Millionaire Chess 3
Sort:
Feb 16, 2016
0
#142
My question is why do people have issues with organizers wanting to make a profit on risking their cash and running a tournament?
mdinnerspace wrote:
You make quite a few 'assumptions" about the desires of chess players Kingandmate. Not everyone is of the same mind. Seems almost as if thoughts are being implemented into the public's mind.
Very similiar to MC'S newsletter stating their "interesting innovation" will be exciting for the players. I find nothing exciting about it. Seems just another ploy at "deceiving " most into believing they have an equal chanch to win.
2nd. Attract TV coverage? Nonsense. The only TV coverage will be restricted to the elite players.
3. Crave big tournaments? You betcha. The ones who know how to manipulate ratings and sandbag their ratings love it.
mdinnerspace: How often do you play OTB at your local chess club or in tournaments? How many "big" tournaments have you attended in the last two years? And how many chess players have you spoken to IN PERSON in the last year?
I believe I know the "desires" of chess players fairly well because I play OTB very frequently and actively, I have attended most of the major chess tournaments in the last two years, and I speak to many, many chess players in person. These not really "assumptions" I am making. They are derived from actual experiences and conversations.
ChrisWainscott wrote:
My question is why do people have issues with organizers wanting to make a profit on risking their cash and running a tournament?
I've been wondering the same thing for a while now.
SilentKnighte5 wrote:
Steve11537 wrote:
The only change they're really trying to adopt is the promoters earning more money. That money has to come from somewhere: the participants.
If anything, they seem to be trying to do the opposite. They are offering a better prize fund to entry fee ratio than any other big tournament.
Yup, and they've had a better ratio since MC1.
Kingandmate was called out on the 1st page of ths thread by themaskedbishop when he spotted Kingandmate announcing MC was to have a lower entry fee, days before it was announced in the newsletter. Can be no denying he is a shill. Call it slander all you like mate, just reporting the facts here .
After every post you post your promotion of the event. Seriously, if ur the best MC can do, what hope is there for their success?
Kingandmate wrote:
1. Actually, it HAS already. You must not read the stories of participants at the tournament, and you obviously have not played in the tournament yourself. If you had done either, you would know that MCO has done a good job in attracting players of both groups. You cannot judge the success in this aspect by only looking at the overall participation number.
2. I said "potential," which obviously means it hasn't happened yet. Rome was not built in a day. To make a major change like this in the U.S. chess world, one that is entrenched in its ways, I am not surprised that it might take more than two years. Still, MC is one of the few companies who actually might accomplish this.
3. Again, you cannot know this by looking at the overall participation numbers. I know a player from Canada who almost never plays OTB who comes to MCO every year (even though he didn't win a thing at MC#1). Similarly, I met an older player from NY in the first MCO who was back at the second MCO. Before that, he hardly played chess OTB and now he plays more frequently. These are just two examples.
I predict that, with the much needed changes in the structure this year, MC3 will attract 1000+ entrants and probably more in the range of 1200-1400 players. In the first two years, the high entry fee was the major barrier. Now that it is reduced significantly, many more players will consider entering the event.
Maurice Ashley is a motivational speaker. You should send him your texts, he might make good use of them 
However, that doesn't change the fact that all these hopes, assumptions, theories and could-bes are nothing but phantoms in heavy fog. They are not of substance.
They have been proven to be mere phantoms by the reality of the last two MCs, and the ball is in MCs court to prove them more than mere phantoms this time.
I'm not holding my breath though, nor will be any potential sponsor.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#148
Kingandmate
The true measure of what people want is what they are willing to spend their money for, not what they say they want. So far, not many chess players have shown a desire to play in the MC Open. Perhaps the format and venue changes will alter this. We'll have to see.
mdinnerspace wrote:
Kingandmate was called out on the 1st page of ths thread by themaskedbishop when he spotted Kingandmate announcing MC was to have a lower entry fee, days before it was announced in the newsletter. Can be no denying he is a shill. Call it slander all you like mate, just reporting the facts here .
After every post you post your promotion of the event. Seriously, if ur the best MC can do, what hope is there for their success?
I'm going to ask you to stop this one last time before I report you to chess.com. Please stop your slander. Read my past posts explaining the entry fee issue. You are making yourself look foolish, paranoid, and immature.
ChrisWainscott wrote:
My question is why do people have issues with organizers wanting to make a profit on risking their cash and running a tournament?
Chris, I care for the simple reason I truly would like to see the future of chess head in a better direction. The spirit of chess and sportsmanship is what needs promoting. Not that hobby players can win big bucks, which leads to so many issues. I have been playing 50 years and participated in every type of event. I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach of big stakes for amatures. I firmly believe it will in the long term be detrimental to the growth of chess in the U. S .
Take a look at chess in Europe, where in many places a different grass roots approach of promoting chess has achieved excellent results.
Kingandmate wrote:
I'm going to ask you to stop this one last time before I report you to chess.com. Please stop your slander. Read my past posts explaining the entry fee issue. You are making yourself look foolish, paranoid, and immature.
Did the truth hurt ?
Steve11537 wrote:
There was no "truth". But apparently the truth hurts you and others.
Kingandmate wrote:
I'm going to ask you to stop this one last time before I report you to chess.com. Please stop your slander. Read my past posts explaining the entry fee issue. You are making yourself look foolish, paranoid, and immature.
Did the truth hurt ?
mdinnerspace wrote:
ChrisWainscott wrote:
My question is why do people have issues with organizers wanting to make a profit on risking their cash and running a tournament?
Chris, I care for the simple reason I truly would like to see the future of chess head in a better direction. The spirit of chess and sportsmanship is what needs promoting. Not that hobby players can win big bucks, which leads to so many issues. I have been playing 50 years and participated in every type of event. I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach of big stakes for amatures.
Take a look at chess in Europe, where in many places a different grass roots aproach of promoting chess has achieved excellent results.
It's "only" been 35 years of playing and participating for myself, but I agree with everything said here 100%.
Steve11537 wrote:
mdinnerspace wrote:
ChrisWainscott wrote:
My question is why do people have issues with organizers wanting to make a profit on risking their cash and running a tournament?
Chris, I care for the simple reason I truly would like to see the future of chess head in a better direction. The spirit of chess and sportsmanship is what needs promoting. Not that hobby players can win big bucks, which leads to so many issues. I have been playing 50 years and participated in every type of event. I wholeheartedly disagree with this approach of big stakes for amatures.
Take a look at chess in Europe, where in many places a different grass roots aproach of promoting chess has achieved excellent results.
It's "only" been 35 years of playing and participating for myself, but I agree with everything said here 100%.
Maybe you and mdinnerspace have been playing for so long that you are pretty set in your traditional ways. Perhaps that is one reason you are so vehemently against a concept like MCO, because it disrupts the status quo. Consider that the U.S. has not seen real growth in chess for decades, and maybe what it needs is a different approach and model.
Kingandmate wrote:
Maybe you and mdinnerspace have been playing for so long that you are pretty set in your traditional ways. Perhaps that is one reason you are so vehemently against a concept like MCO, because it disrupts the status quo. Consider that the U.S. has not seen real growth in chess for decades, and maybe what it needs is a different approach and model.
I'm living in Europe these days, I can see fairly well first hand which approach and model is working.
Steve11537 wrote:
Kingandmate wrote:
Maybe you and mdinnerspace have been playing for so long that you are pretty set in your traditional ways. Perhaps that is one reason you are so vehemently against a concept like MCO, because it disrupts the status quo. Consider that the U.S. has not seen real growth in chess for decades, and maybe what it needs is a different approach and model.
I'm living in Europe these days, I can see fairly well first hand which approach and model is working.
So can you explain, IN DETAIL, what type of approach or model you think can or has worked? What the U.S. has done has not been working for decades.
He gotcha there mate!
I'm coming to the conclusion that 99% of the arguments in this thread are the same 2 people arguing with each other across multiple aliases.
Feb 16, 2016
0
#159
Dinner & Steve,
I don't necessarily disagree with your statements about amateur chess not needing (or perhaps even wanting) large cash prizes. I myself don't care about that aspect.
But the larger point to me is that there seems to be a backlash in general regarding organizers actually getting remuneration for their time and financial risk. I simply don't get that.
Take your average local weekend tournament with a $40 EF and a $700 prize fund. The organizers in those tend to make less than minimum wage for their time while risking their own money. Somehow that is seen as OK and even expected by much of the chess playing public.
I don't get it. TANSTAAFL...
I don't necessarily disagree with your statements about amateur chess not needing (or perhaps even wanting) large cash prizes. I myself don't care about that aspect.
But the larger point to me is that there seems to be a backlash in general regarding organizers actually getting remuneration for their time and financial risk. I simply don't get that.
Take your average local weekend tournament with a $40 EF and a $700 prize fund. The organizers in those tend to make less than minimum wage for their time while risking their own money. Somehow that is seen as OK and even expected by much of the chess playing public.
I don't get it. TANSTAAFL...
Feb 16, 2016
0
#160
ChrisWainscott wrote:
My question is why do people have issues with organizers wanting to make a profit on risking their cash and running a tournament?
There are a few people who think there is something evil about making a profit, but I don't think that the majoity of people here fit that discription.
I found two issues with MC. First, I didn't think they would find enough players willing to pay $1000 plus expenses to enter the tournament That appears to be the case.
Second, I thought that their advertising was over the top. When you get down to the brass tacks, the MC Open is just an expensive tournament for affluent chess players. But the advertising reminded me of what I hear from the local casinos: Win big and have fun at Casino X, our slots have a higher payout than our competitor's slots, etc.
Before you go, I'll ask again. What are your arguements that MCO is good for chess?
Let me try to summarize the main arguments I see:
1. A big, prestigious, and exciting open tournament such as MCO attracts formerly active players who have been away from the game for a long time (sometimes decades), sometimes because they found traditional tournaments unprofessional or boring. Some of these players may start playing regularly again because their interest in chess has been rekindled. It also attracts new players, such as scholastic players, whose parents are looking for an event such as MCO to get their kids excited about the game/sport and give them an unforgettable and possibly life-changing experience.
2. MCO is one of the few events and MC is one of the few companies that have the potential to attract mainstream media coverage and attention and eventually get the event/game on TV (this might take a few years, but I believe it's definitely quite possible). This will allow chess and its events to reach a much wider audience, thereby stimulating growth in both young and older players. Remember that the Fischer boom happened partly because they actually had chess on TV (and on the front page of newspapers) back then.
3. Some chess players crave large open tournaments with big prizes, not just small local tournaments with no prizes or small prizes. Many chess players do not play at their local chess club regularly, choosing only to enter a big tournament once or twice a year. A classy and big event such as MCO has the potential to get this group of players excited about the game again, motivating them to start playing chess OTB regularly (for example, to train and improve for the next MCO or simply to meet their stringent rating rules).
I hope that helps.
1) Nice idea, but it hasn't been working for the first 2 years now.
2) So they themselves thought, yes. Feel free to research for yourself what happened to both their own documentary and their negotiations with a studio. Which they even had a press release about before it all turned into nothing.
3) As participant numbers clearly show, it doesn't attract enough of these players. Do some reasearch on the numbers of actually active USCF players and how many of them you'd need to attract. We discussed this in the past and came to the conclusion they never did any serious analysis of the potential market for their event.
1. Actually, it HAS already. You must not read the stories of participants at the tournament, and you obviously have not played in the tournament yourself. If you had done either, you would know that MCO has done a good job in attracting players of both groups. You cannot judge the success in this aspect by only looking at the overall participation number.
2. First, it has already had some success in getting mainstream media attention, including articles in New York Times and some European newspapers. And I said "potential". Rome was not built in a day. To make a major change like this in the U.S. chess world, one that is entrenched in its ways, I am not surprised that it might take more than two years. Still, MC is one of the few companies who actually might accomplish this.
3. Again, you cannot know this by looking at the overall participation numbers. I know a player from Canada who almost never plays OTB who comes to MCO every year (even though he didn't win a thing at MC#1). Similarly, I met an older player from NY in the first MCO who was back at the second MCO. Before that, he hardly played chess OTB and now he plays more frequently. These are just two examples.
I predict that, with the much needed changes in the structure this year, MC3 will attract 1000+ entrants and probably more in the range of 1200-1400 players. In the first two years, the high entry fee was the major barrier. Now that it is reduced significantly, many more players will consider entering the event.