Chess Incomes?

I know that chess masters, grandmasters, and World Chess Champions etc get loads of money from winning tournaments but what if a player doesn't get many tournament wins. How else do chess players get money?

I think you're over-estimating a bit.  Wasn't it WC Anand who said that unless you're in the top 20 in the world or a very successful coach/author, you really aren't making money, period?

There is no large sums of money in chess.

The super grandmasters, as they are usually called make a good living on chess. The rest of the grandmasters try to scrabble on by coaching, books, simuls, articles and so forth. It's not an easy living for the average 2500 grandmaster that hasn't managed to get his name out there.

Edit: Okey that was a bit to dire, but the money isn't great, it's a living, but it takes some work.

The only players who were able to procure significant sums of money in tournament play were Lasker and Fischer - and only in certain tournaments. With the exception of Russia, there is not enough widespread public support for the concept of well-paid professional chess play, and in Russia the financing is done by the state and not by sponsors. It would take an awful lot of PR hype to conjure up any meaningful sponsorship of ongoing chess competition, but sad to say, there is no current infrastructure to build upon or exploit, such as was done by Fischer and his media backers during the Cold War era.

Work in Mc.Donald's

Well, Russia doesn't have that much of chess support either. For instance, when we were playing at the Olympiad last time, they promised us very small amounts of money for gold, silver or bronze. As to other results - the phrase was "anything less than bronze is a failure, why should the Federation reward you for that?". Also, as a member of the national team (and guess how hard it is to become one of them in Russia, where there are like 10 active 2700+ male players and four 2500+ female players), I receive a monthly salary from the federation...but I don't really remember how large it is since it's meager, just a few hundred bucks. I don't care for it as long as I get a few k as appearance or simul fees.

And most top players have even worse conditions...

Wallace Stevens spent most of his life working as a lawyer for an insurance company in Connecticut.

The only way to make chess more financially attractive is to put it on the sport business circuit. I was amazed to see the effort being made to promote curling on the last Winter Olympics: they managed to make a somewhat intellectual sport into a interesting entertainment show, with microphones and strategy commentary (one of the catch phrases was "curling is chess on ice").

I think chess has a huge potential on this direction once some adjustments, especially concerning time, are made. Hell, even poker is broadcast. Chess is a super-traditional game associated with intelligence, something that a lot of companies would want to see their products associated with. The drawback is that perhaps some purists would not like seeing their idols like Carlsen or Pogonina trying to sell beverages or credit cards on TV, but oh well i guess this is better than relying on governments or millionaire enthusiasts.

Yeah, one of those rare wealthy writers, and a poet yet. I thought he was vice president of the company (or like that), as I try to remember.

the richest chess grandmaster is David Norwood (approx Elo 2550). He is a multi millionaire (in UK pounds)

However, most of his earnings have come from stocks and shares, not chess. It is a shame.

 The main drawback is that 99% of people who surfed in on a high level chess game on TV would not understand it.  Most companies are just as happy having a talking lizard or leprechaun pitching their product . . . and (with obvious deference to ms.  Pogonina), have you taken a good look at most top level chess players?

Sadly, chess arose to prominence in a climate of veiled hostility.  It was a good vehicle to get behind in the 'us vs them' of the cold war, we just don't have (nor need) the kind of nationalism that created the chess boom anymore.  The money followed the pride out the door.

 There's no money in chess except for the top caliber,book author and world champions. Juts make it as a hobby not a profession.

A large % of chess " professionals " make most of their money teaching I would think. The professionals I know personally all have students , some have only private students, some teach in the schools and some do both.

This is why chess will never become mass market in the sense you are suggesting.  Its simply not for everyone.  The proles prefer mind numbing stuff like Pop Idol.

The reason Poker is broadcast is because the proles like most things to do with gambling.

I have always heard that it is incredibly hard to make a living from chess.  Those who can do it from prize money alone are incredibly few.  A modestly larger number can turn a living by coaching, writing books (although I have also heard that the financial return vs. time invested on writing chess books is pretty dismal) playing simuls, writing articles, etc.  I dont thing any of them are getting rich.

You are incredibly mistaken if you think that the poker that is broadcast(Texas Hold'em mostly as well as Omaha) aren't games that require mastery of the game through memorization, pattern recognition, and intelligence.

I do not deny that poker is a very skilled game.  The great John Scarne claimed that poker was more complex with bridge.  The main difference is that Poker is vaguely illecit, and thus vaguely sexy.  Poker is associated with cowboys, Bret Maverick, Las Vegas, gangsters.  Its also more associated with gambling, and thus money.  Easy, fast, free money. (Not that is easy, fast or free in reality, but I makes a great fantasy, "I'm going to go to Vegas and break the bank!!")

Chess, at least in American culture, is about as far from sexy as you can get.  Its just not a part of mainstream culture, and is mysterious to those who do not know the ins and outs of the game.

Poker is also a much faster game, and thus better for spectators.  The percentage of the general public that will sit still and watch a grandmaster ponder a move for 15 minutes is pretty slim.  If I had a company that was considering sponsoring an event I think that money would be better spent on poker, as it would likely reach more people for my advertising dollar.

You can't run someone out of a chessgame like you can a poker hand.Either you have it or you don't.The best player for that game usually wins.Draws are like split pots.Both players have to stay in to get that split.Its a whole lot easier to fire a bluff in a poker game and win with a lesser hand than it is to beat a better chess player.I have a lot better chance of winning the WSOP than I do of becoming a chessmaster.I can still dream though.

Poker may have been like that in the past, but it's mainstream now and quite safe. The reasons for poker's greater popularity on TV have little to do with its shady past. These are the main reasons as I see them:

- more social game with banter and visible tension 

- easier to grasp basics and a sense of control since the audience can see everyone's cards 

- faster format 

- high stakes, some cash game poker shows have more than a million dollars transferred in a single hand and some tournaments award almost 10 million dollars to first place

Chess isn't poker and changing it too much to fit TV may just take away its essence. It's mostly in the presentation. Great games can be broadcast later with knowledgeable and dynamic commentators who can explain the main themes clearly. It's also important to emphasize what the game meant for each player and how he must have felt at various points etc. There has to be a sense of meaning and importance.