Millionare Chess Tournament in Las Vegas at October 2014

Were did I say that ?

I was "summarizing" your reasoning to point out the obvious flaw.

And before you ask, I have no idea about what could and should be improved about current tournaments, and I am neutral to the idea of high-stake tournaments. As I already wrote, there is no significant difference between ten tournaments with $100 fee and one tournament with $1000 fee.

Umm.... 

Nine!

Thank you for correcting me irontiger. So you are not one of the guys who are opposing the idea of high stake chess tournaments like Millionaire Chess. But there are some,a nd in a democary there should always be some. I have no problem with them. The only thing I am trying is - just like they will try to oppose and try to influence other to join them - similarly supports of high stake chess like me will try to promote this event and try to influence the chess community to do so too. I hope none of us see any problem taking either of this side. A fair debate!

Why do you think this?  In my opinion, chess, at least in the US, suffers from a lack of interest.  How will a tournament that only a handful (relatively speaking) of chess players know about, (and most cannot afford to play in) all of a sudden spark a mass interest in chess?

I don't know about your area, but in mine, there is no publicity about the tournament, and the only people who know about the tournament are a small number of tournament players who. by the way, are not interested.

+1

I think it because, high stake chess will let many potentially good chess players to stick around thinking you can earn a decent living playing chess. While we all think how we can attract more general people into chess, a big step forward will be simply if we can retain the people who are leaving chess. I think the scholastic kids, many of whom play chess at a decent level, leave chess in favor of high school, college education pressure. They can't think that by playing chess they can also make a career. For example, a big chunk of parents support and work hard for their kids to play better chess because that is one way of showing an extra curricular activity which will increase the potential for their kids to get into a better college or university. Few of them still stick around even after their university life because they got into too much love with chess to leave it forever. 

High stake chess tournaments like MC will accommodate many of those kids to continue to pursue chess thinking its not only a hobby but their are earning potentials out of chess. The more people play, the better for top chess players who can coach, write chess books and earn from prize money. That's how slowly the chess world will start retaining more chess players than earlier.

I think hard to get the public interest in chess and having in Las Vegas may not help. M I think most people think of Las Vegas gambling and poker I believe that chess will just get lost among the many things to do but I could be wrong. 

It all needs to start in schools; get kids learning the language of chess early and they will be fluent at it for life.  As far as chess professionals are concerned, they are completely disrespected by the USCF, which, like for example the NFL and it's 25 billion dollar empire, is non-profit (i.e. paying no taxes).  So where is the money going, and who does it benefit.  Not the players, that's for sure.  More money is made in spelling bees.  This big buck tournament is just what chess needs and for those opposed, well what are your ideas?  Criticism without suggesting options is useless.  Professional sports (aside from chess) are replete with savvy marketing and promotional wizardry.  Our federation is lazy, bloated, incompetent, and completely unable to get out of it's own way.  It doesn't know how to make a buck or share one.  Imagine every school with a chess teacher primarily for teaching children:  that's 150,000 immediate job openings for folks who might make a living doing what we love. 

Tahnk you so much for each of the wrods you typed in this paragraph!

Yes, I agree. I will make a point in due time, I just happen to be drinking right now. It's Friday night, I will get around to a good point though.

What are you insinuating, exactly ? Plus, considering your ratings here, you are most likely not a "professional player".

[CITATION NEEDED]

Status quo ? Lower-fee tournaments ? Skype tournaments ? Any other idea that goes through my mind ? See politician's fallacy, post 518.

And that's what FIDE/USCF should tend to ? No thanks.

Economic fallacy. The opportunity cost of hiring chess teacher is certainly larger than for other jobs. If you force-advertise people into hiring chess teachers when society would be better off hiring NFL players it might be good for chess teachers but it is certainly not very ethical in my books.

Thank you ere in Vegas for color Mister Uzzaman.

...which is, never.

I do not think there are many more people dedicated to football than at chess. I could be wrong of course, but the most important factor IMO is that watching a game of chess, even in the era of live analysis by silicium beasts, needs to have some real skills. On the other hand, you do not need to understand the whole point of the various maneuvers on the stadium to appreciate the football match.

Post 537 reflects my thoughts precisely. With many things, the final product is easy to understand and appreciate (on some level), even though the making of it is hard or even esoteric. With chess, the final product is both hard to make and hard to appreciate -- to most people the moves look all the same and then somehow someone loses -- and since GMs don't play until mate, multiply the confusion tenfold.

But that's ok though -- a great skill that's misunderstood is still a great skill.

"I do not think there are many more people dedicated to football than at chess. "

Of course there are many more people devoted to football than to chess. Football can be followed on tv by just about anyone. You can go to a bar and cheer on your favorite team with your mates while sloshing beers. How many football jerseys have you seen in the last week, and how many chess jerseys have you seen? The Norway Super tournament is going right now. There are maybe (maybe) 10,000 people in the world following it live. The US played Nigeria in a warm-up game that didn't matter. The US and Nigeria are World Cup minnows and millions watched. By the way, the US looked pretty good!

Chess is an elitist game that requires real concentration to follow. There's nothing wrong with chess being less popular than football. 

I think the football/chess thing is instructive. Accessability is the key when looking to expand the popularity of chess. Poker didn't explode because of big money, it exploded when the hole card camera made observing the game easier. Other factors contributed, but without seeing the hole cards watching poker is far less interesting, especially to a casual observer. 

It strikes me that when people talk about trying to make GM level chess more popular to the general public in the same way poker has become a sort of spectator sport that they never seem to identify the main problem. It isn't money or even draws in and of themselves. 

The problem is that at the highest level chess is too often inconclusive in the eyes of a casual observer. I don't mean draws, I mean that these games just sort of end. A higher level player might grasp that one side is totally lost in a certain position and a resignation is obvious, where the casual observer just sees a pretty even game. This makes the experience unsatisfying to the casual observer.

Of all the lessons chess can learn from tournament poker, the most significant is the lack of deals in televised major events. In reality, the vast majority of every day poker tournaments do not play out to the end. It differs a bit depending on local custom and culture, but in general the last few players usually just come to an agreement and split the prize money and the tournament ends. While negotiating a deal is a skill in and of itself, it makes for lousy TV, so these tournaments are played out.

Same thing with agreed draws and resignations in chess. It would suck for a super GM to have to play out an obvious (to the GM) position, but unless this becomes the norm, it is going to be pretty much impossible to make chess accessable to the masses. Reducing draws and trying to impress people with what is in the context of sport not really all that big of a prize pool are minor measures at best. 

(in practice this might be a bit tricky as you would probably need to allow for draws in a situation where the game is obviously going to end in a fifty move rule claimed draw anyway, but this would have to be more "obvious to a person who just learned how to play" than "obvious to a master level player." )

Look how boring golf is but they get it done (non-profit PGA better off than non-profit USCF).  There are intriguing backstories about the players and how they got to where they are today; revealing biographies and feel-good tales of overcoming hardship and the like to play during the slow down times.  There are more adults playing chess than adults playing football, so how to attract viewship . . .wait, I got nothing here.

Ok, I'll try to make part of my point I wanted to the other night when I was drinking. I think it was during round 3 of the Norway tournament when Dirk was interviewing one of the people that did the marketing for that tournament. I think her name was Heidi Jeanette Something. She's in marketing. That's her full time job. Dirk made kind of a joke but he hit on something that was right on target I think. He said something like "so the secret is to not play chess" or "to not have chessplayers" or something similar in reference to the people organizing & promoting the events. I think being chessplayers taints the business vision of those involved. I think it's best to have true marketing professionals doing just that, marketing the product.