"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. (...)
Sorry, what I meant was :
"I do not think there are many more people dedicated to playing football than at playing chess. "
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.
Very good points in this post. Chessplayers sometimes find it hard to put things into words. For the record, the chess federation in Australia sounds just like the one in the USA - a non profit organisation with old codgers skimming from the coffers while playing politics just to keep their position. Chess will not be recognised unless it becomes professional, and organised, with taxes paid, wages paid, and a proper structure.
Will any pro poker players or pro magic players join?
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.
The USCF should take a page out of SRK and their Evolution tournaments:
Will any pro poker players or pro magic players join?
Do we need them to join? If they join that's fine. But definitely they are not the potential customers of Millionaire Chess or high stake chess tournaments. Its, we the average chess players, who are the potential customers.
I don't think that anyone who can afford the $1000 entry fee plus expenses can be labeled an average chess player.
I don't think that anyone who can afford the $1000 entry fee plus expenses can be labeled an average chess player.
I completely disagree. Please look at the rating list and how many master players are there. Any non-masters (and I am one of the non masters) are average chess players. A good chunk of these non masters are the real customers of high stake chess. This is the market that organizers like MC will be shooting for.
Ashik
If I accept your definition of average, that would mean that MC, LLC's market is every non-master. I really think that their marketing is aimed at those who can afford the entry fee. From a business point of veiw: why waste your money on attempting to attract people who don't have the price of admission?
A select group is not an average group.
I do have one big beef with the prize structure. There are no Under 2100 Prizes, or Under 1900 Prizes, or Under 1700 Prizes, or Under 1500 Prizes etc. And I think there should be.
As an example, a player who is legitimately rated, say 1600 to 1625 ish, will be competing in the Under 1800 Section, and thus against players rated 150 to almost 190 points higher. That's a substantial difference. A rating difference of 175 points amounts to a 73% chance of winning for the stronger rated player.
Ideally, there should be some added incentive for these players. Otherwise, they are already bucking the odds. And the answer is easy. There should be an Under 1700 Prize or two, that this player can win, that these high 1700 players aren't elligible for.
Likewise for all of the other sections. A player legitmately rated 1820 will be competing against 1990+ players, some of which are probably Expert strength, and would have very little chance. There should be some incentive, such as a few Under 1900 Prizes, that this 1820 player can win.
Many tournaments have such a prize structure, so this is not exactly uncommon.
I do have one big beef with the prize structure. There are no Under 2100 Prizes, or Under 1900 Prizes, or Under 1700 Prizes, or Under 1500 Prizes etc. And I think there should be.
As an example, a player who is legitimately rated, say 1600 to 1625 ish, will be competing in the Under 1800 Section, and thus against players rated 150 to almost 190 points higher. That's a substantial difference. A rating difference of 175 points amounts to a 73% chance of winning for the stronger rated player.
Ideally, there should be some added incentive for these players. Otherwise, they are already bucking the odds. And the answer is easy. There should be an Under 1700 Prize or two, that this player can win, that these high 1700 players aren't elligible for.
Likewise for all of the other sections. A player legitmately rated 1820 will be competing against 1990+ players, some of which are probably Expert strength, and would have very little chance. There should be some incentive, such as a few Under 1900 Prizes, that this 1820 player can win.
Many tournaments have such a prize structure, so this is not exactly uncommon.
I understand what you are saying, but i just competed at the National Open, and played up. I scored well, and had fun. Did i win money? Nope...but had a blast, and learn alot. I dont think tournaments should cater to those strictly trying to win money.
If youre on the low end of section, then play more, and practice more.
Ashik
If I accept your definition of average, that would mean that MC, LLC's market is every non-master. I really think that their marketing is aimed at those who can afford the entry fee. From a business point of veiw: why waste your money on attempting to attract people who don't have the price of admission?
A select group is not an average group.<
I'm playing in the event and I'm just an average player with a rating of 1406. Like most chess tournaments, "average" players make up the majority of the registrants.
Bulla
Your rating may make you an average player (this is doubtful because the median USCF rating is about 800), but that is only part of the picture. You have enough money to play in the tournament. Most chess players don't. In that respect, you are not an average player.
From Ashley and Lee's perspective, it is the amount of money that you have that counts. If you don't have any, you won't enter. If you have some, they may be able entice you to enter.
This is probably the worst way to try and promote chess into the mainstream
None of which will work in america anyway
>You have enough money to play in the tournament. Most chess players don't.<
If you are trying to imply that I have money in excess that is far from the truth. I knew as soon as I read about this tournament back in December that I was going to be there no matter what. I didn't have the money at the time nor did I know how I was going to come up with it. But what I did have was a determination and belief that I was going to find a way. I would never have an opportunity like this just pass me by without even trying. So before you start painting a picture that all those who register "have money" think again.
Ok. I should have used the past tense (or perhaps should have said that you were able to come up with the money). You're still not an average chess player. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who would like to play in the tournament, but are unable to come up with the money.
I don't know why people have such a hard time accepting the fact that this tournament is being organized for a select group of players. There's nothing wrong with this. If the group is large enough, Ashley and Lee can make some money. That's the way capitalism works.
I do have one big beef with the prize structure. There are no Under 2100 Prizes, or Under 1900 Prizes, or Under 1700 Prizes, or Under 1500 Prizes etc. And I think there should be.
As an example, a player who is legitimately rated, say 1600 to 1625 ish, will be competing in the Under 1800 Section, and thus against players rated 150 to almost 190 points higher. That's a substantial difference. A rating difference of 175 points amounts to a 73% chance of winning for the stronger rated player.
Ideally, there should be some added incentive for these players. Otherwise, they are already bucking the odds. And the answer is easy. There should be an Under 1700 Prize or two, that this player can win, that these high 1700 players aren't elligible for.
Likewise for all of the other sections. A player legitmately rated 1820 will be competing against 1990+ players, some of which are probably Expert strength, and would have very little chance. There should be some incentive, such as a few Under 1900 Prizes, that this 1820 player can win.
Many tournaments have such a prize structure, so this is not exactly uncommon.
I understand what you are saying, but i just competed at the National Open, and played up. I scored well, and had fun. Did i win money? Nope...but had a blast, and learn alot. I dont think tournaments should cater to those strictly trying to win money.
If youre on the low end of section, then play more, and practice more.
Then they should just pass on this tournament, and wait for the next big one, thinking something along the lines: "I´ll study during all the year and I won´t play OTB to keep my rating where it is".
But that´s not convenient for THIS tournament.
Ever heard the saying where there is a will there is a way? If you're determined enough anyone can come up with the money.
There once was a guy that wanted to play in the WSOP with an entry fee of $10,000. His wife told him that he couldn't use any money that was for the household. Basically that meant he couldn't use any money from his or her paychecks. He was so determined to play in the event that he spent the entire year collecting cans and recycling them and his entire entry fee was paid with only that money.
You can always find examples of people who put in an extraordinary effort to get something they want. In my mind, these are above average people. The average person won't go to the effort.
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.
In that sense, Millionaire Chess have it already. One of the 2 partners, Amy Lee, is a pure businesswomen, not a chess player. Of course the other parnter is a Grand Master in chess and hence they complement each other in many respect. The sheer volume of Ideas they have come up with since the announcement of the tournaments, as I have been following, is mind blowing!