Millionaire Chess 3

A few have tried to be helpful. Some of the regular posters, like Richie, I only see drool over every failure -- both real and imagined.

But I haven't read the thousands of posts. Just going by what I see when I click on these every now and then.

A typical comment:

"Did you see the number of pre-entries? Amy Lee and Maurice Ashlee are as full of shit as 50 horses!"

Maurices idea of increasing price funds dramatically to promote chess is nonsensical. Price funds are normally determined by spectator count and overall popularity of a game or sport. Obviously chess is too complicated to be accessible for any amateur player. Even when explained only deep understanding makes it possible to fully appreciate the moves super grandmasters make.

Thus the idea of increasing the prize fund is built on quick sand. There isnt the interest nor the possibility to increase interest in such tournaments. Thus prize funds cant increase. Its like putting the cart in front of the horse. You first need to increase the popularity of chess before you can increase the price fund. Or to put it in another way: Maurice is trying to copy the outer styling of a pro golf, tennis, soccer or other popular event, i.e. a high price fund, without actually increasing the specs of the motor, i.e. spectator count and popularity.

It is a incredibly stupid idea.

That is the gist of it pvdl. A grassroots approach, 1st creating a substantial base of new players combined with keeping the interest of established players, followed by tournaments assured of good participation. This model is quite successful in Europe at the present. Low entry fees, small payouts to amatures. They are able to find corp. Sponsors to payout the big sums to the professionals. If a player moves up the ranks they earn the privalege to play for their keep as a professional. Imo, huge payouts to hobby players is detrimental in the long run.

How many players at this point in time are intentionally losing games to sandbag their rating; knowing MC3 is 6 month's away? 60 rated games are now reguired. New players most likely will not invest the time and money to travel out of town to meet the reguirement. They will play local, club tournaments. End up playing the same players quite often. The temptation for a group of players to "fix" their rating, much lower than their real skill level is very tempting. Sandbagging has always occurred and can not be regulated or stopped, no matter what the MC spin tells us.

I also suggest a prize fund should be based on the # of entries. Guaranteed payouts are fine but should be based on the absolute lowest amount of entries.

Offering a million dollars as "bait" to attract players away from other established events was previously said as "putting the cart before the horse."

Another silly idea Maurice has put forth is to decrease the time per game a chess player has in order to increase the popularity of chess.

The reason why this is silly is that it again basically makes a cosmetic change, without addressing the fundamental issue, i.e. that chess is too complicated to be appreciated by large numbers of people. Even amateurs who play regularly cant appreciate super grandmaster games while they are in action, despite being given a helping hand by professional commentators.

Since you cant change the difficulty of chess, it will be doomed to be a niche game. And even more niche are the tournaments, which even regular amateur players cant bare to watch, as they dont understand the games unfolding infront of them.

Oh yeah, now I remember these points.

Yeah, I agree. Chess will never be a spectator sport and I think it's a big (and idiotic) mistake to try to make it one. For example by decreasing the time controls.

So yeah, it does seem fundamentally flawed.

As far as I'm concerned, once they let Nakamara come in and and run off with the money after a 9-move draw, that was the end of any appeal the event might have had. I always said the GMs would come swooping in and milk the patzers and the organizers - and they did - but I didn't expect the tournament to flout its own rules just to cravenly give a pretentious grandmaster all the marbles. 

That was the end of any credibility they might have had. The class-level sandbagging, the ridiculous promotion of gambling environments as a benefit, and the constant drumbeat of cash worship were bad enough, but dropping trou to Nakamura was the death knell. 

I don't know what the best way to handle it would have been. But this was one of my first thoughts (about the Naka draw).

Tell them you wont count that game, and they can either play another game or it will be counted as a double forfeit. Very simple, no arguing required.

Sure they could just wink at each other and play some known 40 move draw, but at least you wouldn't have taken a dump all over your own tournament.

I think it was good that Naka has shown that the law of chess comes before the tournament rules.

Even Fischer said that for GMs is easy to combine a draw in 40 moves, they might as well do it in 12. 

Personnaly I wrote to MC and propose separate the rules of chess from other rules. I suggest to do an extra tournement rule in order to reduce the price to everyone who draw in less 40 moves or for those who give impression to agree a draw, in this case the organization can reduce any award.

Then we'll see if GMs will want to agree a draw in their match.

I'm of the opposing view regarding draws between GM'S. Draws have always been and will be a part of the game. If the professionals agree to a draw early on I have no issue. This is because I do not see chess as sport existing for spectators and the general public. Certainly not for media/television etc. The events are not for OUR entertainment. They exists for the professionals to pit their skills vs each other. Each player his his own best interests in mind. If a draw is the desired result, so be it. Attempts to regulate draws only lead to problems.

Nakamura and his opponent used their option to reach a draw under fide rules. MC arbitrary rules were not approved by the sanctioning body fide which governed the event. They knew this. Maurice did not. He thought he could regulate draws and "make up" a rule to suit his vision of "chess for television" and his $ greed.

Maurice spent 90 minutes after the incident calling other chief arbiters around the world pleading his case to nullify the game.(apparantly MC chief arbiter agreed with Naka and McShane). He finally backed down after being told he didn't have a leg to stand on.

I understand they signed a contract. Nowhere in the contract was repitition by 3 fold position covered. They used a loophole to circumvent Maurices' misguided attempts at being above the players. Good for them I say.

Organizers sometimes (even often?) alter or add some rules.

Spectators indirectly pay the GMs through sponsors... although I suppose in the case of MC it's Amy Lee's money.

0110001101101000 wrote:

Organizers sometimes (even often?) alter or add some rules.

Spectators indirectly pay the GMs through sponsors... although I suppose in the case of MC it's Amy Lee's money.

All correct but ...

So ?

The professionals play to test their skills vs.each other. Not a single one I dare say plays to please the fans or sponsors.

If the point comes where the professionals no longer attract sponsors and fan support (because of too many draws ?) then changes will have to be made if events are to continue.

There is a big distinction between round robin, limited participants and swiss events and how draws effect results.

It is very difficult to win vs equal GM'S if one player is playing to draw only. Risks often need be taken, at the risk of losing. Why should 1 player be forced into playing to win when a draw would be adequate to maintain their place in the standings?

To satisfy the public's thirst for wins? To appease promoters in their quest for more $ ?

Chess is a niche sport.  Things like speeding the game up, etc. isnt going to increase its popularity.  Leave the game alone.  If draws bother you, then maybe the game isnt for you.  If a game that lasts 5+ hours bores you, then chess isnt for you.

"Winning is the goal".... this is promoters hype. A spin that it appears the public has bought into.

It starts with greedy promoters attempts to suck chess players of their $.

Draws have always been a part of chess. As the top players get even better and the new upcoming ones are matching their skills, even more draws can be expected.

My goal is actually to have fun.  I dont buy into this nike mentality of:

Go big or go home.  I guess Amy Lee needs to go home, but didnt.

Just do it. What does that even mean???  

That big dog leading thingy, or stay on the porch.  

No pain, no gain.  

Just a bunch of dumb slogans that people gravitate to for some reason.

Noone wins a tournament just by drawing - in the end you always need a better score than the others. So while I don't enjoy watching a 9-move draw, it's not a huge deal to me either.

Just ask Giri how useful all those draws were in candidates. 14 draws out of 14 games just isn't good enough to win.

0110001101101000 wrote:

Organizers sometimes (even often?) alter or add some rules.

Spectators indirectly pay the GMs through sponsors... although I suppose in the case of MC it's Amy Lee's money.

Maurice added his rules

But failed to have his interpretation approved by Fide, the sanctioning body for the open section, rendering them invalid . He can legally make such rules and enforce them in the class sections, as it was sanctioned by the USCF giving him the authority.

Just another example of mismanagement, lack of forsight and preperation by MC as a whole.

>the law of chess<

Yes, given to Kirzhan the Mighty, etched in fine alabaster...from the Great Spirit of Alekhine, the biggest chess creep of them all...

This go around the slogan is ....

It's go time !

>I'm of the opposing view regarding draws between GM'S. Draws have always been and will be a part of the game<

Your view will quickly modify if we go back to the good old drawmaster days, when players would sit down and shake hands, and then go off the scoreboard to mark their half point. 

You just have a different squeal point. If ten GM games at MC were all played under 10-moves and drawn, you'd whistle another tune. Just because it was only once, and just because it was Nakamura, doesn't change the fact that it was a crappy dodge. 

But chess is filled with this kind of gamesmanship...MC promised that it wouldn't happen here. And we ALL KNOW that if this was some 1800-rated player, he could have sat on his cell phone for two hours with the satraps at FIDE, and MC still would have refused him. This was a celebrity suck-up.