Millionaire Chess 3

 

Then I shall be quite happy to watch you eat your hat. Suspicions and opinions don't make them facts. Stop trying to discredit or challenge people's arguments by calling them "shills" or "promoters." It's poor logic and poor argument.

 

So by posting "anonymously", I must have some hidden motivations? So anyone else who posts anonymously must have other motivations? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Ever heard of freedom of speech? I am simply an enthusiastic supporter who sees more merit in what MC and MCO are trying to do than some of you, although I also understand some of the criticisms and partly agree with some of them. But you, mdinnerspace, themaskedbishop, and others are effectively trying to censor me by repeatedly and incessantly accusing me of being a shill, promoter, or of having hidden motivations. This is getting very tiresome. If you simply cannot tolerate dissenting views and having your preconceived notions and biases challenged and just wish to have others mindlessly agree with and accept all of your points, just say that, and I will leave. Otherwise, if you are truly interested in genuine debate and constructive discourse and wish to perhaps have your perspective widened by hearing more from the "other side", please stop this bullshit.

 

Like the way chess tournaments have been run and "packaged" for the past three to four decades, you mean?? It looks like the traditional way hasn't worked too well in attracting sponsors, has it? At least MC is trying something different, not the "same old, same old".

The millionaire chess site has an interesting video of Ashley playing a street hustler.

https://millionairechess.com/mcs-maurice-ashley-takes-nyc-park-hustler

 

I don't quite understand your last sentence, but if I sort of understand your meaning, you are wrong that that's my "problem." I am simply trying to offer a different perspective in this forum and challenge arguments and points that many here seem to take for granted to be valid. I enjoy debate and challenging people. I don't need to change your or anyone else's views, but I also didn't want to just allow you or others to make your points unchallenged or unopposed, as I wanted to offer other, perhaps more open-minded, readers on chess.com a different viewpoint from the usual "MC is evil, big-money tournaments are bad, Maurice and Amy are in it only for the money, ..." arguments that I have seen frequently in chess.com discussions.

 

Here is the best solution I have seen so far:

Take the player's HIGHEST post-event rating from the entire period between the date of the initial announcement of the tournament and the tournament date.

This eliminates most (but not all) of the sandbagging that might be possible from entrants (specifically, it eliminates most sandbagging from players who already had established ratings before the tournament was announced). Guess what is the ONLY open tournament in the world that has such stringent rating rules? Yes, MCO.

However, even these strict rules do not weed out all forms of sandbagging. In particular, they cannot bar the sandbagger who is unrated or has only a provisional rating who intentionally loses a bunch of games in his first 50 rated games in order to establish a lower rating. I see two potential solutions to eliminate this group of sandbaggers:

1. Rigorously research the playing history of any player who is newly rated to detect possible sandbagging. This solution is quite imperfect and probably impractical, as it is hard to detect or prove sandbagging without an actual admission from the player.

2. Significantly reduce the prizes for lower sections (such as U1600 and U1800) so that there is much less incentive for sandbaggers to enter (Maurice suggested this himself in an email, although I am not sure MC will follow through this year with the new structure). Sandbagging is very difficult and extremely rare in the higher sections (such as U2000 or U2200), as in order to qualify for such sections in the first place, one must have played a lot of rated games and probably have a longer playing history, which means that the original rule (highest post-event rating) will now kick in. (And it's hard to imagine that there are many IM- or GM-level players in the world who have never played rated games who can possibly sandbag down to the U2000 or U2200 section.)

In my view, using the highest post-event rating AND having only small prizes for the lower sections will eliminate 99% of sandbaggers from large tournaments such as MCO.

I've played in the first two and will play in the third. Had a great time and won some money...made some good friends and we are all excited to return.

Never happen. The lower rated sections are needed to support the events big payouts. They will not enter if their section has small prizes in comparison. Sandbagging has always been about the new, provisional rated players, often from other federations. Rarely about established players losing 100 to 200 points.

Angway, I've had my fill, done said all there is to say, and grown tired of the haggling. I've made my points and will leave at that. Good luck and good chess. Handshake to all.

 

Having class prizes in one open section is definitely not a better solution to me, as the prizes are still rating-based, and sandbaggers will sandbag to qualify in those classes!

It sounds like that from the newsletter:

"Though no outside sponsorship could be secured, the team decided that it was best to maintain momentum and to take the opportunity to test a new formula. The data we garner from this year’s event will help to indicate what the strategy in future years will be."

chess isnt close to being solved.  Trying to change the great game is not needed.  Just play and enjoy.  

Who here is so good that they cannot enjoy the game?

Kingandmate, do you have a job? As in, something else to do besides sit at your keyboard and pump out promo copy for MC 24 hours a day? Just curious. 

>MC is trying to change the chess image, culture, and paradigm in the U.S. <

Well they can start by enforcing their own rules. The Nakamura draw debacle would have set organized chess's reputation (such as it is) back decades had that actually been broadcast on a major network.  Our little game would have quickly been termed a laughing-stock, and rightly so.

Cause you know what, fellas? It kind of is. Seriously...dudes pushing chess pieces around for cash? A board game, really? That might go as big time in Bulgaria, but not here in the States.  You argue back and forth about where are the sponsors, why aren't we on ESPN...have you walked through an Open lately? 

Hey, take heart. Comic book conventions are finally cool, sort of. Maybe chess will someday have its day in the sun. But not until you have an awful lot more women involved, and with creeps like Nigel Short (and a healthy percentage of chess.com posters) doing their best to discourage them, don't hold your breath. 

I love the game of chess.  I love playing, going to tournaments.  You know what i dont love about the game?  Watching it on TV.  Yep..Im done after a few minutes.  And you think non players will want to watch it?  Not going to happen.

You might as well charge entry to the US paint drying competiiton.

 

Yeah, do you? As in something other than being critical and negative and launching personal attacks on posters you don't agree with?

The Nakamura draw was within the rules. Why don't you go read them before making false claims? The rules only forbade draws by *mutual agreement*. They could not prevent or forbid early draws by repetition or stalemate, which are part of the FIDE rules. Had MC forcibly nullified the draw or made them play another game, it would have created a bigger controversy and really harmed the reputation of the tournament. "Early draws" take place all the time in major tournaments with "Sofia rules" in effect. Go do your research.

Kingandmate writes...The Nakamura draw was within the rules. Why don't you go read them before making false claims? The rules only forbade draws by *mutual agreement*. They could not prevent or forbid early draws by repetition or stalemate, which are part of the FIDE rules. Had MC forcibly nullified the draw or made them play another game, it would have created a bigger controversy and really harmed the reputation of the tournament. "Early draws" take place all the time in major tournaments with "Sofia rules" in effect. Go do your research.

Yes, very true. Fide rules superceded Ashley's "rules". But what needs pointing out is the that Ashley, the head arbitrator and organizer of the event, argued vehemently with Naka that his rules would prevail. He was very insistent about having the game nullified. Only after a discussion with his attorneys and other arbitrators plus being shown Fides rule book would he finally back down. Arrogance and lack of knowledge being shown by Ashley, who demands the final say. An example of the lack of professionalism by not being fully versed in the rules imo. Sure the event sparkles on the outside, but what of the inner workings? Ashley has jumped in over his head with very little experiance in the hands on operations side imo.

The open section was governed by Fide rules. MC needed it's sanctioning to put on the event. The "team" apparantly never reviewed it's rules. The lower sections were governed by the USCF where Ashley could enforce his no draw rule. Got in way over his head without realizing it with the final round draw.

@mdinnerspace:

I agree that Ashley's reaction was not the best, although the controversy and drama actually inadvertently got more publicity for MCO, which wasn't really a bad thing.

MC has certainly made mistakes in the first two MCOs, but the nice thing is that the organizers are very willing to learn from its mistakes and failures and improve its tournament each year. For example, MC's willingness to lower its prize fund and entry fee is refreshing and shows that it's very responsive to feedback and criticism. MC is very aware of all the complaints and criticism about the alleged sandbaggers in the U1600 section, for example, and I bet that there will be changes this year to address this problem. On the whole, the event is organized and put on very professionally and with a lot of attention to details; this is very clear to the participants. To mere observers like you, mdinnerspace, it's much easier to focus only on the mistakes MC made, as you did not experience firsthand just how nice the events were and how much effort the organizers evidently put into them to give the players and spectators alike a wonderful and unforgettable experience. If you get a chance, I would suggest that you attend MC3, if only as a spectator.

Yea, Maurice got way too emotional about that.

 

I mean, a 9 move draw isn't pretty, and noone asked Maurice to like it or endorse it, but as the rules allowed for it then he should have handled it  professionally.

 

Instead he threw a huge hissy fit, which impressed none of the players involved because unlike Maurice, they were actually well informed about the rules.

And after two hours of unnecessary drama, he finally understood that rules trump emotions and had to back off. Really silly for someone who holds a GM title himself.

Kingandmate, you offered a reasoned, tenacious defense of MCO to people who, quite frankly, are trolls.  I agree with your very first words about their venom--I would say vitriol, too.  And the number of accusations directed at you is very telling.  Clearly, these people are getting some kind of emotional payoff from targeting MCO and you personally.  I'd try to ignore them from now on, though.

Kingandmate writes:

I agree that Ashley's reaction was not the best, although the controversy and drama actually inadvertently got more publicity for MCO, which wasn't really a bad thing.

The "Spin" gets even deeper if that's possible! Unprofessional behaviour is not a bad thing because it got more publicity for the event! You insult anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

 

You are pretty ridiculous. It's like you are just waiting to pounce on any possible unfavorable interpretation of my words. You are the one doing the "spinning." Back off and calm down, please. With your intelligence, please read my sentence again and carefully. I said that the (unintentional) publicity that was generated by the draw (not Ashley's reaction) was not such a bad thing, and many would agree with me. I already described Ashley's reaction in the first part of the sentence. It should be noted, however, that Ashley wisely consulted many arbiters (instead of rushing and dictating a decision by himself) and made the correct call after a long deliberation. And Ashley was understandably upset by an apparent violation of his draw rules. I don't think his reaction was that "unprofessional", especially since he ultimately made the correct decision. For an example of truly unprofessional behavior, you can look to something like Zurich Chess' last-minute decision, in 2015, to force Anand to play an Armageddon tiebreaker with Nakamura, even though the rules had not specified this prior to the start of the tournament.