Millionaire Chess 3
Sort:
Feb 16, 2016
0
#202
While I think 301 is a punters game, I do like some double in, double out from time to time!
Feb 16, 2016
0
#203
I agree that there is room for high stakes tournaments. One problem is finding the money to fund them.
A second, and related, problem is maintaining interest. Assume that the MC Open gets 1500 entrants. There are 300 or so prizes. That means 1200 people go home with nothing. It won't be very long before many of the 1200 lose interest and drop out. There are a finite number of chess players, and eventually there will be no-one to replace the dropouts.
If any board game will be embraced as the "future" to replace chess, it will be the game of "GO" and not any variant of chess.
@woton:
No other big tournament, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
No other big tournament, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#206
Kingandmate wrote:
@woton:
No other big tournaments, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
No other big tournaments, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
MCO is presently having trouble packing the playing hall. In fact, they have become another World Open (something Amy Lee looked down on a few months ago). How many big money tournaments can there be before the market is saturated? Look at what happened to the casinos. It took forty years, but it happened.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#207
Does MC make money? Interesting question. They paid out over $1M in each tournament and took in $600K in each tournament. Couldn't even cover their prize fund.
woton wrote:
Kingandmate wrote:
@woton:
No other big tournaments, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
No other big tournaments, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
MCO is presently having trouble packing the playing hall. In fact, they have become another World Open (something Amy Lee looked down on a few months ago). How many big money tournaments can there be before the market is saturated? Look at what happened to the casinos. It took forty years, but it happened.
Drawing a comparison between casinos and big money tournaments is totally different. We have a very long way before the market is saturated with big money tournaments. How many big money tournaments do we have per year in the US? 5-7 maybe?
Feb 16, 2016
0
#209
They could be making money other ways, but I wouldn't hold my breath. There's a reason Amy Lee said that the change in the tournament's structure made financial sense.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#210
uiony
A long way to market saturation? I don't know. If the market is a long way from saturation, I would expect attendance at the big money tournaments to be increasing and more big money tournaments springing up.
It looks like they have reached steady state. There are enough new players to replace the players who drop out.
Kingandmate wrote:
@Steve11537:
Since you live in Europe, can you explain, IN DETAIL, what type of approach or model you think can work or has worked for increasing interest and expanding the chess-playing base? What the U.S. has done has not been working for decades.
In detail ? most certainly not, I'm not planning to write a book anytime soon.
In short, chess is much more of a grassroots movement from what I have seen here.
There's a lot of volunteer work going on with countless small chess clubs who have team leagues even for patzer level players. Those entry-level leagues often play on Sunday and don't interfere with work schedules because of that. The thing about those is that they tend to attract players at a young age, and many stay with them after school or return to play there as soon as their work schedule allows.
Because of the club type organisation, chess isn't exclusively tied to scholastic chess, although there are schools with their own chess clubs of course.
Most of these chess clubs do not have much cost associated with them because they do not need to pay money for their club room and are organised by volunteers and chess enthusiasts.
Examples I have seen include one club who got access to a room in a public school in the evening in return for teaching chess and organising the schools chess club, basically win/win for both. Some other club from a small village gets to play in their local pub, others get support by a company offering one of their rooms. Or they play in a room supplied by a local church or any other variant really.Many more variants exist.
The point being that these things are common, not exceptions for the smaller clubs because chess is more socially accepted and many people will support a small club in need of a room.
Wooden boards and pieces are pretty much standard in all clubs, and they do not seem to have much trouble with enough suppoert to buy these initially. A local business might add a bit of funds to it, for example, if being asked nicely.
Lots of small (as in really small) local tournament events exist, often with a very small participation fee, and winners get more bragging rights than money. The fee just helps support the club, also volunteers may donate a bit of self-made food for the club to sell and help with the financing. Nothing spectacular, mind you, maybe a cake and some cookies, but it helps.
All these things help keeping chess popular enough that at the higher level large tournaments, which often have a long tradition, actually do find sponsors, because advertisers know they will reach a decent amount of people with their advertising.
Most tournaments and events actually promote chess instead of trying to fill the promoters pockets. And because there are a lot of low participation fee tournaments, a greedy promoter would have a hard time explaining why his event was so expensive.
Why was that Wiik aan Zee tournament that just happened called Tata Steel ? Because the chess environnement in Europe is attractive to potential sponsors.
Why is MC not called Tata Steel millionair chess ? Because potential sponsors aren't stupid. They're professionals who take a very good look at something before they want to be associated with it.
My guess is it looks way too much like an attempted Ashley/Lee money grab to be attractive to ANY sponsor.
Steve11537 wrote:
Kingandmate wrote:
@Steve11537:
Since you live in Europe, can you explain, IN DETAIL, what type of approach or model you think can work or has worked for increasing interest and expanding the chess-playing base? What the U.S. has done has not been working for decades.
In detail ? most certainly not, I'm not planning to write a book anytime soon.
In short, chess is much more of a grassroots movement from what I have seen here.
There's a lot of volunteer work going on with countless small chess clubs who have team leagues even for patzer level players. Those entry-level leagues often play on Sunday and don't interfere with work schedules because of that. The thing about those is that they tend to attract players at a young age, and many stay with them after school or return to play there as soon as their work schedule allows.
Because of the club type organisation, chess isn't exclusively tied to scholastic chess, although there are schools with their own chess clubs of course.
Most of these chess clubs do not have much cost associated with them because they do not need to pay money for their club room and are organised by volunteers and chess enthusiasts.
Examples I have seen include one club who got access to a room in a public school in the evening in return for teaching chess and organising the schools chess club, basically win/win for both. Some other club from a small village gets to play in their local pub, others get support by a company offering one of their rooms. Or they play in a room supplied by a local church or any other variant really.Many more variants exist.
The point being that these things are common, not exceptions for the smaller clubs because chess is more socially accepted and many people will support a small club in need of a room.
Wooden boards and pieces are pretty much standard in all clubs, and they do not seem to have much trouble with enough suppoert to buy these initially. A local business might add a bit of funds to it, for example, if being asked nicely.
Lots of small (as in really small) local tournament events exist, often with a very small participation fee, and winners get more bragging rights than money. The fee just helps support the club, also volunteers may donate a bit of self-made food for the club to sell and help with the financing. Nothing spectacular, mind you, maybe a cake and some cookies, but it helps.
All these things help keeping chess popular enough that at the higher level large tournaments, which often have a long tradition, actually do find sponsors, because advertisers know they will reach a decent amount of people with their advertising.
Most tournaments and events actually promote chess instead of trying to fill the promoters pockets. And because there are a lot of low participation fee tournaments, a greedy promoter would have a hard time explaining why his event was so expensive.
Why was that Wiik aan Zee tournament that just happened called Tata Steel ? Because the chess environnement in Europe is attractive to potential sponsors.
Why is MC not called Tata Steel millionair chess ? Because potential sponsors aren't stupid. They're professionals who take a very good look at something before they want to be associated with it.
My guess is it looks way too much like an attempted Ashley/Lee money grab to be attractive to ANY sponsor.
Thanks for your detailed answer! It gives me (and, no doubt, others) some good insights. I believe the differences in Europe you mention help chess grow and thrive there. It's unfortunate that the U.S. does not have a similar culture at the moment.
I believe one reason MC struggles to secure sponsors is that it is ultimately a for-profit business and event. It appears to me that most major European tournaments (and some in the Middle East, such as the Qatar Masters) are run not for profit, but simply to put on a quality event and promote chess. Sponsors probably prefer the latter type of events, as opposed to an event such as MCO, as funding the events feels more like philanthropic efforts and they only need to cover the prizes and other costs, not extra profit for the organizers.
As much as I love MC, I do believe that their business model is a bit flawed, and they might have trouble ever getting major sponsors as a result.
woton wrote:
Kingandmate wrote:
@woton:
No other big tournaments, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
No other big tournaments, such as the World Open or North American, has trouble packing the playing hall with entrants every year. MCO will not, either, even with the fact that most players will go home non-winners. Don't forget that new potential chess players are born every year, and there are certainly enough players in the U.S. and the world for MCO and other events every year.
MCO is presently having trouble packing the playing hall. In fact, they have become another World Open (something Amy Lee looked down on a few months ago). How many big money tournaments can there be before the market is saturated? Look at what happened to the casinos. It took forty years, but it happened.
MCO only had trouble getting more entries because of the very high entry fee. With the much lower entry fee this year, I believe they will get 1000-1400 entering, given the mostly positive publicity and reviews surrounding the event and the large, attractive prizes.
Feb 17, 2016
0
#214
Kingandmate
Here's the question:
If the number of MC entrants increases, will it come at the expense of other tournaments, i.e., will the other tournaments see a decrease in the number of entrants? If the answer is yes, MC's entrance onto the chess tournament market will just redistribute revenue amongst a larger number of competitors. There would be no net increase in chess tournament particpation. That's what happened to the casinos. Eventually, some fell by the wayside. It's one of the effects of the free market. Someone comes along with a more popular product, and others either see reduced revenues or go out of business.
I don't know the answer to the question. We just have to wait and see what happens.
Kingandmare writes...MCO only had trouble getting more entries because of the very high entry fee. With the much lower entry fee this year, I believe they will get 1000-1400 entering, given the mostly positive publicity and reviews surrounding the event and the large, attractive prizes.
I have read many reviews and seen a lot of feedback at various sites. Honestly, the majority of positive reviews are written by the promoters themselves and people as yourself on their payroll. % wise the majority of the reviews are critical. Ashley responds with next year it will be improved. He is already talking of MC 4 !
Ashley wants to enter the market for his own financial gain. He claims his tournament will bring out new players. This is nonsense. What happens is the redistribution of participants that can afford high entry fees. Sponsors can see this obvious ploy and want no part in it. Where has Ashley mentioned a single word about giving back to chess? He can only talk of next year's events being bigger after 1500 players pony up for HIS tournament. This rebuy half way thru the tournament for a 2nd chanch to win prizes will backfire. Chess is not Texas hold-em.
$500 is still alot of money for the average chess player to enter a tournament. If they are realistic and realize they stand very little chanch of recouping any outlay it is alot of money to play a few games in a fancy environment. Figure in travel, hotel and per diem families will choose other ways to spend a vacation.
The tournament does become attractive to the single individual who has prepared by sandbagging his rating and prepared with months of book study. Problem is, (for them ) many other individuals have made this same conclusion.
Thanks Steve for your assesment of how chess is being conducted in many places in Europe. It is quite a contrast to the U.S. where a fresh approach is needed. But 1st society's cultural perspective needs changing. A difficult task to alter conditioned minds of how a typical chess player is viewed.
At the bottom of all MC newsletters is a section "Working With". There used to be company logos pasted there. I just noticed that this section is now blank in all the newsletters.
I doubt the market is saturated with big money tournaments.
Most anyone willing to pay $340 to play in the World Open should be willing to pay $500 in the MCO.
Feb 17, 2016
0
#220
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
I doubt the market is saturated with big money tournaments.
Most anyone willing to pay $340 to play in the World Open should be willing to pay $500 in the MCO.
Might be a good thesis topic for an economics graduate student. How many play in all of the big tournaments, how many change tournaments every year, how many drop out, etc.
I agree that a person willing to pay the World Open entry fee would be willing to pay the MC entry fee (even the previous $1000). The question is, would they be willing to pay the entry fee and expenses for both tournaments in the same year?
An ex woman's world champion ( English of course) visited our tavern for a few weeks. Charming elderly lady. Her toss was hard to believe would ever make its mark. It looped and wobbled high above the board, only to drop in any triple or double she aimed at.