Does money buy success?

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

Does money buy success?

Post by matt_ward » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:04 pm

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.

Here are a few examples: http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011.

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011

http://www.berkshirechess.org.uk/match_ ... n=20102011 This match card is the funniest one, and money only just brought success. It probably costed the club about 400- 500 to win this match.

Unfortunately Basingstoke just lost on board count unfair really.

Let me know your views on this topic. :D :D :D :D :D :) :) :P :P

Matt.

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4166
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:44 pm

I'd love it if Barnstaple splashed the cash and brought in a GM to play in the Bideford-Barnstaple match. Nothing against Steve Clarke and Peter Marriott, but I wouldn't mind some stronger opposition locally.

Graham Borrowdale

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Graham Borrowdale » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:50 pm

Matt,
All I will say is don't lose heart. You are obviously a strong club/county player, and if you can not get into your club's 1st team because they are too strong, then try their 2nd team, or find another club. Chess clubs exist so that people can play chess, and that includes GMs and IMs as well as the rest of us. Believe me, there is very little money in chess, and the situation you describe is, I believe, very rare.

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

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Thomas Rendle » Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:52 pm

Firstly Matt the amount of money you believe is being paid is completely wrong. Secondly the players are clearly not ringers - they are regular players for the club (and are not just brought in for the strongest matches).

Thirdly I was (maybe am) considering you as a possible player for the first team next season as you had a good year for the 2nd team - if you really feel this way then I guess you don't want to play in the team?

Obviously money can buy success in chess - just as it can in almost every other sport.

User avatar
Joey Stewart
Posts: 1228
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: All Of Them
Contact:

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Joey Stewart » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:05 pm

Masters like to play too, you know. Its not that they are some sort of an inhuman terminating machine that can be bought by the highest bidder to do their dirty work - some of them have even been known to play league matches for free ( or, at the least, quite cheaply compared to the rates they might demand for an international event)

It should serve as a bit of encouragement to everybody - I would love to get paid to play chess, but as it is I am still working on that goal and am unlikely to reach it. Its still a good fun game anyway, so dont get too disheartened by seeing masters in yoru league - even if you do have the misfortune of playing them you only stand to lose 10 rating points which is not the end of the world - I would certainly be willing to sacrifice such a small about for a good instructive game against a strong opponent.
Lose one queen and it is a disaster, Lose 1000 queens and it is just a statistic.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7627
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:08 pm

Joey Stewart wrote:Masters like to play too, you know. Its not that they are some sort of an inhuman terminating machine that can be bought by the highest bidder to do their dirty work - some of them have even been known to play league matches for free ( or, at the least, quite cheaply compared to the rates they might demand for an international event)

It should serve as a bit of encouragement to everybody - I would love to get paid to play chess, but as it is I am still working on that goal and am unlikely to reach it. Its still a good fun game anyway, so dont get too disheartened by seeing masters in yoru league - even if you do have the misfortune of playing them you only stand to lose 10 rating points which is not the end of the world - I would certainly be willing to sacrifice such a small about for a good instructive game against a strong opponent.
In this case, Matt appears to not be playing against the masters, but somewhere down the bottom of the team they are in. The team I play for in the London League has been lucky enough to have an IM play on board one on some occasions, though sadly my results on board 2 or 3 have not improved. However, having the titled player there is very useful in other ways, especially in post-game analysis.

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3279
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:58 pm

matt_ward wrote: ... If you played in my league you would understand why.
I very much doubt 'your' league - or team - is 'worse' in this sense than the London League.

Wood Green clearly win the London League because they (actually I suspect 'he' is more appropriate) invest the most money.

Unlike you, though, I don't see it as a problem. Mercenaries in the London League? For sure - but it makes the league stronger. When I saw that match you listed my reaction was not "what an outrage", but "I wished I played for Basingstoke".

I can't believe that players my strength get a chance to play titled players 1 on 1. What an opportunity.

Alan Walton
Posts: 1338
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Alan Walton » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:52 pm

Matt, I presume you have heard the saying "dont wash your dirty laundry in public".

Maybe it would have been good to have a word with your team mates first about you misgivings around team selection, before shouting to all and sundry on this site, alot of people might think twice having a person who openly discusses his own teams problems on a internet forum in there own team, I would think twice, and wave you on your way

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19347
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:04 am

If it isn't totally obvious ... in league play

If you want strong opposition, play for a weak team in a strong division

If you want weak opposition, play for a strong team in a weak division.

If you want "training" play for a team with a trainer on one of the top boards.

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

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Thomas Rendle » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:09 am

And if you just want attention then post on the ECF forum? :oops:
Last edited by Thomas Rendle on Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Christopher Kreuzer
Posts: 7627
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 2:34 am
Location: London

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Christopher Kreuzer » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:49 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:If it isn't totally obvious ... in league play

If you want strong opposition, play for a weak team in a strong division

If you want weak opposition, play for a strong team in a weak division.

If you want "training" play for a team with a trainer on one of the top boards.
That is fair enough, but is there a way to ensure a variety of opponents?

I've been looking over the games I've played over the last four years (or so) and realised that in some cases I've played several people 2-3 times each. While it can be interesting to continue a theoretical duel (if both players are sufficiently alert to remember what was played last year or the year before, assuming the colours are not different), it can be a bit depressing to see the same faces coming up time and time again. A less cynical attitude would be that this is how friendships can start (though passing acquaintance is a better term in some cases). And the answer is probably to play weekend chess if you want more variety.

It makes me wonder though, if it is possible for a very active player to go a whole season playing people that they have never played before. Probably not possible unless you deliberately switch to a different league and move to a different part of the country (if any of my opponents are reading this, don't take offence - think of it more as me wanting to play my pet opening lines against people who haven't seen it all before).

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19347
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Roger de Coverly » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:35 am

Christopher Kreuzer wrote:It makes me wonder though, if it is possible for a very active player to go a whole season playing people that they have never played before
Getting increasingly difficult. You can change from playing a low board in a strong team to playing a high board in a weak team ( even within the same club if a second team gets promoted). This can give variety unless other local players do the same.

In the 4NCL or tournaments it gets very difficult. I expected to face Simon Williams with white in round 2 at Sunningdale last Spring Bank Holiday. As it happened I had misinterpreted the pairing rules so I got the other grandmaster ( the one who wasn't Keith). Simon had to wait to round 4. At Hastings, similar pairing rules and rating differences gave me white against Simon in round 2. Amongst my other repeated opponents have been Matthew Webb (just as well I didn't go to Aix les Bains).

Even in Foreign tournaments you can run into the same people if you play every year and your relative ratings fit the pairings.

John Sargent
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 12:18 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by John Sargent » Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:22 am

Given that the players you 'highlight' in the links you provide are regulars for the team, I fail to see how they are 'ringers'.

Secondly, airing this in front of your teammates in public (and on an internet forum of all places :roll:)? I cannot speak for your team captain but as one myself I believe attitude is just as important as strength in team selection, and should one of my own team do similar I would consider playing a weaker (but more agreeable) player than them if selection allows.

matt_ward
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by matt_ward » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:00 am

"John Sargent"]Given that the players you 'highlight' in the links you provide are regulars for the team, I fail to see how they are 'ringers'.

John regarding the above you say, the point I'm making is for example one of the GM's comes from swindon, I could understand if they were all local. In contrary to this my definition "of ringers", is as follows: in sports idiom, an impostor, especially one whose pretense is intended to gain an advantage in a competition.

This is what I see it as and what is happening. Plus all title players don't have to pay a sub, can this be fair?!

Maybe I'm being harsh but I think I've got a point to be honest. :( :( :( :shock: :shock:

Paul Buswell
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:56 pm

Re: Does money buy success?

Post by Paul Buswell » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:39 am

matt_ward wrote:"John Sargent"]Given that the players you 'highlight' in the links you provide are regulars for the team, I fail to see how they are 'ringers'.

John regarding the above you say, the point I'm making is for example one of the GM's comes from swindon, I could understand if they were all local. In contrary to this my definition "of ringers", is as follows: in sports idiom, an impostor, especially one whose pretense is intended to gain an advantage in a competition.

This is what I see it as and what is happening. Plus all title players don't have to pay a sub, can this be fair?!

Maybe I'm being harsh but I think I've got a point to be honest. :( :( :( :shock: :shock:
Then why not go along to your Club AGM and try to pass a resolution that every player for every team must have paid the normal sub? Or whatever resolutions you think fit these particular circumstances? Or replace those Club officers whose policy on team selection you disagree with?

PB

Post Reply