Millionaire Chess 3

I think the real question is what are the reasons to pay $1000's to play a few games in a fancy hotel? I think there is only 1 answer. To win big prizes of course. There will evolve only 1 type of player who enters these events, the hustler/sandbagger. Families, the young and old players will disappear. As a few have pointed out here, it is a new generation with a different agenda for the hobby players. Learn to beat the system and win big $ . Throw sportsmanship and spirit out the door, it's a cut throat world out there.

Most of what Steve posted of how the European chess setting works is true for most of the US too. Most chess is played at the local level, ran by volunteers, on shoestring budgets, in free or cheap sites.

Part of the issue the US has against it, is size and lack of decent public transportation in most areas. You have pockets of chess and if you want to play rated games, you are stuck playing mostly local players or are required to incur travel expenses to play in even one-day events.

Sponsorships still happen, but are less common too.

There is a big "snag" in the formula for winning at chess tournaments as compared to poker tournaments. The hustler in chess has a far shorter life span to make $. His rating eventually will catch up after a few wins. So there will always be new hustlers replacing them for the short term. Poker..win big $ and next tournament you start over. No ratings there!

Fewer ignorant fishes in chess too, patzers tend to know they're patzers.

Very little interest in the small communities for club or coffee house play. Those that do play chess have Internet options. I'm afraid the personal experiance of casual OTB has gone by the way side for most who live in rural America.

The world open and such are estabished tournaments.  MC is a money grab.  

The World Open is a money grab.

>I believe one reason MC struggles to secure sponsors is that it is ultimately a for-profit business and event<

The other, much larger reason is that it is a CHESS event. No-one cares about chess, guys. It makes no-one any money. It's a board game for nerds. Yep, you and me and everyone else on this board. NERDS. 

Who did you have in mind for a sponsor? The only way you'll get mainstream corporations to consider this is if it was for charity or for kids. Guess what, MC isn't for either...a large reason many of us were against it from the get-go. 

European chess tournaments are able to attract sponsors.  Perhaps the key to sponsorship is European companies who do business in the USA.

I'm not "on their payroll". And I'm not sure which reviews you are reading. If you are referring to reviews from actual participants, they are mostly positive, from what I have seen. If they are not from actual participants, it's hard to call them legitimate "reviews". Your description and assessment here appear quite biased and distorted, to say the least. Can you give us a link or two to actual reviews to show us what you are looking at?

 I really don't know. I suspect that there will be a little "redistribution" but mostly "new revenues", such as from people who take part in some other tournaments but also MCO. Only time will tell.

At what other major tournament do you find the organizer speaking of "giving back to chess" in their advertising?? Why should this be your criterion for whether the organizers of MCO can do good for chess? Isn't it natural for an organizer of a major chess tournament to emphasize the prizes and other potential benefits of attending in their advertising and promotion in order to persuade players to enter? Or are players more likely to pay $500 to $1000 as an entry fee if you don't mention the prizes at all but talk about philanthropy? Your criteria for judging are kind of odd. Maurice and Amy are obviously trying to make a profit or at least break even this year so that MC can stay viable for the long term. If they keep losing money and close shop, how are they supposed to contribute or "give back" to chess, please tell me? You still seem to be of the notion that making money from chess must be morally wrong, as if all organizers should simply work for free or little money but still put on a great tournament for the players. I don't agree with your premise. And you can read MC's newsletter #56 for an example of how Maurice gives back to chess.

Ashley gave a motivational speech and played a few games. He makes statements of "sending chess to new levels " "bringing out new players" "making for a whole new atmosphere for the betterment of chess." I interpret this to mean "giving something back" but obviously I am mistaken.

I'm not saying he is in any way obligated to do so. It's just seems two faced to promote his event as bringing chess to a whole new level, when it is simply an event for profit.

And yes I do have "moral issues" with promoters who's sole motive is to make money from Hobby Players by enticing entries with misleading propaganda and a history of poor management.. Chess profits should be left to the professional players. Notice even at the elite level, promoters and organizers are not in it for the money, but rather to get their image mainstream.

It's simply a fundemental difference of opinion of what will be best for the sustainability of tournaments.

You lean towards having chess be a profitable business, giving oppertunities for the amature players to make money. I am of a different mold, old fashioned if you wish. I respect your opinion, maybe it will lead to a resurgence of chess. I certainly do not have a crystal ball.

A reporter approaches Ashley and asks "How did the tournament go?" He responds with it was a resounding success. A few minor problems that will be rectified in future events, but overall chess is headed in a fabulous new direction.

Guess what the paper reports? MCO a big success say the Organizers.

Then Ashley's SPIN team quotes the paper with 'favorable reviews". It's all in the game of promotion, spinning public opinion to further ones end .

Everyone has seen it before. A company is being criticized in online surveys with negative feedback. Well, guess what corporates plan of counter measures are? You guessed it. Dozens of usernames and accounts are given to a person to write favorable reviews. It's the way things are and will remain the same as long as people can be incognito over the internet.

While i agree with you, you cant blame Ashley, or Lee.  If people want to throw away money for a chance to win thousands, thats on them.  You cant regulate greed.  I have said this before, and will say it again.  Giving thousands of dollars to class players is ridiculous.  The money needs to go to the players that play chess for a living (The titled players), not some 12 year old kid winning the Under 1200, Under 1400 section.  

If they truley want to give back, then take the money the class players would have won, and apply the vast majority of it to a school chess program, and give the winner a couple thou.  You dont grow chess by giving class players that show up once a year to play in MC $40,000.  

Again, it's very difficult to accomplish all the things you mention without actually having a profitable and sustainable business! Maybe that's what MC is trying to focus on this year?

What you state here are mostly your own opinions and speculation. You are doing the very thing you accuse Ashley or his supporters of. I guess you can state whatever you wish on the Internet,  even when it's not true.

I partly agree that class players should not be able to earn $40,000 (or $20,000 or whatever the new prizes will be) just by playing in a big tournament once a year. But don't forget that class players are the people who fund most of these tournaments and help the top players win big prizes and earn a living playing chess! MC is trying to also recognize and reward class players for their contribution to chess. I don't find a lot wrong with this. You can't simply marginalize and ignore the class players, which most tournaments do, as 99% of the chess community are class players!! Maybe chess in the U.S. isn't growing that well precisely because of this almost contemptuous attitude towards class players.

And if "hobby players" are paying a lot of money to enter a big tournament such as MCO, I don't understand why they should not be rewarded with large prizes, too, notwithstanding your view that they should not be able to earn any significant money or prizes ever by playing chess. In fact, I think it would be very unfair to discriminate in such a fashion (assuming each player pays the same entry fee).

And I think it's ridiculous to judge an organization like MC morally. They are serving the needs of chess players who want a very classy and nice event with large prizes. Players are free to enter or not enter the event, after weighing the costs and benefits (and not all players enter just for the prizes; some just want very strong competition, some love the whole experience, some just want a vacation, some parents want their kids to have an unforgettable experience and to instill a love of chess, etc.). This is how capitalism works. If there is not enough of a market this year, MC will fail and go away. If MC3 succeeds, that means that there IS a market, and MC is legitimately serving the needs of a group of chess players. Why don't we reserve our judgements for after the event takes place (or at least after most of the entries come in)? Again, there is room for small, "no-money" tournaments, and there is ALSO room for large high-stakes tournaments such as MCO. I don't understand this dogmatism regarding how chess tournaments must be.

I played many years of table tennis tournaments at the 2000 rating level. Began at 1200 just as in chess. Went to several National Championships and was lucky enough to win a few. How much money did I win ? $0.00. Alot of prestige and trophies, great memories and new friends. The pros would make small cash payouts, but they we all had sponsors. World wide table tennis is often said to be the most popular sport in the world (Chinese players and is huge in Europe) without paying amatures a penny, while sustaining 1000's of professionals . Food for thought.

For $100 I could enter 4 different sections and a doubles event. Winners took home trophies and pics in magazines. Nearly 1000 players and that's quite enough money to put on a great event and payout a few dozen top prizes.