Does money buy success?

[Alex Holowczak]

Returning the discussion to chess, is there anything from the American sports structure - or British come to that - that could be implemented in team chess in some way?

I guess when the 4NCL was originally set up, it could have adopted the US system. It could sell its franchises to various sponsors who would invest in team compositions of their choosing. Sponsors were presumably more readily available (relatively speaking) in those days. You could then keep it to (say) 12 teams playing 11 matches, without promotion or relegation. They could have invited players from around the world to play in it, and the franchises would then approach players to sign for their team. This might have been good for the money side of it. You could create quite a market for players services. You could then have the amateurs playing underneath in what we now have as the 4NCL in order to provide the mass for the hotels to back it. Far riskier to do it that way though!

[Roger de Coverly]

Returning the discussion to chess, is there anything from the American sports structure - or British come to that - that could be implemented in team chess in some way?

One change would be to give all teams competing on Saturday afternoons outside of the 4NCL an equal chance of winning by allowing them equal access to the potential pool of players.

[Malcolm Clarke]

Returning to some of the postings made earlier in the day, I should mention that with reference to Loz Cooper's comment in reply to my posting, that my experience of clubs strengthening their teams in the Southampton Chess League is to bring in players already playing in the Portsmouth and Bournemouth Leagues. Such players are more likely to have further to travel, other chess commitments that are greater priority to them, and are more likely to be approached to play for teams, than to approach the team themselves.

I do not think though that strengthening in this way should necessarily reduce the number of games other players in the club can play. When the A and B team of my club were both promoted in the same season, I strengthened the A team at the top end, gave the previous season's lower A team boards regular games at the top end of the B team (where they had marginally more difficult opponents than the previous season), and created a C team, with players able to play the whole season on both the lower boards of the B team, and the higher boards of the C team.

With respect to Jonathan Bryant's comments about Southampton football club, I live in the area and can vouch for the fact that their relegation battles have been exciting, especially in 1996/97 under Graeme Souness and 1998/99 under David Jones. Southampton did get into Europe after being losing F A Cup finalists to Arsenal in 2003, and that season finished 8th in the Premiership. As things stand at present teams can qualify for Europe as a result of finishing 7th (ignoring back door entry).

Unfortunately after a good start to the following season, they finished that season poorly, and the season after that saw them relegated.

[Mark Howitt]

It's your own fault for spending so much time on a game you're not good enough to get paid for.

[Malcolm Clarke]

I expect that the last comment is not intended to be taken too seriously, but it is certainly fair to say that if in chess or any other sport or pastime for that matter, people only devoted a lot of time and energy to that activity, if they were good enough to earn a living from it, then the adverse effects would be considerable.

[Mark Howitt]

It was serious.

Why whine about 'money buying success'? It's just negative. Much better to get better at that activity- but if there's such a clear gap between you and the top players, and you still feel the need to whine, do something else.

[Adam Raoof]

Just to add my own opinion to this thread.

A. Not necessarily.

I don't object to people paying titled players (if they ask for a fee) to participate in their club or other teams - we need to support our titled players for the job they do. That is an internal matter for each club to resolve.

I can think of many examples of players who have spent far more time than is justifiable on studying and playing chess, to the detriment of their studies. I can also think of many really talented players who have had to give up hope of making it their career because the rewards were so minimal.

I would rather support talented players than make it harder for them to play.

[matt_ward]

Just to add my own opinion to this thread.

A. Not necessarily.

I don't object to people paying titled players (if they ask for a fee) to participate in their club or other teams - we need to support our titled players for the job they do. That is an internal matter for each club to resolve.

I can think of many examples of players who have spent far more time than is justifiable on studying and playing chess, to the detriment of their studies. I can also think of many really talented players who have had to give up hope of making it their career because the rewards were so minimal.

I would rather support talented players than make it harder for them to play.

Adam was I one of those talented players?

Haha

[Phil Makepeace]

Resurrecting this thread with some thoughts.

[John Upham]

Resurrecting this thread with some thoughts.

Welcome to the Berkshire League Phil!

For full details of this epic match see http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20112012

I am considering allowing each game in each match to be optionally uploaded by either of the players as a playable game.

Would players take advantage of this functionality?

[JamesMurphy]

I saw this thread and I had to laugh...

Money and chess have never really been bed pals. There is no money in chess. The reason I chose to turn my back on chess for 8 years and concentrate on my studies is because you cannot make a decent living from it. You simply can't. Even if you sold chess books unless you became a no#1 bestseller with every book you sold being a hit and win a majority of competitions you entered (let's say every other weekend [still not likely though]) it still wouldn't pay enough.

Funding in chess just doesn't have the same commercial interest as other sports. Chess isn't a game you can observe (like football, tennis, snooker even darts!) and immediately get what's going on. Even those you know the basic rules don't fully appreciate the beauty in the game.

So the fact that teams may even 'pay' for players to play just to win a league where there's no real incentive aside from a trophy is laughable. You don't play chess for money; you play for the thrill, the fun, the enjoyment of it.

But sure in answer to this thread if you pump enough money into something to buy talent eventually you will gain success. Sure you might not still always be the best (depending on how much your rivals can spend) but you'll definitely score some success. Just look at Manchester City - enough money will buy success sure.

But there is no money in chess apart from maybe for the top 100 players.

Even then I doubt many of them make that much. Players like Carlsen etc are the exception because they are marketable characters but many many chess players simply are not marketable. They tend to lack a certain charisma required to be promotable.

[Richard Bates]

You don't play chess for money

I think professionals do. By definition. The reasons they choose it as their career may be for many reasons other than maximising the amount of money they can earn, but once chosen playing for money is what they do.

What constitutes "no money" is something of a subjective judgement.

[John Upham]

But there is no money in chess apart from maybe for the top 100 players.

James,

Are you confining your thoughts to players only or do your comments extend to include the entire chess industry and associated services?

I know a large number of persons who make a living from chess. Some of them are players and some are players with other chess activities in their portfolio.

[JamesMurphy]

Just found this quote and thought it might be useful to back up my arguments (see http://www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1885)

GM Mark Hebden, who is only around the 2500 elo range, has for years earned his living teaching and by winning weekend congresses. He told me he earns about £20,000-£25,000 a year. I should also add that this is not a wage with any certainty of how much next week will bring in.

When I was asked by IM M Pein who owns the London chess centre about writing a book for children, he confessed that even if it was a hit, I would earn only £400-£500 for the effort! Remember, that was only if it was a good seller! Books are written more for the love of chess than any idea of making money. This is why I suppose those english GMs who write, Nunn,Emms ect, also own their own publishing houses.

Also, both of the above are based on what the current position of the economy and inflation will likely hit the professional chess player much harder than it will hit the average worker simply because chess players MUST travel to earn money and noone will be subsidising them. So I guess you have to take off any expenses from the above earnings.

I understand what I've said is a little controversial (and I've made quite a few statements on here that have provoked). But honestly the reason why there aren't that many top top class players in this country (and throughout the world) and the reason chess isn't as popular as it might be (especially in the UK) is because to fund the habit is incredibly expensive.

The very fact that Mark Hebden a top player in this country only earns £20-25k just goes to show players play for passion and nothing else. If teams choose to pay for players to play then fair enough I think they're entitled to. Not that I think it's right but in a world run by capitalism where people have to eat and earn a living I think it's not something altogether unexpected.

[kishanpattni]

After 6 pages of this topic, I have not read everything and I am sure my opinion has probably been raised by someone else. I'm one of those who has nothing against titled players playing as well as being paid to play in league matches. Although I do sympathise for the frustration it may cause for the lower rated players that maybe affected in possibly not being able to play in order to accommodate these titled players, I also acknowledge many positives in the involvement of titled players. These include increasing the popularity of the club as well as giving the opposition a chance to play against a titled player. I'm sure there would be a mix of feelings. Some may feel unfortunate, whilst others such as me would see it as honour (to play a titled player).

I also agree in discussing any problems you have with your team before coming on here. I think there are some positives you can take from 1 or 2 comments I have read your team mates.

Kishan