Why? Because of the Golden rules.
// Mr. Sinquefield can do anything he wants with his money. He has chosen to give a lot to support building a beautiful chess club in St. Louis and just gave the money for this tournament to attract the best players in the world-- and it was the strongest tournament ever held in the US.
We should all just be grateful instead of telling him what we would do with his money.
Why? Because of the Golden rules.
// Mr. Sinquefield can do anything he wants with his money. He has chosen to give a lot to support building a beautiful chess club in St. Louis and just gave the money for this tournament to attract the best players in the world-- and it was the strongest tournament ever held in the US.
We should all just be grateful instead of telling him what we would do with his money.
It seems you have difficulties to understand that a person has freedom of expression, even before to spend his/her money. So my questions were relative to spreading chess as sport, and ideas on how to do it.
What Mr. Sinquefield does with his money is not my concern at all (when you will improve your reading comprehension, and read "Sinquefield cup" instead of an attack ad hominem toward Mr. Sinquefield, that will actually contribute to this conversation).
For me the strongest tournament in US is the World Open, where actual Americans play, compared to invite 4 GMs to play a tournament between themselves. They could also do it on the moon, or in internet, and it wouldn't make any difference.
Real strong tournaments have a lot of competitors, and they publish books about them (Zurich 1953 could be an example, strong tournament which is also an important step into the formation of a player who study those games). I doubt anyone will ever print a book about this tournament. It is just gossip for a couple of weeks, and then it will be totally forgotten.
It would also been interesting to spend that money to organize 4-5 tournaments between GMs, and since today out of 9 rounds often there are 10 GMs for the 1st place, to give the final prize to the one who played all the 4-5 tournaments, and who made more points.
Last but not least, I don't understand why I should be grateful to Mr. Sinquefield. Following your logic, he spent his money like he wanted, and I wouldn't care less. Because honestly it doesn't really involve American chess players and tournaments.
I'm just an amateur who is in love of chess as sport.
I read that the Sinquefield cup had prizes for 170K or more.
I don't understand why they couldn't organize 4-5 tournaments with 30K or more of prizes, which would attract, and give money, to more GMs/IMs and amateurs, like the World Open or similar strong tournaments.
After all if in chess there would be more money, maybe more people would compete, and take it more seriously as sport, compared to sports where players make million of dollars kicking balls of different sizes and shapes.