Millionaire Chess 3

Yes, this is what one of the main points of criticism of MC comes down to. Very high entry fees could force players to play fewer (or even only a single one) tournaments each year, hurting the chess scene overall.

With chess already hurting in the US, this is exactly the wrong medicine for it, never mind their insane claim of "taking chess to the next level".

MC has openly stated they are trying this as a business to earn money. So let me translate that business concept in more simple terms:

They want a high stakes event so the promoters can earn more money, resulting in the particpants getting less value per Dollar.

If more events followed suit, then chess players would all be able to play less OTB tournaments/year on the same budget as before. This is BAD for the chess scene, it is BAD for the players, it is a BAD way to attract spondors who can recongize a money grab when they see one.

Anyone claiming to want to "take chess to the next level" should take a look over at Europe, where there is more of a grassroots movement in chess and where, because of that, tournaments actually find sponsors.

The more players play chess, the more people a potential sponsor can reach by his sponsorship; it's only logical that to make chess more healthy we need ways to make more players experience the OTB events, not less.

MC is a way to reduce the tournament scene so its promoters can grab more money than other promoters, and that's why it's bad for chess.

You are free to disagree with or ignore what I have said. I'm not here to convince you of anything. But please refrain from personal attacks or slander.

@Kingandmate...Please explain... just how is someone "attacking you" by making a statement you appear to be working for MCO? If It baseless, so be it. Get over over it. It's an Internet thread. Ever been to one before? No one is "attacking" you. It is a retort used by paranoid people looking to deflect the issue.

Actually, just one counterexample won't disprove anything, as I was making a general statement about those who enter the tournament. And I believe that my logic is fine. But you might want to brush up on yours when all you seem to do is resort to personal and ad hominem attacks as your primary method of argument.

why? you just need to play 8 good games instead of 9. sounds easier to me.

actually i don't hink it's easier or harder to get an 8 game norm than a 9 game norm (regarding playing strength).

the only problem could be to get the required amount of titled opponents but in such strong field i don't tink that's a big problem.

No, it is not. Go back and read your past posts, if you forgot what you wrote exactly. You stated -- as A FACT -- that I was a shill and promoter for MC. And now you are trying to excuse your behavior and words. In your other thread ("MC3"), you criticized those who engage in personal attacks on forums, yet you have done the same to me. It might be nice for you to admit the behavior and apologize. If not, at least stop trying to put the blame on me for my response instead.

Steve writes ....Yes, this is what one of the main points of criticism of MC comes down to. Very high entry fees could force players to play fewer (or even only a single one) tournaments each year, hurting the chess scene overall.

With chess already hurting in the US, this is exactly the wrong medicine for it, never mind their insane claim of "taking chess to the next level".

Hmm... another good point of contention. Maybe the best arguement thus far "questioning" the merits of MC chess. Another promoter has entered the arena, with intent of drawing away players from other events to enter his bigger event. (So he can make money). Just how many players can afford multiple large entry fees and travel expenses?

No, I can not think Ashley's motivation is to bring chess " to the next level".

You certainly come across like a shill and a promoter for MC, I can't really blame others for noticing that too.

I expect people will soon just return to the normal discussion about the event and ignore your posts like they were official ads that the adblocker somehow didn't catch.

Again, you are free to (strongly) disagree with my views or ignore what I write. But there is no need for personal attacks or insults.

i know why he thinks it' useless. for getting a title you need 27 games with norms. usually you make 3 9 game norms (because most tournaments have 9 rounds). so with an 8 norm you still need one more norm.

but it's not "useless" because you could make a 10 round norm in a 10 round tournament (which are pretty rare), or by playing in leagues which often have more than 9 rounds. or you could get so unlucky and make two 8 (or 7) round norms. so not useless at all.

but my points was actually just that you said you can't make a norm with a forfeit which i corrected.

That's fine, and you are entitled to your opinions. I was simply trying to offer a different view and perspective to counterbalance the generally negative discussions here about MC. I can see that chess.com members are not very welcoming of dissenting/different views and only wish to have their preconceptions and biases confirmed, not challenged. It's funny to me that an enthusiastic supporter of an event in a chess.com thread must be a "shill", yet those who rail against an event or idea for an entire thread are not accused of anything. I will probably be leaving this forum soon, as I don't like the animosity directed at me simply because I might happen to like or support MC and wished to express my views and respond to others' arguments in a detailed and logical manner.

So two big changes, which I recommended in the MC2 thread.

1. Change the venue to the east coast, where the actual chess players are.
2. Lower the entry fee.

That's the best chance of making this a viable tournament going forward.  The prize fund is reduced, but it's still over twice as much as the World Open

I didn't see the prize payouts, but they will likely be much higher than the equivalent World Open prize.

The last World Open held in Philadelpia was 2012, which drew 1200 players.  They need 1000 players to break even on the prize fund cost.

Looks like CCA sets the prize fund ~62.5% of total entry fees for the World Open.  MC3 needs ~1600 entries to hit those same margins.

At any rate, I expect much smaller losses this year which gives this a chance of overcoming its rocky start and becoming a viable tournament.  It's a shame it took 2 tries in Vegas for them to come to some obvious conclusions.

royalprobe

I see your point that an 8-round norm is not useless, but from a practical point of view, the player has to meet the norm in four tournaments, when they could have done it in three.

or he makes a 10 round norm

Again, players are free to enter or NOT enter MCO! You seem to be assuming that players are required to enter MCO, which seemingly reduces the participation in other, less expensive tournaments. Do you think that the Chicago Open or World Open draws players away from other tournaments as well? Your argument doesn't make much sense.

Noone here in this thread so far is speaking for chess.com or has made any claims of doing so. But most issues have been discussed at two 100+ pages threads already, and many of us have formed an opinion based on those long ago.

There really is a ton of valid arguments that can be made against MC. I'm not so surprised many agree with this.

And that animosity you feel isn't so much because of the arguments you make, but that you seemingly spamming them fulltime like you were being paid for it makes you look like a shill and a promoter.

We've had a very angry and agressive guy from the MC circles here once, so it wouldn't exactly be unheard of, you know. Especially where so much money is involved.

If you look like a promoter, talk like a promoter and act like a promoter, don't be surprised if ppl come to that conclusion.

@Kingandmate... just what are your arguements to support MC chess? All I have seem to have heard is that it's a classy event, run by professionals that supply the pieces, boards and clocks.The tourney offers huge payouts. Big business in your opinion puts chess in a favorable light in the general public's eye. Did I miss anything how the event is good for chess?

I guess that the players most affected would be those that had two nine round norms before the tournament started.

I understand there is a very big chess event, one that is well established, 1 week prior in the area. It was posted here awhile back. Will have to retrieve the name.

I can understand your argument and it makes some sense. But hasn't the U.S. chess scene been trying this model for decades? Yet, chess growth has been stagnant for a while, ever since the "Fischer boom" faded, in this country, and virtually all tournaments have trouble attracting sponsors. Almost all serious and strong chess players still have a very hard time making a living playing chess and almost all of them turn to other careers. MC represents something DIFFERENT to try to stimulate growth in the sport and attract sponsors. It may not be the best solution, or even the right solution, but at least they are trying, yes?