Oh well. Imo, the new format should be discussed, and not the same old stuff hashed out in MC2.

People know they will be blocked if repeated bashing and unintelligent arguements are made.

Any debate should remain civil with respect for dissenting viewpoints. Maskedbishop is blocked for cause imo in view of his prior history of intolerance for anything other than his own.

I lost to that same guy in Round 6,  I can honestly tell you from my own experience that he is 1700+ strength.  I was so happy to see his rating floor go up to 1600, which is why I think removing the floors was a bad move on USCF's end.  This will only encourage people like him to sandbag more and more.

dinnertable, you start a forum and announce you are blocking people from the get-go. I took a look..you are the only one posting there. Big surprise. 

You are disrespectful bishop. Ur the only one blocked. No one gives you any credence, what with a moniker like urs, what do you expect? Ur "fantasy" profile ends with ur calling urself the "caped crusader for chess justice". Just the sort of person we all need and can learn from!

Not much to discuss as yet, as the format has not been released yet. Just a few jokes thus far. Please carry on in the other forum where bashing MC is the norm

>Ur the only one blocked<

"Ur" is an ancient city in Sumeria, my illiterate friend. Get ye to another ESL class. 

USCF removed rating floors ?  When ? 

Reb

USCF didn't remove rating floors. 

The USCF has a policy that if you win more than $2000 in a class section, your rating floor increases to prevent you from playing in that section again, e.g. you win $2500 in the U1600 section, your rating floor goes to 1600.

With MC2, they've vacillated.  First they used their regular formula, highest rating minus 200 rounded down, then they gave all U1600 prize winners a 1600 floor,  Later they revised the floors for the U1400 and U1200 prize winners to 1400 and 1200.  In their latest machination, it looks like they've waived the >$2000 policy for MC2 and used the regular formula.

In one way, it makes sense.  A true 1300 player finishes 20th in the U1600 section and wins $2500.  Is it fair to give that player a 1600 floor?  On the other hand, with all the sandbagging that went on, what should the USCF do?

Eliminating the USCF and other organizations would be interesting.  Without a central organization, there would be no rating system or titles.  The majority of tournaments would be local, and since there are no ratings, pairings would be random.  Might even be some fistfights over who should be paired with whom.

Not all of the organizations are equally inept or corrupt though. There are some national chess orgs that seem to be doing quite fine in some countries, and - oh surprise! - usually these are the countries that chess itself is doing well in.

So it's definately possible to have an organization that is actually beneficial to chess and chess players.

So for the USCF I'd suggest disbanding and redoing it from scratch while avoiding the old mistakes.

Richie is right but what he proposes will never happen . In the US it has gotten so bad that most tournies now all look like class tournies , even those that are advertised as " Opens " . 

>Eliminating the USCF and other organizations would be interesting<

It will never happen. The only reason the USCF exists is to issue a rating. Players, esp adults, don't join for any other reason.

Without the USCF, you'd have thousands of national championships, none of them worth anything. The USCF also holds a tournament clearinghouse that is very useful.

I am not a huge fan of the USCF, but it does serve a purpose. 

MB

The USCF exists because people like organized activities, but they want someone else to do the organizing.  The USCF is an umbrella organization that provides administrative support.  The real work is done by local organizers, but the amount of time they have to devote to chess activities is limited.  So the USCF steps in, and everyone, except the players, is satisfied.