Does money buy success?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
matt_ward
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by matt_ward » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:16 pm

Here is an example of a strong club, beating the professionals Sandhurst.

They might not win the league for the first time in division 1 if Drunken Knights play there strongest team out.

http://www.borderleague.org.uk/match_ca ... n=20102011

I don't regret to say money did not buy success.

Matt.

Congradulations to Guildford.

benedgell
Posts: 1258
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by benedgell » Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:22 pm

Matthew Turner wrote:Not sure that I am quite up to Somerset League Division 1 yet, but here is a report on my glorious appearance in Division 2 :lol:

Glastonbury 4 Yeovil 2

Also last week, the Thorns won a crucial victory at the top of Division 2 against rival title challengers Yeovil.

Team captain Ralph Carver ensured that Glastonbury put out its strongest group of players for the match, which was not only vital for league points, but a chance to take revenge for the heavy defeat suffered in the reverse fixture last December.

Strength in depth in fact proved to be the decisive feature of the contest, as it was wins on the lower boards by Dave Wood, Paul Moody and Roger Morgan that ensured the team success. So, for the moment the Thorns sit at the top of the Division 2 tree, but must wait nervously for the final results from other clubs to see if they stay there.

P.S. My fee for this one was minus £10
I heard you managed to get a draw with Patryk this time. I think such improvement deserves recognition.

Mark Josse
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 7:33 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Mark Josse » Sun Apr 17, 2011 12:38 am

[quote="matt_ward"]In my opinion money buys success in chess.

Especially the league I play in, I've now not played in ages and will not change my mind. The money in chess is making the game worse than ever. These days Clubs are having a team of paid outside professionals to win them the title.

I personally find it very upsetting that genuine members are missing out on games, and matches because of the ridiculous strength of clubs which field 4 title players in a five or six board match.

What hope does this leave?

Answer? Nothing!

This is the reason I've given up chess, and I feel many people are getting fed up with ringers playing in leagues. If you played in my league you would understand why.

Hi Matt


A lively thread you have started here

As somebody who plays a few games for Sandhurst when work allows and i like you class myself as on ordinary club player i dont think you should be too down on the paying players stuff. Firstly opportuntiy and improvement is a matter for each of us to address personally and you should be targetting board 4 in the first team as your objective . That means a mixture of 160-210 players ( drunken Knights could have an IM/GM on 4 for eg ) and this will be good chess for you.
As regards the wider issue the guys you mention getting paid are all teamates of yours and you should be tapping into them and getting games along side them gaining experience
Rendle, Wells and Pert are all good guys and would help you with your chess if you asked them. They have all played for Sandhurst a long time and when i have played all made we welcome . If you dont like your board pick and choose whats right for you and dont play some matches talk to Tom and Nick and Alec and tell them what you want from it
Titled players enjoy chess as much as the next person and at the end of the day some of these guys are at the top of their profession and in most other walks of life or sport would be renumerated a little more.
You are young enough to improve rapidly and i would urge you to keep playing you could in the next few years play in some masters events and be seeking norms and without the Pro Players still playing there would not be the opportunities for guys like you to get where you want to be ao maybe look at the bigger picture if it helps.
Dont worry about how much the food cost on the other guys plate you never know one day you might be eating it yourself !

Good Luck with it all

John Upham
Posts: 5151
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by John Upham » Thu May 05, 2011 11:22 pm

Another interesting "match" result for you :

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... tureid=132 :D
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Carol Williams
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:27 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Carol Williams » Thu May 05, 2011 11:33 pm

It is important to remember that you can only play against the team fielded.

Peter enjoyed seeing Ivor again and just resisted the offer of KFC - perhaps if the offer had been made prior to the game the result may have been different!!

Thomas Rendle
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:31 am

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Thomas Rendle » Fri May 06, 2011 12:18 am

Interesting to note that in the last two Sandhurst vs Camberley matches Camberley have fielded a severely weakened team in one (tonight) and defaulted the other match.
Which team is it that is bringing the league into disrepute? Especially when the plan is then to boast about your antics on the ECF forum and facebook. :?

Alan Burke

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Alan Burke » Fri May 06, 2011 2:11 am

I can appreciate both sides of the discussion here. If clubs want to spend money on players' wages then so be it and players should not be prevented from taking part just because of their own personal success - the problem is when they overload their team with such players. Many of these players are brought in from afar when the need arises and take the places of those who are long-serving club members.

Perhaps some form of 'salary cap' needs to be imposed to prevent any particular club from just buying success, or perhaps a ''grading cap'' so that the total gradings for any particular team must not rise above a certain level.

The above idea would only refer to players 'brought in' to play, whilst genuine players of a club (eg Having been a member for a minimum amount of time) would obviously be exempt from the system. For example, 3Cs have won the Manchester League for the past several years, but rather than having to pay players for that success, the team have all 'come through the ranks' and benefited from the ongoing coaching system in place at the club.

John Upham
Posts: 5151
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by John Upham » Fri May 06, 2011 8:23 am

Thomas Rendle wrote:Interesting to note that in the last two Sandhurst vs Camberley matches Camberley have fielded a severely weakened team in one (tonight) and defaulted the other match.
Which team is it that is bringing the league into disrepute? Especially when the plan is then to boast about your antics on the ECF forum and facebook. :?
To be fair to the Team Captain (Colin Lyne) he did attempt to field the strongest team possible but Ca (since the 2004 split) only has a small pool of amateur players who play for fun.

During the months of April/May many players go off and do other things. As SBL Fixtures Coordinator I scheduled the matches towards the front of the season so as to reduce the effect of April/May on the strength of teams but this match is a cup match in the Berkshire League.

We do not have any (and the consensus in the club is not to want to have any) means of paying players.

If another club wishes to spend money in order to beat Camberley (or any other club in the League) then that decision is theirs and theirs alone : no-one has asked or required them to do so.

Colin rang almost everyone (apart from myself) asking if they could play in the match and the resultant team was the one that played.

I played no part in the team selection (other than not to be available due to table tennis commitments).

I even encouraged one of my students to play and he tells me that he enjoyed the experience and thanked me this morning.
British Chess News : britishchessnews.com
Twitter: @BritishChess
Facebook: facebook.com/groups/britishchess :D

Thomas Rendle
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:31 am

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Thomas Rendle » Fri May 06, 2011 11:05 am

That all sounds very reasonable John. However, although I can understand the difficulty of getting a team together for the match, it wasn't me who posted the match card.

I wasn't criticising the team selection merely the drawing of attention to it with the implication that Sandhurst were somehow the team at fault for doing no more than fielding it's usual group of players. Especially coupled with an (inaccurate) posting on facebook claiming to know what each of the players was paid. I'm glad to see it appears that has now been deleted (or perhaps just hidden from me)!

Thomas Rendle
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 8:31 am

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Thomas Rendle » Fri May 06, 2011 11:13 am

On a happier note the match I think was enjoyed by both sides with almost all the games being analysed afterwards so hopefully everyone took something from the match. To me this is an excellent argument in favour of strong players in matches such as these.

Nick Pert
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:26 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Nick Pert » Thu May 12, 2011 5:13 pm

John Upham wrote:Another interesting "match" result for you :

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... tureid=132 :D
John, you need to give it a rest. Everyone is bored of you moaning about Sandhurst. It has been going on for years.

The key points are:

1) Chess players in the local leagues make very little money. Most sub 2600 chess pros don't own their own home, and earn a very basic wage, but still you attack them for this, like they are in some way priviliged.

2) People who sponsor chess are fantastic, extremely generous and thoughtful people. They are in a position to help support chess players, and give generously with their time and money. They should not be criticised.

3) I am a regular for my team and have been for many seasons as are many other titled players in different leagues.

4) Some people actually quite enjoy playing against titled players / watching them play. If there was a GM in my league when I was a kid I would have been absolutely delighted with the prospect of playing them.

5) We can and do lose games / matches. The league is very strong, normally I will get a 200 strength opponent, and trust me after a days work that can be a tough prospect. You think this Camberley match is overkill, but Camberley are well capable of putting out a strong team that could give Sandhurst a good match.

6) You seem very well off, so maybe I would suggest that you put your hand in your pocket and sponsor some chess players to play for Camberly next season, instead of keeping it all for yourself and complaining if anyone else has any money.

Nevil Chan
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:20 am

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Nevil Chan » Wed May 18, 2011 8:09 pm

Nick Pert wrote:
2) People who sponsor chess are fantastic, extremely generous and thoughtful people. They are in a position to help support chess players, and give generously with their time and money. They should not be criticised.

4) Some people actually quite enjoy playing against titled players.
Totally agree. I was lucky enough to have the chance to play Nick this season, when DK2 met Wood Green in London League - actually made it to a (lost) ending! This GM lesson didn't cost me a penny...not even a pint as he had to dash after the game.

Wood Green team included five GMs and three IMs, but no Knight moans about titled opposition – certainly none from couple that managed draws against IMs.

Without sponsors like Alec and Brian, how else could club players get such an opportunity?
Nick Pert wrote: 6) You seem very well off, so maybe I would suggest that you put your hand in your pocket and sponsor some chess players to play for Camberley next season, instead of keeping it all for yourself and complaining if anyone else has any money.
I might be tempted away from DKSB for a negotiable liquid fee.
"Some people are good enough at chess to take it seriously; you are not one of them."

Mark Howitt
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Mark Howitt » Thu May 19, 2011 10:13 am

Nice to see GMs comment on these forums! From their point of view, they have to find a way to make money...

I think it'd be a much better 'chess world' if there was some way for clubs to pay strong players. After all, even an FM in the northern leagues would be regarded as a "very strong player" yet I wonder how many FMs get paid for playing league chess? Very few I'd guess. Someone of FM level would probably be the equivalent of someone who'd get a starting place in a team in the lower half of the Premier League- and they get paid tens of thousands of pounds a week even if they don't play. Guess that's a reflection of how much society values chess.

BTW, the amount of money I got per hour writing my 'chess novel' was about 5p- and I don't think anyone on this forum has bought it. Chessplayers are a hard group to get money out of!!

Malcolm Clarke
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:53 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Malcolm Clarke » Wed May 25, 2011 8:31 am

If I was playing in a league where titled players playing the amount they were earning would not worry me, but teams doing this should be prepared to accept the democratic decisions of the league, and not think that the whole league revolved around them. I also feel that it is wrong if teams are constituted to achieve short term success, and then disband completely as soon as their star names lose interest.

However if the principles above are satisfied, and I do not know whether they are in the cases most debated on here, then it is probably a good thing that the average strength of players in the competition increases, and players get their chance to test their abilities against titled players. When I was a match captain I was always looking to strengthen my teams, and expect that other captains are the same.

With respect to Wood Green it seems they have always been a strong club. When I played in the London League in the 1980's they won the London League four times in seven seasons with Andrew Law, Graham Lee, Cliff Chandler, Malcolm Pein and Peter Sowray playing for them, and their second team playing in the lower divisions of the London League also had several strong players.

LozCooper

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by LozCooper » Wed May 25, 2011 9:01 am

Malcolm Clarke wrote: I also feel that it is wrong if teams are constituted to achieve short term success, and then disband completely as soon as their star names lose interest.
It is generally the team that stops paying as opposed to the star names losing interest.

Post Reply