> 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.
I understand your perspective and criticisms. Let me attempt to expand on my point of view.
In my view, Millionaire Chess has worked much harder than most chess event organizers to put on a prestigious, exciting, fun, and well-organized event, one that is a real treat for most participants and spectators. You simply need to attend an event such as the North American Open, a nice event in its own right, and MCO to see the big difference in quality and attention to detail. At no other open event in the country does the organizer provide boards, sets, AND chess clocks, for example. And MCO does more than any other event in history, including foreign events and supertournaments, to prevent and detect cheating, including airport-type security scans, even in front of the bathroom area. And its rating rules are the strictest of any chess tournament in history, even though they clearly do not prevent ALL types of sandbagging (trust me, it would have been MUCH worse had the rating rules not been in place!), which is lamentable. The playing hall is gorgeous (for example, MC#2 featured portraits of all the past and current world champions, including women world champions), and the live and colorful commentary on the games each day allows players and spectators/fans alike to appreciate the many exciting games better and join in the excitement, as well as attracting more positive attention from chess fans around the world. And MCO has been trying hard to bring chess to TV. Not all players may appreciate or welcome this change, but there is little doubt that having chess on TV will bring more publicity and coverage in the mainstream for the game/sport and help attract more players, young and older, and grow the chess community in the long term. This would bring more money into chess, among other things, and help budding and strong players with a serious interest in the game actually pursue careers and make some money in chess, such as being a chess coach or teacher, instead of often leaving chess altogether because they feel it's almost impossible to play chess for a living!
You see, MCO is not just about the event itself or making money for Amy and Maurice (and clearly, that hasn't happened so far, yet they are still working hard to make the event more successful every year!). It's also about promoting and elevating chess as a whole, expanding awareness about chess in the mainstream and world as a whole -- this can only be a positive and very good development for chess!
And perhaps the reason that MCO receives almost entirely positive reviews and coverage is that most people do not feel that the few flaws and mishaps in the first two editions detract from the very many things it did well (some of which I have listed above)! No event is perfectly run, and MC#2 was far from perfect. (I was most annoyed with the pairing disaster in the first round, as I was personally affected by it.) However, in my view, MCO deserves most of the praise and positive publicity, as the positives far outweigh the negatives in this case. And I believe that most people can see that Maurice and Amy work REALLY hard throughout the year, harder than most organizers, and have their hearts and intentions in the right place. Of course, this is partly a business for them and they want to make money (and what's wrong with that? they have to do *something* to make money!), but they also want to do good for chess as a whole. Amy could have gone into many other fields or businesses, but she chose chess for a reason (hint: it's not because it's the most profitable!) And Maurice is an intelligent and talented man and chess player who does do and could have been doing many other things or jobs to make money. But he has put his heart and soul into MC for a reason; again, it certainly is not because it's the most profitable business. I think the critics often miss these considerations or misinterpret their intentions and motivations. I wish that you and others can re-examine some of your preconceptions, assumptions, and biases, see and focus more on the positives the event has to offer, and look more at the bigger and long-term picture for chess and how much good that MCO has already done and could do for chess in the future.
It's a bit of a gamble, yes, but I live in Las Vegas, a city in which many others have spent far more money gambling and gotten zilch in return lol. Spending $1000 on a chess tournament in which I have a decent chance of winning $5,000 or more seems a much better use of the money and like better odds than putting $1000 in slot machines to me.
@Diakonia:
Why does anything related to money or motivated by money have to "ruin" chess?? An exciting and unique event like MCO generates more positive publicity and coverage for chess in general, attracting players who know chess but may not play the game actively and bringing back formerly active players who have been away from the game for a long time. (What other recent open event in the U.S. has gotten coverage in a full New York Times article?? MCO did.) I'm looking at the positive impact on chess overall, As themaskedbishop has said himself, MCO receives predominantly positive reviews and coverage. Any positive attention and publicity for chess or one of its events in the mainstream media is a good thing. MCO is one of the few chess events during the year that manages to do this, and it is one of the aims of the organizers. This is good for chess OVERALL, not just for MCO! I think this is a crucial point that you and other posters miss when you overly focus on the few flaws of MCO or just the event itself (and its "motivations").