An overall view of the new tournament structure is given in their latest newsletter.
https://millionairechess.com/newsletter-56-new-prize-fund-entry-fee
$510,00 total prize fund, 60% guaranteed, prizes to 50th place, $549 entry fee, even a sub-tournament for the low-finishing players.
The format change along with the venue change might have a chance of working.
$499 early entry
Prizes To 50th place not set in stone, conditions apply.
Drastic cut in payout. Approx. $300,000 for $500 entry.
For the average player that's $1000 expenses. Don't forget MC will provide the board, pieces and clock. Is it possible the water too? That's a huge savings.
I personally think the changes to the structure this year may help significantly and are welcome. The reduction in the entry fee was absolutely necessary for the survival of the tournament this year (as they haven't secured sponsors yet), and that accordingly necessitates in a reduction in the prize fund. At least 60% of the $510,000 is guaranteed, which means that it will be at least $306,000, still about 46% higher than the $210,000 offered by the World Open in 2015. And I think it was a wise move on their part to offer prizes for up to 50 places again (I'm guessing the minimum prize might be around $600). This will incentivize more players to join as it reduces their "risk" and potential net expenses.
Even though providing clocks may not be a huge expense on the part of MC, it's still a significant cost, and having all the playing equipment provided just makes the event more professional and classy, which is what most players and spectators are expecting. And at every other open tournament, there are a few players running around each round trying to find clocks at the last minute when neither player at the board brought a clock. This is not to mention that, at other tournaments, clocks are sometimes inadvertently set wrong or are not delay- or increment-capable (such as analog clocks). MC eliminates all of these potential problems by providing clocks of their own that are all set correctly. This might seem like not a big deal to some people, but it's actually an important detail that sets the tournament apart from all other open tournaments in the U.S.
And as flunked_pawn correctly states, why rail so much against MC and its tournaments when participation is optional? No player is forced to pay the entry fee and play. Those who enter obviously find the experience, rewards, and potential rewards (i.e., prizes) worth the expenses. At what other open tournament in the U.S. do you find the top 3 players in the U.S. (who are all actually part of the top 10 in the *world*) participating?? That alone should say something about the prestige and caliber of the event.
I think that MC still have their work cut out for them. They will probably need 1200+ entrants to cover their costs. The entry fee, although lower, is still high. The concentration of players along the northeast corridor is higher than on the west coast, but New York is a two hour drive, and Philadelphia is a one hour drive. Boston, DC, and Baltimore are farther. It will still require a hotel stay for most entrants.
That said, Goichberg was able to get 1200 or so entrants in DC, so maybe Ashley and Lee can do the same in Atlantic City.
Based on 40 moves per game, the math works out to $5 for every move made.
@Kingandmate.. you come across sounding exactly like someone being compensated for promoting the MC events. You question my motives. Imo, big payouts to hobby players is not in the spirit of chess. In the long run I feel it will prove detrimental to positive growth. I am all for tournaments and have expressed my views on better formats. MC3 new format is a step better than the old, but still misses the mark.
Just what are your motives for stoutly promoting the event? If you simply say "let the players who want to enter, enter. It is a prestigious event" I have trouble believing that.
What is your take on the 1st round pairing fiasco? How could that happen in a classy and professional event?
Your posts do not seem as though you are merely a supporter of MC, but that of someone stoutly promoting the event. I am not the 1st to notice this.
Start with $300,000 is guaranteed. And they are still promoting it as "Millionaire Chess". Will they be offering a 1 in 64 chanch to win a Million to 1 lucky person? Talk about misrepresentation.
Start with $300,000 is guaranteed. And they are still promoting it as "Millionaire Chess". Will they be offering a 1 in 64 chanch to win a Million to 1 lucky person? Talk about misrepresentation.
They have a problem there, The name of their company is Millionaire Chess. The tournament is named for the company.
Understood. I'll wager they will have a promotion at a chanch to win a Million.
mdinnerspace
They will do the fashionable thing and change the name to MCO. People will forget that MC once stood for millionaire chess.
@Kingandmate... your posts do not appear to be merely someone supporting MC, but rather that of someone stoutly and actively "promoting" the event. I am not the 1st to notice this.
@Kingandmate.. you come across sounding exactly like someone being compensated for promoting the MC events. You question my motives. Imo, big payouts to hobby players is not in the spirit of chess. In the long run I feel it will prove detrimental to positive growth. I am all for tournaments and have expressed my views on better formats. MC3 new format is a step better than the old, but still misses the mark.
Just what are your motives for stoutly promoting the event? If you simply say "let the players who want to enter, enter. It is a prestigious event" I have trouble believing that.
What is your take on the 1st round pairing fiasco? How could that happen in a classy and professional event?
Your posts do not seem as though you are merely a supporter of MC, but that of someone stoutly promoting the event. I am not the 1st to notice this.
I didn't actually question your motives. I'm an ardent supporter of MC and what they are trying to accomplish in the chess world. I have participated in the first two MCOs, and I plan to participate in the third one. I am simply trying to offer some counterweight to all the negativity and criticism I see here (and maybe I'm exaggerating, as themaskedbishop claims, but this is my impression) about MC and its events and offer perhaps a somewhat unique and rare perspective of a past participant, not just a mere "observer". I've already stated more than once, categorically, that I do not work for MC in any way. You can think what you want. I have been entirely truthful in my posts in representing my affiliation or lack thereof with MC.
And I find it a bit funny or odd that, just because a poster might be enthusiastic about the company or its events in this forum, you believe that he or she must be a PAID promoter of MC, as if it does not seem possible to you or others that there are actually ardent supporters of MC who found value in the events or believe in its mission.
@Kingandmate.. you come across sounding exactly like someone being compensated for promoting the MC events. You question my motives. Imo, big payouts to hobby players is not in the spirit of chess. In the long run I feel it will prove detrimental to positive growth. I am all for tournaments and have expressed my views on better formats. MC3 new format is a step better than the old, but still misses the mark.
Just what are your motives for stoutly promoting the event? If you simply say "let the players who want to enter, enter. It is a prestigious event" I have trouble believing that.
What is your take on the 1st round pairing fiasco? How could that happen in a classy and professional event?
Your posts do not seem as though you are merely a supporter of MC, but that of someone stoutly promoting the event. I am not the 1st to notice this.
I have already commented or in another thread about my personal feelings about the first round pairing disaster. In short, I was personally affected by it and very annoyed by it. It surprised me that they made such an unacceptable error, and I sincerely hope that the staff member responsible was immediately fired. On the whole, however, this error does not erase everything MC did WELL in the second or first MCO. I believe the critics overly focus on one or two flaws or problems with the tournament and ignore or forget all the positives that the event and MC had and have to offer.
It's safe to say that I have almost zero chance (maybe 0.1%??) of winning $5000 to $10,000 by playing slot machines in a casino by "investing" $1000. I would estimate my chances of winning a similar amount in prize money at MCO at maybe 5 to 10% (and much higher for winning a lower prize). I believe that's a calculated risk I am certainly willing to take.
maybe you should start playing roulette instead of slot machines (or chess). the chances of winning $10,000 by investing $1000 in roulette are almost 10%.
I have enough confidence in my chess skills that I know with almost 100% certainty that I can finish in the top half of the field at any major chess tournament (and I have done that more than once now). Of course, it's tougher to finish in a prize-earning place, but there is a decent chance I can accomplish this, too, if I can play at or close to my true potential. Most players who enter a tournament like MCO or the World Open think the same way.
think about the implications of the last sentence.
@BettorOffSingle:
That is your opinion only. A good chess player, in any given tournament, can outperform his rating, sometimes significantly. I just won a small tournament at my local chess club in which I defeated a 1900 AND a 2100 on the same day (about a 2200 performance rating in the tournament), and I was rated about 1600 prior to that. Remember that *someone* must win the top section prize at a tournament, whether he or she is that good or not. If every player thought the way you did, then the winner would probably just be an average player. Organized chess serves many different beneficial functions for the players, only one of which is to offer the chance to win big prizes. You "retired" from chess for your own reasons -- that's great -- but don't pronounce a blanket judgment on others and what they might do with their time and money just because you don't find it worthwhile.
You may want to justify your own investment in the tournament and by all means if you want to play big-money, just go for it. I moved to Philadelphia in 1986, and from 1987-1991, I didn't miss a World Open. Haven't been back since (got a job a day before 1991 started and quit).
Telling someone they can WIN BIG MONEY is just irresponsible and takes it into gambling territory, which it is, of course. Rated chess need not be for cash.
WIth that said, at least the high entry fee means that travel and rating fees won't eat up most people's budgets. Those costs are fixed so a higher entry fee lowers the cost of play as a percentage of overall budget (if one assumes an average return of prize).
The players who enter MCO are grown, independent-thinking adults who know and understand all the costs and benefits/prizes beforehand. It's not as if MC engaged in false advertising before the event. I agree that rated chess does not need to be played for money, and I play such rated chess all the time. But if some players want the opportunity to play in a big tournament for the chance to win a big (or smaller) prize, and MC or another tournament fills that need or market, I don't see the problem with this, and I don't see exactly how it is "irresponsible" of the organizers of such a tournament. I think you are trying to impose your own values on others and judging them for violating them.
Yep, latest update has announced a 1/2 cut in entry and prize money. $500 / $500,000.