Millionaire Chess 3

LOL, I doubt it. But maybe a small discount on the entry fee would be nice.

So for those players who paid $1000 for a chance at a norm and never had one due to an error on the part of the staff they should get a small discount?

Were there any who would have won a prize but got nailed on tiebreaks due to the forfeit win?

This is how businesses separate themselves from the competition.  By saying "Hey, it was our fault and we want to make up for it."  Not by saying "We made a mistake, so in return we'll allow you to give us just a little less of your money next time in hopes that we don't make that same mistake again."

If MC wants to truly distinguish themselves they should step up.

"Tiebreaks" were not used to determine prizes. Players tied either shared the prizes (if they didn't qualify for the top 4), or they played tiebreak games to qualify for the top 4 (who moved on to Millionaire Monday) if they were tied for the top places after 7 rounds.

I agree it would be a very nice gesture on their part, and I would love to get free entry to MC3 lol. But I just think it would be too much of a cost on their part, and I doubt it will happen. I believe at least 50-70 players were affected by the pairing mistake, so that is a lot of free entries they must give away! This would, again, jeopardize the financial viability for the event this year. But I believe a discount, say 20% or 25%, would be pretty fair.

Let's face it, not all of the players would make it, free entry or not.  So it would likely cost them half of the total.  Not nothing, but not the end of the world either.

So far I get the impression that MC thinks that as long as they keep drawing press coverage there are no issues with giant mistakes like this.

if i'm not wrong you can still make a norm with a win by forfeit.

and you want to be financially compensated for getting a free point which increases your chances at winning prizemoney?

imo everybody who didn't get a first round bye should get a free entry to the next mco!

Another consequence of the 1st round byes for 70 players is the simple fact that these players all received 1 point. This resulted in many more players starting rd. 2 with a plus score. Future pairings were unbalanced and skewed the amount of. players with + scores.

Ashley should have immediately compensated players who's sole reason at entering was to achieve a norm. Where was his is desire to promote chess when all he gives is an apology?

I'm not sure if the following are the current criteria for an IM norm, but it looks as if they are difficult to meet in a tournament with non-titled players, let alone a tournament where the player has a forfeit win.

In order to achieve an IM norm in a 9 round tournament, you have to do is:

1) Play at least three IMs and five titleholders, no more than two players may be without a FIDE-ELO rating (including yourself) 
2) Play against players from at least three federations, and no more than six from the same federation (including yourself) 
3) Score at least 7/9 against an ELO-average of at least 2231, 6.5/9 against at least 2285, 6/9 against at least 2326, 5.5/9 against at least 2371, 5/9 against at least 2407, 4.5/9 against at least 2451 or 4/9 against at least 2494. Eventually opponents without FIDE-ELO are counted as 2100 (previously 2000).

You can not earn a norm with a forfeit.  In order to earn a norm you must play a minimum of nine games.'

Sometimes i think that MC is learning as they go but doing it well at least.  For instance, the rules prior to the innagrual MC said that players could be expelled from the tournament for playing "drawish openings" but didn't say what those openings were.

Luckily they did away with that rule.  Perhaps some of you recall GM Krush's article from a few years ago in Chess Life where in one of the Vegas tournaments she played the Exchange Slav for a win in one of the later rounds.  Would she have been thrown out of MC with those rules?

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov  played the Exchange French as White against me in a blitz game.  Are we going to throw the President of FIDE out on his ears for that?

Changing that rule before the event even started showed that they had learned.  Flash forward one year later and they make a major mistake and seemingly have little actual remorse for it.

It would be nice to see them learn from this as well.

The issue is that once a forfeit is in then you have only played in an eight round tournament.

i think that's wrong.

https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=174&view=article

Wow. And you claim this because you have personally interviewed each and every player who entered MCO, or you are just being deliberately insulting to chess players in general?

You have not addressed the SUBSTANCE of what I have stated. Your argument is to basically state a lie about me and then use that lie to supposedly devalue what I have stated. Sorry, but that is not a logical or convincing argument, and I would appreciate your not slandering me. If you cannot tolerate dissenting views or cannot engage in true debate with someone with those views, then I would suggest that you leave this forum.

Kingandmate wrote:

@richie:Instead of addressing or attacking what I have said, you attack me as a person. Please refrain from doing that. If you have meaningful arguments to make, I would be happy to debate with you. Otherwise, please stop making baseless accusations that are actually slander.

Describing someone's observations as "slander" we all know us just ludicrous. Nothing slanderous about making the observation Kingandmate is "promoting" the event, not simply supporting it's merits. Everytime someone points out potentional pitfalls (everyone is not an adult and fully aware) Kingandmate responds with his paranoia of being "attacked". You have given your views, some of which are I agree with, others not. One can only agree with richie because of the words you choose. You "sound" like a promoter, enticing people to enter the event.

Why do you take such great offense to this? It is merely an observation that many have made. Nothing slanderous about it. What damages have you incurred?

I'm not just an "alias." There are those in the "real world" who know my username or can easily identify me using information in my profile. And I was using the word "slander" or "defamation" in the more general sense: making false statements about another person. Whether or not that person's reputation is actually harmed, it is something that should not be condoned in a public forum and is not conducive to constructive discourse, don't you think?

I have not attacked you or made false statements about you. You called me a shill or a paid promoter for MC, stating that "observation" as if it were a fact, when in fact it is contrary to fact. I have no problems engaging in a REAL debate with someone, including you, about the points they or I have made. But I DO have a problem when someone attacks me personally or makes me a false statement about me in a public forum. I believe any reasonable person would. This is not "paranoia" by any means. I might be an enthusiastic supporter of MC and its events, but that doesn't warrant your baseless accusations. Just stop doing it, please.