Millionaire Chess 3

The publicity and attention was drawn by Ashley's 2 hour "hissy fit". After consulting with the players who pointed out Fides rules, the matter should have been resolved in 5 minutes. After all, he is a GM himself and should have been well aware of the rules. Ashley, in his arrogance thought his rules should be enforced, and it took 2 hours for him to back down. A 2 hour delay for a result to be posted during the last round is what drew the attention of players, spectators and later the press, and not the game itself.

If the draw result was posted in a timely manner, it would have drawn the normal attention of a last round quick draw that occurs all the time. The attention and publicity surrounded a 2 hour delay. This can not be construed as "not a bad thing because it generated publicity" except by promoters who make all attempts to turn a negative into a positive.

mdinnerspace

There's an adage "bad publicity is better than no publicity."  

From a practical point of view, I doubt that "drawgate" had any impact.  The general public, who aren't interested in chess, know nothing about it (they wouldn't understand the issue if they did know about it).  The people who know about it had already formed their opinion of MC.  Those who favor MC will ignore it, and those who are against MC will use it as another example of why MC shouldn't exist.  Net impact on MC, and chess, zero.

From MC newsletter...With the drop in prize fund, there will naturally be a drop in entry fee. The new price of participation will be $549, with an Early Bird special of $499. With the discounted rate and the return to prizes down to 50 places(!), MC is confident of bringing in many more new players, a development that would bode well for raising the stakes once again in future events.

Get it while the going is cheap.

I have to admit, that when i read about the discounted entry fee, i momentarily thought about entering.  But then thought about it, and decided no.

Will be interesting the payout schedule. What % of the prize money will go to 2nd chanch winners? If a top heavy prize for 1st place is kept and 50 places being paid out, doesn't seem to leave much money for the other prizes.

Kingandmate writes....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.

Let's set the record straight. Ashley did rush to have the game nullified right after the game ended. He was asked to consult other arbiters which he did and still refused to back down. MC attorneys were then consulted. After two hours he finally relented.

Hey, it's just my opinion, a professional arbiter would not take 2 hours to post an important result, to do the right thing that was obvious to everyone else from the get go. The decision was a no brainer to allow the game to stand.

The usual "deal" is a 50/50 cut of your winnings plus the entry gets reimbused.

Im already staking a guy for a Reno tournament next month.

 Where are your sources for this version of what happened? Please cite your sources.

The draw would have created controversy and publicity regardless of Ashley's reaction. Players, spectators, and the press would have been aware that there was a short draw, and I am sure some would have commented on and complained about it. And Ashley's reaction simply mirrored what a lot of critics/detractors in this and other forums have complained about incessantly, to this day (even though they and Ashley were not correct): that the draw should NOT have been allowed under the MC rules. If Ashley had allowed the draw without much delay or deliberation, some players and spectators would surely have complained vehemently to him about his decision, thinking that the draw should not have been allowed and questioning his decision! Either way, there would have been a big fuss about the draw.

And even if the publicity helped MC, that was not a comment on whether I condoned Ashley's reaction or actions. It was simply my assessment of the publicity alone, and I formed that assessment based mainly on some comments I had read in other forums. It was more or less a parenthetical remark from me, one that I probably should have put it in a separate sentence (or actual parentheses).

So the critics of MC, including you, mdinnerspace, are either trying to criticize Ashley's decision to allow the draw OR Ashley's reaction. That seems like an excessive focus on one or two negative things or mistakes. Again, I would recommend that you attend the MC3 yourself to see what it's like and what it has to offer. It's easy for those who have not attended to focus only on the mistakes that MC made in the first two MCs. That's what you are doing right now, mdinnerspace. You ignore everything else (positive). You are now very biased against MC for whatever reasons (even though I thought you were more impartial when I first read your earlier posts), and this is your "spin". I can see both the positives and negatives, and so can most other people, even those who did not attend any of the events.

 Actually, I believe MC will never raise the entry fee in future tournaments to much beyond the current $549. They should have learned their lessons from the first two MCs; most people simply are not willing to pay a $1000 entry fee. I believe what that statement means is that, if MC secures sponsors in future years (which I wish them the best in, but I think it will be very tough), the prize fund will be much larger again (perhaps $1 million again), while the entry fee will remain lower, close to what it is this year.

 Thanks for your support, Nathan0001! It's nice to know that there are people/readers who understand my points and arguments.

Latest MC newsletter..."MC is confident of bringing in many more new players, a development that would bode well for raising the stakes once again in future events."

Maybe Kingandmate is privy to inside information.

Kingandmate

Regarding the GM draw.  Nakamura made an agreement with MC.  He backed out of it.  It's a matter to be settled privately between Ashley and Nakamura.   Ashley would have been on better ground if he had chastised Nakamura for not living up to the agreement.  The spectacle that he created made him look bad.

A good public relations consultant could have drafted a statement that would have absolved Ashley of all blame and focused the attention on Nakamura, but Ashley chose to get angry.

Woton... There is a technical interpretation that seems to miss some people. Naka did sign an agreement that had several stipulations. There were several stated exceptions. One covered the loss of material. It for the main part covered "agreed draws". A further explanation is given in chess.com news report for Oct. 12. No agreement was signed that forbid a draw by a 3 fold repitition. It was Ashley's oversight by not being more specific in his "rules" . Getting Fide to sanction the event with his rule changes may have been a problem. Naka and McShane knew the Fide rule and stood their ground. You are right, Ashley by calling arbiters in far off places did not place himself in a favorable light. He should have dealt with the players and been a little smarter to know he was in the wrong. From a technical standpoint it does not appear the players broke their signed agreement.

One more time. The open section was governed by Fide rules. The lower section USCF rules.

mdinnerspace

I reviewed the MC2 rules, and you're right, player's may not agree to a draw before 30 moves.  I believe that the draw was a three-fold repetition.  Why then was Ashley getting angry?

Note:  When this happened, there were a lot of comments that the MC rule didn't comply with FIDE rules.  There's an inconsistency somewhere.

It's pretty well known that Ashley has been against early draws in chess for a long time (http://www.thechessdrum.net/65thSquare/DrawOffer/DrawOffer3.html), even before he started MC. He was probably upset that he allowed it in his own tournament, and he was maybe wary of appearing to show "favoritism" to a player like Nakamura. His reaction is understandable, although as you and others have pointed out, he probably could have handled the matter better.

I was only giving my own theories and opinions on what MC's strategies in the future might be. I have no more "inside information" than a participant and fan who gives somewhat frequent feedback and suggestions to MC and receives replies to them.

Woton. .. chess.com news report covered the draw gate quite thoroughly. Basically, Ashley was upset because he wanted to see fighting chess. He thought early draws would be detrimental in finding sponsors. Also he said spectators did not come see see early draws. He wanted wins and losses to further rhe marketability of MCO. He had his points, but they addressed only the difficulty of finding future sponsors if GM draws were allowed.

From the MC2 rules:

Continuous repetitions in order to get to the time control will be considered an infraction of the rules.  

Ashley may have thought that this prohibited draws by three-fold repetition before move 30.