Millionaire Chess 2!!

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/millionaire-chess-3?lc=1#last_comment

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/mc3?lc=1#last_comment

@richie

If you simply made all chess tournaments a giant open section with no class prizes, how would you motivate any players with less than GM- or IM- playing strength (which is to say, 99%+ of all players) to participate?? Most players don't really want to enter a tournament and lose 6 or all 7 games in 7 rounds, and most players prefer to play opponents of roughly the same strength or perhaps a little stronger. I don't understand how this new scheme would be better for players. The current system of sections and section/class prizes may not be perfect, but it sure seems more motivating to me than the system you propose.

The current USCF system of sections and class prizes encourages mediocrity and other undesirable things , like sandbagging . 

BF was the ultimate sandbagger !!

(just teezing ya NM Reb........)

Ratings serve a useful purpose for seeding and pairing. By the 4th round and you had 0 points you'd be paired with others players of the same score. If you were low rated playing in 1 open class, you would expect good chanches of winning a few games towards the back end. Also, in the 1st few rounds the oppertunity of playing above your class rating is appealing to many.

"In chess news, this week Bob Lobknob, a 1350 player representing the Hogsrump Chess Club in Beaver Lick, Kentucky, won the All-American Chess Confederation for Real Americans (Mid-South)'s National Championship over a tough field of 3 other competitors. Making him the 785th U.S. Chess Champion of 2016."

Can you please explain how not having sections and class prizes would encourage most players to enter and play in tournaments? Money is not everything to most chess players, but it's a nice small incentive and it stokes the competitive spirit, in addition to offsetting the cost of the entry fee and other costs. Yes, having sections may encourage mediocrity because some players may just feel comfortable staying in their section for the long term and lack incentive to improve or move up in sections, but the same players will probably not be more motivated to improve if we abolished sections in tournaments. And as long as there are ratings and competitions or prizes partly based on ratings, sandbagging, however loathsome it is, will exist to some extent. The alternative, to only have open tournaments with one giant open section, does not seem feasible to me and removes most of the motivation and incentive for playing in tournaments to most players, in my opinion. This would destroy chess and the enjoyment of playing in tournaments for nearly all players except the elite and strongest ones. We shouldn't completely throw out an imperfect system for a system that is far more imperfect and flawed just because of a few flaws with the current system.

I've played in the U.S. Open, a very nice tournament, and I understand how this opportunity may be appealing to some players (I very much liked this, too). However, that tournament did certainly have class prizes, and players were primarily competing against other players of roughly the same strength. Were there sandbaggers at this tournament, too, some of whom won prizes they didn't really deserve? Definitely. Did it make the tournament much less enjoyable or discourage most players from entering in the first place? Not really. Section or class prizes in chess tournaments serve a useful purpose, even in a big open tournament such as the U.S. Open. To propose throwing out the entire current system because of a few sandbaggers at every major tournament seems extreme and unwise to me. A better solution is to have very stringent rating rules, such as the ones used by MCO, and to give the tournament director the authority to manually adjust some players' ratings or sections based on their past playing histories if there exists strong evidence of sandbagging in those cases.

When I first played in tournaments in the 70s, most tournaments were single section, and there were no class prizes.  However, the few prizes that existed were small, and the entry fees were low.  Then organizers started raising the prize fund to attract higher rated players, and the entry fees increased.  It wasn't long before the lower rated players realized that they were footing the tournament's bills and getting nothing in return.  

The fact is that the majority of active USCF players are rated less than 1400, and without the class players, there would be no tournaments,.  Thus, the organizers were forced to offer class prizes.  If we were to go to single section tournaments with no class prizes, would the high rated players be willing to accept lower prize money?

 As an afterthought.  How about a single section tournament with a two-tier entry fee?  A high fee for those playing for cash, and a low fee for those who waive their right to a cash prize.

Some places can make the lower entry fee for no-prize work but the numbers may not always work out very well. Players that know they rarely win any prize money will just pay the rating only entry and you'll have a harder time covering your costs.

In my events, I've begun offering a scholastic entry, no prizes, but that is mainly to allow eligibility to play chess for their school if our state begins recognizing it as a school sport/activity (it is in progress but may not happen).

I also try to have two sections and the lower section does subsidize the open some, but you don't pull remote players as well if the prizes aren't attractive.

My take. Tournaments should be an oppertunity for a 2/3 day weekend of fun and games. See old/ meet new friends. Play skittles all night long. See new products in the concession. Observe games of the top boards. An oppertunity to play "serious" chess and test your progress. If it suits you 4 guys share a nice hotel room. Who sleeps much anyway? Have the chanch of winning your expenses back with good play and a bit of luck.

I think this can be done with low entry fees, a good turn out and prizes awarded base on # of entries. The promoters would need to cover expenses of the hotel or center and any additional costs; returning the rest to the players. This has been done in the past where a club put on a tournament, depending on volunteers for legwork.

The problems grow out of promoters desires to make a profit, to make chess into a business instead of a sporting event for amatures . Big $ ? Sure, why not, but it's for the professionals imo.

People are "suckered" into buying a lottery ticket when the payout rolls over many times. I see a correlation to chess payouts. Offer a huge 1st place prize, sucker in as many entries as possible. That last day where 1 "lucky" person had a 1 in 64 chanch of winning a mill? LOL. I'll wager it was rigged with 0 chanch of winning. Dangle money like pulling the slot machine handle? Yep, this is the way to promote the spirit of the game.

Chess could probably use a variety of tournament formats.  Invitationals for the top players, luxury tournaments for the affluent, bare bones tournaments for the majority, etc.

My venting was aimed at a few high rated players who resent that the class players get any money at all.  Their attitude seems to be that since there aren't enough of them to support a large prize fund, the rest of us should feel honored to pay the tournament's bills and subsidize their prize fund.

I have no problem with class players winning money IF they earn it by beating good players and not just beating up on other players of their class . Here is what I witnessed only recently where I live . A small one day tourney of 4 rounds had 3 sections : an Open an under 1600 section and an under 1200 section . In the open section there was no under 2000 ( A class ) prize , there was a first and second overall and one prize for best under 1800 . This means the A class players were expected to compete for 1st and second . Well , 3 masters showed up and an expert over 2100 , ofcourse the first 2 prizes were taken by 2 of the masters and the A class players just got screwed . One of the masters and the expert went home with nothing while some under 1200 player won the under 1200 section and got more than the master and expert combined .  How is that fair ?  In this particuar event the A class players got screwed worse than anyone else and I have told several of them they shouldnt even show up for tournies that dont offer an A class prize but do offer prizes for under 1200 , and even lower . I didnt attend this event myself but if I had there would have been 4 masters and 1 expert and no A class prize ... ridiculous . 

Reb... clearly organizers lack of forsight and judgement. Before entering any tourney, players need to carefully read the ground rules. Many organizers misrepresent the payouts, not intentionally (hopefully).

Thus, tournament prizes should be based on entries, with posted guidelines prior to the tournament, clearly stating how prizes will be awarded based on number of entries in each section. Simple enough? Or too complicated?

Organizers can guarantee a minimum payout, based on a minimum turnout.

@Reb,

Did the under 1200 section fully fund their prize pool?  If they did then you have to look at it as a separate tournament.  At the large Goichberg tournaments the A and B sections competitors fund their own section prizes so they are not taking money from anyone.  I agree the A player in the top section got a raw deal. It's why I've given up on tournament chess, I'm always in that situation, one of the lowest players in the Open Section as a floored 1800.

@ woton... ur arguement makes alot of sense. There is 1 problem however. 1 % of all players are masters. So with a very small percentage of entries being of master level, how to attract them to a tournament and win prizes equal to lower sections? Let them subsidize their own section is a solution, but not very appealing for the master imo. I agree, with a small number of entries, the top rated players shouldn't be taking away the largest % of $.

Unfortunately for you richie, you dont own chess.com and hence if I stop, I will only stop at my own will, not yours. Again that may be unfortunate for you, but get used to living with it.