09 Apr '14 14:58>
Originally posted by woodypusherIf they are offering this type of prize money, in what sense is anyone entering an amateur?
http://en.chessbase.com/post/1-000-000-open-tournament-announced
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAwMA8e5lXo
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIn what sense? Maybe if they don't make a living playing chess. Maybe if they never made any money previously playing chess. What difference does it make?
If they are offering this type of prize money, in what sense is anyone entering an amateur?
And prizes at this level for non-expert chess players?
This looks badly misjudged to me.
Originally posted by woodypusherWhy do you think we have amateur status in almost all sports if it is not important?
In what sense? Maybe if they don't make a living playing chess. Maybe if they never made any money previously playing chess. What difference does it make?
It's great for chess for many reasons. This kind of prize fund hopefully will draw national coverage from the media and increase interest in our game. Many super grand masters might enter, the way t ...[text shortened]... be big for chess. And that's what it's about, not about in what sense is anyone an amateur, etc.
The very first event, which boasts a million dollars in prizes, is being billed as a game-changer for a sport that has been struggling to capitalize on its huge fan base of amateur players.
“Chess is ready for this kind of bold undertaking,” says Maurice Ashley, an International Grandmaster and a partner at Millionaire Chess, the company hosting the event. “The game has seen a dramatic uptick in interest recently, and this tournament is designed to ride that wave. With the incredible explosion of scholastic chess as well as the massive increase in the number of online players, we believe there is an opportunity to capture huge market share.”
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOne mil doesn't mean that's what the winner gets, obviously it would be split up, say first place gets 100 thou and second 50 thou and so forth, with money going to various levels, under 1800, under 1400 and so forth.
[quote]The very first event, which boasts a million dollars in prizes, is being billed as a game-changer for a sport that has been struggling to capitalize on its huge fan base of amateur players.
“Chess is ready for this kind of bold undertaking,” says Maurice Ashley, an International Grandmaster and a partner at Millionaire Chess, the company host ...[text shortened]... market share' and 'capitalizing' on the fan base is not what this should be about for amateurs.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe prize money is set out in the link, so I was aware of that it was not a million dollars for the winner. In fact, I don't have any problem with running a tournament for Super GMs with a 'winner takes all' million dollar prize.
One mil doesn't mean that's what the winner gets, obviously it would be split up, say first place gets 100 thou and second 50 thou and so forth, with money going to various levels, under 1800, under 1400 and so forth.
It sounds to me like there will be a lot more money for every level so it can't be a bad thing.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderAre you saying it would just load up with dudes who purposely lower their rating to get into say, an 1800 level when their real rating is 2200?
The prize money is set out in the link, so I was aware of that it was not a million dollars for the winner. In fact, I don't have any problem with running a tournament for Super GMs with a 'winner takes all' million dollar prize.
I just don't agree with introducing high levels of money into competitions for lowly graded amateurs.
If this were go ...[text shortened]... hat anyone would think introducing big money into an amateur game is automatically a good thing.
Originally posted by sonhouseThis event is using someone's highest rating over a period of months.
Are you saying it would just load up with dudes who purposely lower their rating to get into say, an 1800 level when their real rating is 2200?
I think the USCF and FIDE is on to such tricks by using the person's highest rating as the entry rating even though it might now be 300 points lower.
What other objections do you have? Are you saying there wo ...[text shortened]... e? You think an amateur should not make over 500 bucks winning his level or something like that?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI still don't see why you think this is all about amateur status. That's such a minor point. The main point is the publicity it brings to the game of CHESS. No one said amateurs are unimportant.
Why do you think we have amateur status in almost all sports if it is not important?
Changes like this make a lot of difference.
Firstly, the likelihood of cheating increases. Secondly, imagine you are on the borderline for some of the categories. Are you going to play in a non-money event just before the cut-off date and see yourself bumped up ...[text shortened]... are a great idea. But the money should just be for the pros. That's why they are called pros.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThis happens for the World Open and other such events. Sandbagging has been with us for a long time.
Why do you think we have amateur status in almost all sports if it is not important?
Changes like this make a lot of difference.
Firstly, the likelihood of cheating increases. Secondly, imagine you are on the borderline for some of the categories. Are you going to play in a non-money event just before the cut-off date and see yourself bumped up ...[text shortened]... are a great idea. But the money should just be for the pros. That's why they are called pros.
Originally posted by woodypusherI suspect the difference in our perspectives comes from the fact that I have been involved in games, like golf, where the amateur game and professional games have very clear dividing lines which are jealously protected. Chess has, as far as I can tell, never had such clear dividing lines.
I still don't see why you think this is all about amateur status. That's such a minor point. The main point is the publicity it brings to the game of CHESS. No one said amateurs are unimportant.
Are you proposing that the amateurs should not get any monetary prizes? Isn't that choice up to the amateurs themselves? If they don't want any financial gai ...[text shortened]... rld, and draw public interest and media attention so we can increase the popularity of our game.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderAgain. One more time. It's not about protecting or enforcing "amateur" status. Amateurs don't have to play if they perceive that to be the most important thing. It's not about "perspectives", "jealousy", or involvement in golf.
I suspect the difference in our perspectives comes from the fact that I have been involved in games, like golf, where the amateur game and professional games have very clear dividing lines which are jealously protected. Chess has, as far as I can tell, never had such clear dividing lines.
So, in golf in the UK, you can win up to £500 per tournament ...[text shortened]... money for amateurs, but I don't think that throwing huge money at a game is always a good thing.