English Chess Forum

I am of course about to lay into the London Classic four player event and the ridiculous prize money.

1st $120,000
2nd $ 80,000
3rd $ 60,000
4th $ 40,000

Some ham could have lost every game and walk away with $40,000 (that is now impossible and the draws have already started to pile up.).

The total prize money should be a 10th of what it is and the rest of it should be floated into grass roots Chess.

$40,000 is about £32,000 you have to win three British Titles and three week enders to match that.

These guys are not worth that kind of money. No chess player is. They are sucking the game dry.

Caruana is burnt out after his W.C. match, Aronian has got married and middle aged. MVL is a non-achiever and Nakamura has gone positional.

"If we don't put up the money then the good players won't come.'"

They are not bigger than the game. We need to throw money into the game, not at the same bunch of players time and time
again to see the same old faces play the same old faces....with the same old results....more draws....draws = dollars.

This tournament has three formats, classical, rapid and blitz. Here is how many times these players have played
each other across these formats. (figures from chessgames.com so there is a chance there might be more.)

Caruana - Aronian 64 games
Caruana - Nakamura 115 games
Caruana - Vachier-Lagrave 56 games
Nakamura - Aronian 99 games
Nakamura - Vachier-Lagrave 82 games
Aronian - Vachier-Lagrave 64 games

(figures before todays games. Caruana and Nakamura have now played 116 times. 41 times in classical chess. in 8 years!)

They won't be sick of seeing each other, not at $40,000 for coming last.
They cannot wait to meet their piggy bank chums again and again and again.
I'm beginning to think there are only 10 chess players in the world. The rest have day jobs.

If that kind of money is going about how about filtering it down to all the unpaid joes who run clubs, leagues and
keep chess going and give all local tournaments a financial boost to attract the 'good players' so the punters
(that is us who buy the books and the DVD's) can meet them, even get a chance to play them, instead of, as with
the recent W.C. match paying £55.00 to watch them for half an hour drawing with each other in a glass box.

Wrap these boring close shop gravy train tournaments up so these clowns have to play in Opens to get a sniff of the dollars.

Hang on, surely the money has been put forward by a private sponsor at a privately organised event. The sponsor can spend the money on whatever they like. Which is not to say I disagree with what you are saying but this is not public money.

Andrew Zigmond wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:03 pm

Hang on, surely the money has been put forward by a private sponsor at a privately organised event. The sponsor can spend the money on whatever they like. Which is not to say I disagree with what you are saying but this is not public money.

Quite so. And the amounts are peanuts compared to other sports - at the extreme, Lionel Messi is reckoned to earn around £1 million weekly.

I'd like to read Geoff's take on the Tiger vs. Phil match but suspect it'd be too heavily censored.

These players deserve all this private money. I suspect the sponsors get a lot of benefit too. The players give a lot of time to promote the game too.
Poker Stars have similar size prize fund tournaments & more every couple of hours.
Messi was paid not to play last night & guess what happened?

Sometimes I wonder what planet some of us are on?

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:42 am

Poker Stars have similar size prize fund tournaments & more every couple of hours.

I have assumed that it is possible to lose money as well as win it in them. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Nick Grey wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:42 am

Messi was paid not to play last night & guess what happened?

It's not at all clear that this means anything.

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 11, 2018 10:49 pm

I am of course about to lay into the London Classic four player event and the ridiculous prize money.

1st $120,000
2nd $ 80,000
3rd $ 60,000
4th $ 40,000

Some ham could have lost every game and walk away with $40,000 (that is now impossible and the draws have already started to pile up.).

Well no, there's been a qualification process, and these are the final 4; so the prize of 40K is for 4th place, not last, and the players have had to win games to get into the final 4

There are lots of things that I'd spend my money on (even within chess) rather than this, but sponsors can choose

I've just played through the Chess Mind notes on yesterday's Caruana game, which is excellent value for the £nil I have paid towards it

Hi John,

"I'd like to read Geoff's take on the Tiger vs. Phil match."

One cannot compare chess to any other sport. Nor do I care about money in other sports.

Scotland has to go threadbare cap in hand to plead for a pittance of a grant and some
loser (coming 4th in a four man event is a loser.) gets £32,000. How is that good for chess.

Hi Nick,

"These players deserve all this private money.'

Of course they deserve something but this kind of money could breed temptation for collusion
which we have all witnessed when players carve up a weekend event for a share of a poultry £1,000.
It also encourages cheating to such an extent we now have players getting scanned and sealed off.

I suspect the sponsors get a lot of benefit too."

I've no idea who the sponsors are. Honestly! If you offered £50.00 to name them then I couldn't.
(I noticed you never named them, so much for name branding.)

Hi Mick,

"...there's been a qualification process."

Primarily based on grades to get their foot in the door. Grades that get held together by playing in these
invitation only super-duper events where all the smug chums get together to draw with each other.

I'm bored rigid watching the same players play the same players at these events. I've given up on them.

Staying with Caruana and Nakamura who have met 41 times at classical chess in 8 years. Compare that with two
very active players from the past. Korchnoi and Larsen. They met just 14 times between 1964 and 1998 - 34 years.

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:04 pm

Staying with Caruana and Nakamura who have met 41 times at classical chess in 8 years. Compare that with two
very active players from the past. Korchnoi and Larsen. They met just 14 times between 1964 and 1998 - 34 years.

Without prejudice to your general argument this may not be the best example as Korchnoi's travel.opportunities were curtailed for some of this time and his invitations after it. Also wasn't Larsen resident in South America for much of your period?

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:04 pm

Of course they deserve something but this kind of money could breed temptation for collusion
which we have all witnessed when players carve up a weekend event for a share of a paltry £1,000.

Do we have any evidence that collusion in sport is particularly linked to the quantity of money available?

I can actually name a sponsor of this event this year, which is more than can be said for any previous year. Behold the Lohia Foundation.

This one?

Hi Jack,

Well done, the cheque is in the mail.

Hi Justin,

"Do we have any evidence that collusion in sport is particularly linked to the quantity of money available?"

Are you talking sport in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _incidents

Or just Chess and collusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_ ... #Collusion

"....prearrangement of results is extremely commonplace, even at the highest levels of chess."

"...deliberately losing games was "very real in the many open tournaments that are staged all over the world"

I won't use the players names who apparently said that (it is WIki and it might not be them!)

With the kind of money we are talking about now, the temptation is there. Not saying it is happening there.
But players in the past have been tempted with less.

My heading is 'Prize Money is Out of Control.' I think the money it is going in the wrong direction.

"Without prejudice to your general argument..."

Is it an argument, I am not just stating, in my own charming way, how I feel and posting it in a 'General Chat' public forum.
(at the same time expressing how I feel about the 'Here we are again...as happy as can be.' { bet they are } same faces
v same faces 'golly good friends' everyone is a £ winner tournaments.)

There are 100's of other good players knocking about but they never get a ride on the gravy train.
Even more serious and more to the point, there are players lost to the game in the UK because funding has dried up.

Scotland has a thriving primary school chess set up. (England may have as well - don't know)

What is galling is they will hit a brick wall chess wise when they get to their teens due to lack of funding.
We cannot ask parents to sub up all the time. Chess needs grass roots funding and I'm sorry but to see £32,000 getting tossed
to a chess player for coming last (yes last) who will stick it in his back pocket and leave the country to spend it has gripped my tits.

Korchnoi and Larsen really were picked at random, simply because I knew they had long playing careers.

I can fix it by saying Korchnoi was a beaten world finalist (Caruana)
Larsen and Nakamura have, to me anyway, very similar styles.

You could pick any of the greats v the greats (exclude matches - Caruana and Nakamura have never played in a match)
before these closed shop tournaments and you get low meets. Korchnoi - Keres 1952 to 1975 17 times in 23 years.

Right have to get ready for tonight's league match. I'm non-paying captain of the Tiger Cubs, an u-12 junior team.
Usually my pep talk is get out there and just have fun. Win, loss or draw - who cares. (never put kids under pressure to win).

But tonight it may be:

"Get good, get connected and protected and you too can win £32,000 for coming last and give your Granddad Geoff some of it.
(can you use 'win' and 'last' in the same sentence? I think in this case you can. )

Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:29 pm

Hi Jack,

Well done, the cheque is in the mail.

Hi Justin,

"Do we have any evidence that collusion in sport is particularly linked to the quantity of money available?"

Are you talking sport in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _incidents

Or just Chess and collusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_ ... #Collusion

"....prearrangement of results is extremely commonplace, even at the highest levels of chess."

"...deliberately losing games was "very real in the many open tournaments that are staged all over the world"

I won't use the players names who apparently said that (it is WIki and it might not be them!)

With the kind of money we are talking about now, the temptation is there. Not saying it is happening there.
But players in the past have been tempted with less.

The question was, "do we have any evidence that collusion in sport is particularly linked to the quantity of money available?"

To rephrase, is there any particular reason to think that it increases when there is more or decreases when there is less?