Chess isn't quite as revered in the u.s. as europe or asia. Maybe in a universe where Bobby Fischer kept leading the chess craze you'd be given better treatment.
No, chess is not considered a gambling game because it's all about skill. Unlike card games where you lose by bad luck despite your skill.
Does the situation described by Van Wely, in a way he described it, can really happen in the US? In short, can somebody be deported just because he/she will say one's going to teach chess?
Thanks. Neither do I, but I just cannot imagine the authorities in my own country (how troublesome they can be) doing anything against me on the basis on chessplaying (teaching)
I suppose even if you stake money on a game, it is not gambling because luck does not, or should not, enter into it. Your opponent might make a huge blunder leading to you winning, but I still wouldn't call it gambling.
tip- Sit on your hands, chances of you making a mistake are decreased.
According to another version I have read, Van Wely was not allowed to teach/work in the USA, since he did not possess a green card.
Of course this is utterly stupid, but I do know a lot of utterly stupid things the authorities are doing- and I won't limit that to the US ones.
It was not because of a green card it was because he did not have a work visa. They are different.
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2012/07/gm-van-wely-got-detained-handcuffed-and.html
As per your usual, your 'facts' are wrong again.
Stick to your forte: using engines to analyze chess games.
There's nothing "stupid" about countries having work permit systems. They are there to protect the existing work force and to ensure that outsiders only get jobs in these countries, when the home work force cannot provide anybody suitable for the relevant job. Incidentally, US Green Cards are for non US national full time residents of that country - they are not work permits, as such, although holders may take employment in the USA.
I am an avid poker player, and the ARizona Dept of Gaming has been cracking down on all the gray market "social gambling" poker rooms because of the benefit obtained by operators or other third parties.
So does anyone have any idea how the US Open Chess tournament, arguably a game of intellectual skill, can conduct a $200 buyin tournament with a projected $50K cash prize pool?
This is happening in Arizona August 1-9. Arizona is one of those handful of states that always seem to be excluded in national contests or sweepstakes that require any sort of entry fee or purchase. That's because Arizona's definition of gambling can include both games of predominantly skill or chance. Arizona's method of allowing people to gamble on games of skill is to specifically exclude skill games for athletic ability, intellectual ability or general skill with prizes of minimal value. Certainly not the $10K first place cash prize as in the US Open Chess championship.
Google ARS 13-3301 if you wanna help me out... Arizona's intellectual and skill exclusions are listed under Amusement Gambling's definition.
How is the US Open not considered illegal gambling? Which exclusion applies?
How is the US Open not considered illegal gambling? Which exclusion applies?
xxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm not sure any of them do.
That statute is written quite poorly, and the intellectual contest exception seems to be limited to product promotion. I have no clue at all what that exception would cover:
xxxxx
The gambling is an intellectual contest or event, the money paid to gamble is part of an established purchase price for a product, no increment has been added to the price in connection with the gambling event and no drawing or lottery is held to determine the winner or winners.
xxxxx
There may be caselaw that cuts through the gibberish and gives a clearer picture favorable to the event, but based on these definitions I'd hope the organizers have at least consulted with local counsel. I doubt the local law enforcement would want to take action, but I've seen dumber things happen.
> I'm not sure any of them [Arizona's gambling exclusions] do [apply]".
There may be caselaw that cuts through the gibberish and gives a clearer picture favorable to the event, but based on these definitions I'd hope the organizers have at least consulted with local counsel. I doubt the local law enforcement would want to take action, but I've seen dumber things happen.
Prosecutorial discretion should protect the US Open, which is older than the STate of ARizona. But it shouldn't allow the police agency, the department of gaming and the sworn peace officers and attorneys employed their, from conducting an informal and discreet investigation that gathered enough evidence to warrant the unsolicited opinion as a response to the complaint... specifically "that the conference and championship do not fall within Arizona's statutory definition of illegal gambling.".
"When I dedicated a year to playing mostly poker, I thought I would earn millions. That didn't happen. Despite that my love to another game than chess is still with me; and I don't consider poker to be based only on luck.
Anyway, you won't see me in Las Vegas anymore (laughs). Last time I flew to New York I was asked the main purpose of my journey. I said that apart everything else I was going to teach chess. The strangest thing is that chess in US is considered to be a hobby or gambling rather than a form of activity. Really? Did you come here for teaching chess? They treated me as if I was some criminal, I was put in a jail cell. I was searched thoroughly. They checked if I had a rope for, if you please, preventing me from hurting myself. I spent a night in the jail cell and the next morning I was deported to the Netherlands.
Now I'm persona non grata in US. This summer I'm planning to go to Australia and play poker there."
From: http://chess-news.ru/en/node/10894