Millionaire Chess 3

https://millionairechess.com/newsletter-55-mc3-here

Is this one in 3-D?

Just when you thought chess was safe again. Well, I've seen the light. All hail the skulking grandmaster who can push a 5-move draw and win it all! 

>We finally settled on a new format that made sense from a financial point of view. <

Oh, batied breath. Kudos to you savants who entered the first one, which was essentially a large cash give-away. The second one was taken over by GMs who sailed in like unwashed pirates and grabbed all the loot..

Actually...unwashed pirates dress a lot better than your typical chess master...

I had friends that have attended these.  All of them say they will not go back.  One friends kid qualified for the final 8 (or however they do it) and at the last minutes they added a kid that was rated a couple hundred points higher then the rest.  He could not get an answer on this.  

Others have said that cheating does go on (regardless if what measure are supposedly taken)

And yes...isnt it amazing how 2 GM's can just bypass the rules and agree to a draw after 8 moves?  When the rules clearly states thats not allowed.

This is by far my favorite tournament of the year (although the entry fee is pretty expensive), and I am glad they will have a new edition this year! The tournament is extremely well-organized, and the playing conditions are the most lavish and best I have seen at any tournament. Maurice and Amy should be commended for working their asses off the entire year to pull off an open tournament of this magnitude. And at what other tournament does a chess player have the chance to win upwards of $20,000??

The cheating allegations are completely unfounded. The "others" were probably not actually participants at the event, or they would know that the security and anti-cheating measures are the strictest of ANY event in the world (including supertournaments). There is zero chance that a player (or even a spectator) can bring a phone or other electronic device into the playing area (they even scan you before you enter the bathroom), and players are not allowed to speak with spectators.

And the draw was actually NOT forbidden by the rules. The rules only prohibited "agreed" draws, which did not include draws by repetition. FIDE expressly allows draws by repetition, even at events with "no early draw" rules. MCO could not simply circumvent the FIDE regulations.

And the qualification rounds, as far as I know, only included players tied for the top places. All the results are published, so I don't see how MCO could have inserted "a kid" into the qualification rounds at the last minute without justification.

By the way, I believe the new structure includes a significantly lower entry fee this year, which is a very welcome change that should make the event accessible to far more chess players!

Kingandmate: so what's your job title at Millionaire Chess, Inc?  

Yeah, you shouldn't have mentioned the "lower entry fee." That has not been announced anywhere, and you exposed yourself as a shill by doing so. 

@themaskedbishop:

I do not work for MC at all. I am merely a fan and actual participant at the first two MCs who wishes to add another voice and perspective -- one from an actual participant, which might be valuable to some -- to the debate and perhaps correct some misconceptions and false assertions. I am not sure that they are lowering the entry fee, but I suspect this because this is one of the suggestions I gave MC after MC#2, and Maurice seemed to agree with me.

I would appreciate your not stating unfounded and false allegations on a public forum. The bias and animosity on chess.com against MC are pretty unsettling and surprising. I think people need to actually experience the event in person before passing judgment on it and the company based on "facts", speculation, or rumors they read online that may or may not be true. I am kind of sick of all this venom against MC from people who have never attended the event.

I already posted that i know peopel that played in the first, or second one, and they have saod that they will not go back.  I listed the reaosns why.

>I am kind of sick of all this venom against MC from people who have never attended the event.<

You are making your own unfounded assumptions here.  And "venom" is a pretty heavy word. Kind of like "hate" which you used freely on the other thread.  You are hardly an unbiased commentator. 

>The bias and animosity on chess.com against MC are pretty unsettling and surprising<

Let's see - about five people, maybe, have spoken out on this on ONE thread on ONE Internet forum. 

Everywhere else the praise has been universal, the coverage heavy and complimentary, the endorsements have come in from all corners...in other words, THOUSANDS of people supporting it all over the Internet and print media, against about FIVE who don't on one forum thread. 

Don't you think you are over-stating your case here? 

@Diakonia:

I know and read what you wrote. My comment about actually participating wasn't directed specifically to you. I do believe, however, that some of your or your friends' conclusions or assumptions are mistaken, as I explained in my previous post. Again, just adding another voice. I appreciate your perspective as well.

@themaskedbishop:

I never claimed to be unbiased. And, yes, "venom" is a heavy word, but I was using that specifically for some comments in this and a couple of other threads on chess.com. For some reason, chess.com threads about MC, in my opinion, tend to be pretty negative and critical. My comment was meant to cover chess.com threads, not comments in general about MC.

I do believe my assumption that most of the negative posts about MC come from people who have never actually attended the tournament is a safe and correct one.

Thanks King...thats why all i have to go by is what i was told.  I thought baout going to one of them, but couldnt justify spending that kind of money on an entry fee for ONE tournament.  Then after seeing the winners in each section (except the Open) and they were all Provisional, and or people that hadnt played in years, im glad i didnt go.  

I know that #2 had discussion about some people that had won a section, and they had played a bunch of tournaments agaiinst each other only.  I checked there names later, and they were now losing games to players hundreds of points below them.  

I understand that can be taken a lot of ways, i just thought it was fishy.

@Diakonia:

Actually, none of the winners had provisional ratings, as the rules specifically ban such players (except in the unrated section). ALL the players were required to have played at least 50 rated games under one federation (which is about double the number of games for a USCF established rating), and most winners had played games recently, so it's not true that many winners hadn't played in years. Still, many winners, especially in the U1600 section and perhaps to a lesser extent in the U1800 section, appeared to be sandbaggers. I emphatically brought this observation and criticism to MC's attention after MC#2, as I too do not want to compete against sandbaggers! MC was responsive to my feedback, and I believe there will be key changes in MC#3 that will address and deter this.

I understand that the entry fee is a lot of money to most players, and it's a lot of money to me, too. But if players are willing to spend that much money for the chance to win much more money or just for the experience, MC should not be denounced for this. These are grown people, and they make their own choices. A much lower entry fee would, in my opinion, make the tournament much more appealing and a more effective event to promote and elevate chess in a healthy way.

I do want to stress that Maurice Ashley is not doing this just for the money. It's clear that MC has lost money for the past two years, and I can't imagine that Maurice has made much money, if ANY, from the enterprise, as he is a partner, not an employee, of the company.

Some of the winners had provisional USCF ratings because they had never played in a USCF sanctioned tournament.  However, they had foreign federation (or FIDE) ratings and met the 50 game requirement.  Their foreign rating was converted to an equivalent USCF rating which was listed in the rating report as P5.  Probably some kind of USCF book-keeping requirement.

> couple of other threads on chess.com. <  Hmm, not to beat this into the ground, but what other threads? And really - who cares about chess.com forums? Have you ever seen anything from any of them quoted anywhere? 

Millionaire Chess has had a huge free ride in the chess press since it started over two years ago, including glowing cover stories in Chess Life. I have seen NO criticism of this event, or even a "neutral" review, anywhere, other than from a half dozen anonymous posters in a chat thread on chess.com. 

After the second one, which anyone would have to admit was a mess, there was some coverage of the debacles in Chess Life but the overall tone was still gracious and accommodating, and Amy Lee was given full reign to say whatever she wanted. As for the rest of the chess world - nothing was said as far as I can tell about the sandbagging, the pairings disaster, or Nakamura's 9-move draw. 

Bottom line: Millionaire Chess has been given the royal treatment from the chess world. No one of any authority, player or writer, has had anything but wonderful things to say about it. MC has escaped the frequent and cutting criticism that FIDE, the USCF, or even Continental Chess have often engendered. It's been one long love fest, and the warm fuzzies show no signs of fading.  

First.

Let's make this perfectly clear from the start: I will express my opinion on MC as often as I like, as strongly as I like and as one-sided as I like. You simply get no say in that.

That's how free speech works, you know.

The only ones who get to decide if what I say is appropriate or not are the mods and admins of chess.com, not you.

You can feel as sick of this as you like, of course; be my guest.

Just be aware that the more I get the feeling you'd like me to shut up, the more often I will speak up and post about MC because you are providing me with a lot of heartfelt motivation.

I think MC is an ugly business idea trying to maximize profits (thankfully not working so far) at the cost of gullible chessplayers.

My main points of criticism with it are:

- for the average patzerish participant, it only offers the same as a big open, that is a nice atmosphere to play in and the enjoyment of seeing titled players participate in the same event. However, the average patzer (who will not win anything anyway) could easily find an open costing 200-300 bucks offering that instead of paying a thousand bucks for it. So I feel MC is vastly overpriced for the average participant in order to make him subsidize the top players and the sandbaggers even more than every other event.

- MC has a bad history of players getting to win substantial amount of money who look like sandbaggers to me (and to many many others too).

- MC arrogantly claims they wish to "take chess to the next level". Thank you very much, but I like my hobby as it is and I resent the implication that the hobby I love and enjoy somehow isn't good enough and needs to be brought up a level.

- I think it leaves a lot to be desired on an organisational level. Wrong first round pairings, letting themselves be ripped off by horrendously overpriced water bottles, lack of proper scanning for sandbaggers, drama over unclear rules on a 9-move draw, apparently no research done on the financial viability of the business concept before starting, a questionable location that isn't family friendly and far away from the highest concentration of chess players, the list goes on and on and on.

Much more could be said on each point and additional points, so feel free to motivate me more to post on it.

@Steve11537:

I was merely expressing MY own opinions and sentiments on some of the negative comments surrounding MC and its events. I never stated that you or anyone else is not allowed to express those opinions. I simply wish to offer another perspective to the debate, one from a participant.

I think I've already commented on most of the criticisms in past posts. Players make their own decisions. If they wish to invest $1000 for the chance to win much bigger money, who are you to label or judge them as "gullible"?? Players who spend that much money to enter a chess tournament likely have a good amount of confidence in their skills, and most of these players probably have a decent chance of winning at least a lower prize, with or without sandbaggers in their section. And MCO is the only tournament to offer prizes for as many as 20 places in each section, giving significantly more chances to win significant money (the lowest prize is about $2200) than the average "big tournament". And some chess players are wealthy and don't care much for winning prizes. They simply love chess and wish to attend a very nice and exciting chess tournament with strong opponents, and the tournament may also be an excuse for a vacation. MCO serves this need for that group. Sandbaggers abound at every major tournament, and most do not have the stringent rating rules that MC has in place to weed out most of them. I find it a little strange that so much attention is placed on the supposed sandbaggers who win one or two sections at MCO, but no one bothers to research or post on winners at the North American Open, Chicago Open, World Open, etc., some of whom are most likely sandbaggers as well. Some posters almost seem to imply that this is a phenomenon unique to MCO, a conclusion which a little research and critical thinking will contradict. Sandbagging is EVERYWHERE.

Have to agree with you Steve.  As with all things motivated by money, it will ruin chess tournaments.