Prize money in chess

Couldn't agree more. Chess is coming out of its niche and it's time to start monetizing, just like any other sport. I mean, tickets to a momentous event like Tata Steel are free! But if you want tickets to an Ajax game which happens at the same venue (and takes only 2 hours, plus you won't learn much), you can empty your pockets. I once paid well over 100EUR to see the Olympic Taekwondo plus a women's soccer match and I have to say, chess is much less boring. Time to redress the balance.

I think the format is a big issue. Classical chess takes Forever, plus between two high level gm's it's often a draw. Most people would be pissed to watch any sporting event go on for hours to end in a draw. Add on top of that most of the time you're just looking at two people staring at the board. 

Some of the most fun events I've watched online are the ones where two people play multiple time frames for a set amount of time. Then there's a strategic element of when do you resign early to play another game in your preferred time control? When do you play on in a losing position stalling out time in a time control you're less good at? When do you play for draws and when do you go for wins based on the score and time remaining and time controls remaining?

Chess can be fun to watch. But classical chess is not a spectator sport. I watch the youtubers recap classical to get those hours done in 10 min. I think if all of us chess lovers could admit to ourselves and each other that classical chess is not fun to watch, we could come up with formats that more people would enjoy and pay to watch. 

Chess is no different from any other game (sport of whatever you want to call it).  A handful of top players make money playing the game.  The rest of us play for token prizes.  The amount of money that the top players make depends on the number of spectators that the game can draw.  Chess is not very effective at drawing spectators.

Well I have won tournaments/class divisions and made some money so far. I don't plan to be making a living off of it or anything right now obviously. I just wish there were higher stakes for tournaments since the travel costs are so high. For example a $500 entry fee for a chance to win $10,000 or something would be reasonable. Obviously, I do not expect to make a living off this or anything right now, but I would like to have more of a chance to support myself along the way. I don't think that's unrealistic at all. 

Here's what you're forgetting. The people paying you the prize money are trying to make money too. I'd imagine these tournaments you were in were free to spectators, which were probably only family of the competitors. If you want to get paid more to win you need to figure out how to get the organizers paid more. They're not going to give you an extra 5 grand out of pocket because it seems reasonable to you. 

Of course I get that, but if they just raised the entry fee and increased the prize money accordingly there would be a lot more incentive. I'm not asking for anyone to pay more out of pocket, just have more higher stakes tournaments.

Higher entry fee -> Fewer players who know they will not win. Higher tickets for public -> fewer people who just go and watch because they have nothing better to do. Don't know how you do things in Americas but here, most local tournaments are done by one or a couple of local clubs. They get sponsors, use entry fees, maybe some culture/sports grant from the city and work for free. After all the costs and prize money, there aren't anything left most often.

So make it more interesting for public, more of event than a pure tournament, than maybe you could get better sponsors and more money. 

Take a look at the history of Millionaire Chess.  They had a million dollar prize fund and a $1000 entry fee.  The tournaments had around 600 entrants, about a third of what was necessary to break even.

Note:  The third, and final tournament, had a prize fund of half a million and an entry fee of $500.  It still didn't attract enough players to break even.

Prize money is bad per se. As I see it one should play for love, not for money. 

With an entry fee as high as $500, the tournament would be a ghost town with you and 3 or 4 other players.  Most players aren't expecting to make any money from tournaments, so that $500 would be just an extra cost on top of their travel costs.

If profit is your main incentive for playing in tournaments, stick to the nearby tournaments where you don't need a hotel or airline ticket.

Generally, the sports that have the most spectators and not the ones that are really popular among people (running, chess, table tennis) have prizes. The ideal is football, which fulfils both conditions. The extreme is, for example, snooker, which is played by a few people in the world but the prices are higher than in chess. 

Chess has few spectators, even among table games. Go and Japanese chess have had large audiences (e.g. their own TV channels) in Asian countries. But chess (and even Chinese chess and checkers) have very low viewership numbers. 

Given the tactical nature of chess, the play of chess grandmasters is more or less incomprehensible. 5 out of 16 pieces (31%) can move back and forth across the board. In Japanese chess, only 10%. 

Chess spectators (unlike in Go, Japanese and Korean chess) are also in danger of a non-combat and draw game. 

The chess rules are unlikely to change (perhaps the castling could at least be abolished) but the rules where the next game is played in an accelerated manner in the event of a draw are quite helpful. 

Consider the audience and participants in these large open events when you are looking at the prize funds.

There are often zero spectators in these tournaments. Sometimes players will walk around and glance at other games of the top players, but even this is limited as they focus on their own games and the moves from the top boards are not broadcast anywhere.

Most of the players are young kids or teenagers who travel with their parents or other family members, so they can collectively afford the entry fees, travel expense, hotel, and food costs. 90% of players simply stop playing rated OTB games when they go to college or university and get a career in whatever field they studied, as they probably realize chess competitions are a lot of time and energy investment for an activity that does not give much return.

The majority of players who go to these tournaments alone are titled players or experienced veterans (both of who can usually comfortably afford the costs as well as enjoy the atmosphere of the playing hall and surrounding venue / city). In fact, GMs even get appearance fees to attend.

In any case, the expectation of winning money at a chess tournament (outside of local chess clubs) should come second to wanting to be a part of intense competition and showcase your passion and love of the game.

because almost everyone is engaged in cricket & soccer. 

That is truly a nightmare. A dumbed down version of chess to make te game profitable. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

You're probably a very "smart" [removed -- MS]. You want to play with higher stakes against weaker opponents. How about you play with high stakes in, let's say, FIDE 2300+ section?

Hermanjohnell,  I get it.  But It's nice to, at least, pay the bills.  Then the love comes.

Obviously not glamorous enough to attract big sponsors at the lower level, so unless you are a super GM at the top of the ladder, most organisers won't be able to pay big prizes on their events.

It's a board game, not the FIFA World Cup or the NBA League.

Look, it's more like this. If you travel, then of course you won't get much. My advice is just to stay in one place, and play the tournaments there. No cost for travel, and still fun.

When I played otb tournaments I just looked at it as a vacation. When I was much younger I was naive enough to try to make money but I noticed the players that obsessed over trying to get better to make money were so poor they never seemed to have much.