Millionaire Chess 2!!

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.

He didn't tell you to stop speaking, he told you to stop speaking for anyone other than yourself. It's a perfectly reasonable request.

I think a system of prizes awarded randomly amongst the class sections is a good idea. But for the big guns (the top section) then prizes should be awarded according to performance. The main reason why I play in a chess tournament is to test out my abilities against similar or stronger players and the intense fun of trying my very best and not to lose to people rated below me. I have been playing OTB tournaments for 25 years and live remotely so have to always travel and pay accomodation. Winning some money is only a token amount of the total that I have outlayed most times. So a system that has random prizes is just as enticing for me to play. There are many ways to distribute the prizes, e.g Board number then a toss of a coin. This method will also eliminate sandbagging.

@Rubiks.. a lottery?

Of course ur joking. Eliminate sandbagging? OK , I Get it. Win or lose, prizes to be awarded on a bingo card. I like it, being a poker player that never wins.

(Joking of course) I'll play anybody heads up. Got that the GM from England?

How to pay the "top guns" when in a tournament with 200 players + has only 10 entries in the section? It is a question debated endlessly, with no solution in sight with the regulations imposed by the USCF.

@mdinnerspace

It's one of those things for which there's not an obvious solution.  My 1244 USCF rating puts me in the top 27% of active players.  So there are a lot players below 1244  and many are like me.  We've been around a long time, like to play in tournaments, and are just looking for some competitive games.  The majority of the players are young and trying to improve.  They need stronger competition, so the organizers need to attract top players.  However, top players are few in number and the organizers can't charge them an arm and a leg to enter the tournaments.  So subsidizing by the lower players is necessary, but the organizer can't just take their money and say thank you for your support.

Im upset that Atlantic City, a place where im only an hour away from Casinos, clubbing and young adult debauchery will be ruined with geeky, nerdy uptight chess players who propose to Amy Lee upon meeting her.

woton... ur rating means zilch. Ur love of the game says it all. The spirit of chess!

Are you speaking on behalf of him? A perfect question I guess?

@Reb

To quote you:  "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 ."

There's the rub.  When I beat a 1400 player, I am beating a good player, it's all relative.

The attitude of chess players is interesting.  In most endeavors, being in the top 25-30% is considered decent, but not spectacular.  In chess, you're considered mediocre if you're only in the top 25-30%.

LOL.....

@woton

Twelve-something rating does not put you in the top 25-30 percentile of all players. Statistics from USCF is meaningless because it’s distorted by a bunch of kids who only played in one or two scholastic tournaments in their life. Average rating of a seasoned adult tournament player is in the 1700’s or 1800’s I suppose.

These are the kind of players who support big tournaments by paying their entry fees. And I agree with you on a notion that lower class players have no interest in sponsoring open section, and therefore class prizes serve the purpose of attracting amateur players to play chess.

@Oktagon... your supposition is incorrect. Sure, the average rating is skewed. However, simply count the number of entries in most tournaments of players rated under 1600, many are adults.

 That was one of MC's problems.  It couldn't attract enough of the low-rated players to help pay the bills.

This thread is about MC. What do we have here at most recent tournament? 147 players were in the Open Section; 96 U/2200; 114 U/2000; 85 U/1800; and only 99 players in U/1600&below.

This will be 442 vs. 99 for MC2 if you draw the line at 1600.

If you draw the line at 1800 it will be 357 vs. 184

That was one of MC's problems.  It couldn't attract enough of the low-rated players to help pay the bills.  I looked at last years World Open and Philadelphia Open.  About 30% of the players were U1600.  MC was less than 20%.

Note: It's hard to get an exact count because many entrants played up one or two sections. So the percentage in the World and Philadelphia Opens was probably higher than 30%.

No, I'm directly quoting his words. You should know this, since those words are in this quote chain. Perhaps you should spend a little more time carefully reading what you're responding to.

What about the magazine? Has always been a big selling point.

Maybe Chess Life use to be a big deal. I'm not sure that's really the case anymore. Chess periodicals in general are becoming kind of irrelevant. The exception being Chess Informant.