Millionaire Chess 3

 

I understand what you are implying, but that does not contradict the fact some players have a good or better chance than others at winning a top prize. Of course, there will be many who enter the tournament who will not win a prize. That's just an undeniable fact, but a risk that most who enter a tournament like MCO happily accept. Ultimately, what distinguishes an open tournament such as MCO from true gambling is that chess is ultimately a game of SKILL and experience (although I believe there is still a little "luck" or an element of chance in chess, such as what kinds of openings your opponents choose to play against you).

 

@mdinnerspace: There are literally HUNDREDS or thousands of chess tournaments held every year that are NOT for big money. MCO is ONE event in a year that does offer large prizes (and charges a hefty entry fee). Even if you were correct in how "hobby chess" must be played, I don't see how ONE event has that much of an impact on the "spirit of chess." The fact is that some "hobby players" WANT to play for big prizes, and MC exists for this limited market. Just as there are luxury cars for those who really value their vehicles or want to show off and economy cars for those who just want to save money and get from point A to point B, there are chess tournaments that have very small or no cash prizes for those who do not care for money and some large tournaments for those who wish to have the chance to win big prizes (and the second group is admittedly much smaller than the first group). But I don't see a moral problem with holding a tournament such as MCO, as you seem to. I do believe, to some extent, that you and others have a certain "pure" vision of how chess must be played and are almost morally offended when a company such as MC comes along and changes things a little bit. In part, what MC is trying to do by offering such big prizes in a chess tournament is to throw a spotlight on chess in the mainstream media so that chess can experience more of the positive growth that you and I hope for. Whether you like it or not, huge prizes and an extravagant and "flashy" event such as MCO (as supposed to, say, an elite small event with very strong players, such as the Sinquefield Cup) get more attention from the media. Chess growth has been stagnant at least in the U.S. for a long time (the "Fischer boom" was long ago) by employing "your" strategy. You know what they say: if you keep doing the same things, you will keep getting the same results! MC is simply trying a new formula to try to shake things up and stimulate growth. Even if you don't entirely agree with the solution, you should at least acknowledge and be thankful that they are TRYING, not roundly condemn them just because the tournament supposedly violates your vision of the "spirit" of chess.

Kingandmate, do you have anything else to say about how wonderful MC is? Or is the book finished now?

Please, don't hold back. The mission to commandeer this forum is going quite well, and I'm sure your backers, excuse me, friends, excuse me, just organizers who happen to listen to you...are very pleased. 

chess is a skill game. but if all the players in a tournament are equally skilled the outcome is solely based on luck.

why do u think you have a better chance at winning a prize than a similar rated player in your class? either you're at the top of your rating class (which is also just determined by luck) or you are underrated (young/improving/sandbagging).

if you are neither of the above, the only thing that works in your favour is the low number of participants in mco which results in a huge overlay of prize money. the longer mco stays a financial desaster the better it is for the players moneywise.

 

I tend to be a little verbose and effusive at times. But that doesn't mean that I am not sincere and honest. You and others can think what you'd like. I know I am probably not going to change your opinions, and I really don't care. I am just trying to offer others on chess.com a different perspective and counter-arguments.

 

First, let me state the obvious: Not all players in a section are equally skilled, even if the ratings are similar. And one's "form", prior preparation (including the number and quality of rated games a player played shortly before the tournament and coaching or studying, if any), and ability to perform under pressure, among other factors, can determine to a large extent how a player performs in a tournament. I would not call these factors "luck". It is definitely true that those near the top end of the rating range usually perform better than those near the bottom, but that's only a general trend and there definitely exist many, many exceptions to the "rule".

Kingandmate

I don't think that Ashley and Lee are as altruistic as you envision them.  They came to the conclusion that there was money to be made by offering a big money tournament.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Spotting an opportunity and pursuing it is the way businesses start.  The MC Open is just another chess tournament (albeit, an expensive one), a business idea that has yet to be financially successful.  

 

I am not as naive as you might think, either lol. Of course, they want to make money, perhaps even big money, but I find nothing wrong with this. Amy Lee is a businesswoman after all, and I am sure she is not just passionate about chess and its growth in pursuing this business. But the fact is that they have chosen chess for a reason. I could think of a dozen other things Amy could have done to make more money (and she is already a millionaire, don't forget), so I assume that she cares about chess and its future to a certain extent because she chose chess. With Maurice, it's clear that he is passionate about chess, and he has chosen MC as a vehicle to promote and elevate the game as well as make some money for himself. Making a profit (or getting rich) is not mutually exclusive with doing good for society or for a sport/game!

Would love to see MC try and take chess to the next level by being the first major open tournament to have a Chess 960 event. I can imagine that it will bring the excitment back to the masses, all those players from the 80's/90's that have retired because of the need to keep up to date with theory will come back to chess, while little players will not feel out of their depth going against booked up players. I am surprised that no tournaments have been trying Chess 960.

Geez...this guy needs to just be honest. Your credibility is in the dumps Kingandmate. You are a shill, here to promote the event. I can accept that. There is a saying, quite true, that the first at denial are usually guilty. You can not wait to post your denial of being a promoter for MC, when everything you say counter acts your claim. Again. I have no issue with promoting MC for what it is. However, many new players get suckered into the hype and are not aware of potentional downsides. Such as a realistic chanch of winning big bucks.

Your last post Kingandmate makes it crystal clear your intentions of promoting the event here in this thread. I suspect this may be against policy, but do not really care. Chess.com is a sponsor of the event as I see their logo on the homepage for MC. In what capacity I would not know.

Could be simply rights to reporting stories and results. I have not seen chess.com promote the event anywhere. Is it not against policy to promote an event in the forums?

I resent your false accusations, mdinnerspace, and your reasoning is fallacious.

Again. .. you do not waste a second at denial.

If I'm "accused" of something and know it is false, I will laugh it off, and not respond with instant denial .

Mdinnerspace:

Your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. I was on my computer at the time, and I just happened to be on chess.com, reading all of the posts. Should I intentionally wait 12 hours or a day to supposedly avoid the appearance of being a "shill"?? Or should I simply ignore it when a poster throws a baseless accusation at me that questions my integrity and personally offends me? No, I am going to defend myself and correct mistruths and slander. Maybe you would act differently, but I don't live necessarily by your values or standards. You have crossed a clear line here, and I ask that you refrain from doing so again. Otherwise, I would suggest that you ban yourself for such behavior and slander.

@mdinnerspace:

And stop treating chess players like they are completely naive and stupid. That is insulting to them. They can make intelligent and informed choices on their own, and I am not here to try to persuade anyone to enter the tournament. If it makes sense for a player to enter MCO and they think it's worth the expenses, for whatever reasons, let them. If they don't, then they won't. Stop judging them or trying to tell them what to do or not do.

And you have resorted to personally attacking me instead of actually addressing or debating the points and arguments I have brought up. In other words, your recent posts are ad hominem attacks instead of true argument or debate. Slander or defamation is a very serious matter, and I ask that you refrain from that from now on.

 

Are you serious?? We are not talking about the tournament anymore here. Intentionally stating false statements about another person and damaging his or her reputation in the process can cause all kinds of injury and harm in different areas of that person's life.

To dismiss last year's 1st round pairing fiasco as that of ONE persons error, that he/she should be fired is quite naive imo. Who believes 1 person is completely responsible for All pairings with no supervision and oversight? I for one dont. It was missed by many on the staff who were in position, if they were "professionals", to correct the mistake. This was the 1st round with months to prepare getting it right.

Firing one person rectifies the mistake and explains how it happened? I think not

I for one am glad that Maurice and Amy are trying something new.

 

I myself have no intentions of playing in MC for various reasons, mostly related to the value proposition of being able to either:

1. Go to the US Championships for a few days, and
2. Go to the Sinquefield Cup for a few days, and
3. Play in an event like the USATN, and
4. Play in three or four localish events that require a hotel stay.

Or

1. Play in the MC

So for me that's what it boils down to.

 

Having said that I think that it's great that there are organizers out there like Maurice and Amy that are trying something new.  The only issue is that they have perhaps set the bar too high for themselves.

 

It was pretty obvious to me that the first MC was destined to be a financial flop.  The idea that a new event would somehow draw the 1500 or so players needed to make it profitable was ludicrous.  Chess generally doesn't work like that, with people flocking to support new and unproven events.

 

I wasn't surprised when they announced the second event as they had said up front that this was designed to be a multi-year endeavor.  It seemed like they got a bit more support the second go round, though honestly I didn't check to see if they had in fact drawn more players, but there was definately more buzz.

 

From the fan standpoint, OK great.  But what about the players in MC2 who were there primarily for a shot at a norm but didn't get to play in the first round?  Before you even sat down at the board your chances were done.  This affected my friend Awonder Liang who was still in search of his final IM norm at the time.

 

I think that this will very likely be the last MC event unless it's a much bigger success.  I don't know what the break even for this one will be, but it still seems like it would have to be in the 1500 or so player range.

 

So kudos to MA and AL for risking the biscuit, but let's not pretend that everything has gone off without a hitch in the first two events.

 

I wish them luck, and remain hopeful that more promoters and organizers like them will step up.

 

I never said it was just one person's mistake. I only said that at least the one staff member who clicked on the wrong file should have been fired. Of course, Maurice and others should have supervised the staff better. He and Amy share the blame as well, and they both suffered during the event for it. According to one account, a few players were literally shouting at Amy for the mistake, which I think crossed the line, and she was left crying and having to go to the ER for a bleeding ulcer. I wrote Maurice an email afterwards to express my frustration over the pairing mistake, and he responded with a sincere apology. Based on what he wrote, I am quite sure that a mistake of this kind will never recur at MCO and he promised "redundancies" that will prevent it in future tournaments. It was an egregious error, but humans make mistakes and MC has certainly learned from the mistake. We need to forgive and move on.

It would be nice to see them reach out to those who were affected last year and offer something.  Free entry perhaps to MC3?