English Chess Forum

Yep I reckon Anand wouldn't make millions per year... and he's the top player! He might make about £1 million pounds for a title defence (I actually think it's less than that, but I'm not a big enough geek to get a CITATION to see how much he won from his last title defence) but he doesn't do that every year. I doubt he makes 2 million pounds from chess in an average year. Go and look up how much UK poker players make- I've been thinking about it and there's a lot of them who are making a lot of money. Go and look how much the top poker players in the world make- the top ten will ALL make millions and millions of pounds, every year! Easily!

*Geek mode*

http://www.pokertableratings.com/top_wi ... search.y=9

That's from one username, just showing cashgames. That's not including rakeback. That's not including tournament winnings. That's not including sit and gos. That's not including 'sponsorship deals'. That's not including live poker. Apart from Phil Ivey, I'm pretty sure the top ten are all under 30. Most of them have only been playing poker seriously for a few years.

At the risk of sounding boring, what's wrong with doing your job for an ordinary wage, like the vast majority of adults on this planet do? Players such as Stuart Conquest, Mark Hebden and myself are not amongst the very best in the world, so we don't make millions. That doesn't make us failures though! We are pretty good at what we do, and have been lucky enough to be able to earn a passable living for three decades doing something which we get a lot of pleasure out of.

Mark, you can't make random comments asserting poker's dominance over chess in everything if you can't provide facts to back it up. Otherwise you don't have an argument. It's not a geeky thing to put your arguments across properly.

You're also missing a fundamental difference about poker and chess. The winner of a game of poker is the player who is at the table at the end, and thus makes the most money. The winner of a game of chess isn't the person who makes the most money, but the person who puts their opponent in checkmate. If the top poker players - i.e. the ones who win the major tournaments - didn't make far more money than their chess equivalents, then there'd be something wrong.

When Anand won the World Championship in 2010, he earnt 1.2 million Euros in prize money, so that's as near as makes no difference £1 million. He would have played in other tournaments that year, and would no doubt have made money in that via appearance fees and prize money.

Alex Holowczak wrote:Mark, you can't make random comments asserting poker's dominance over chess in everything if you can't provide facts to back it up.

Oh yes he can

Mark Howitt wrote:Well.... if I was an IM I'd want to be paid for playing in a tournament!

Why should I be paid? I'm ranked 2061 in the world. If you want to compare it to tennis, James Ward (British no. 2) who made the semis of Queen's yesterday is ~200 in the world and has spent the last few years travelling the world at great expense to himself on the Challenger circuit, where his prize money is no more than a few hundred dollars a time.

Mark Howitt wrote:Someone who's an IM is obviously very good at chess

IM's are not very good at chess. Believe me, I know.

Mark Howitt wrote:Wish there was a bit more money in chess, but at least one of the IMs in the tournament makes a lot from poker so he is doing nicely financially!

If you're referring to me, I've had a pretty terrible year so far! It's not helpful to compare poker with chess, there are some transferable skills, that's about all they have in common.

Anyway I'm looking forward to the tournament and shall try not to default any games this year

Even footballers are now being asked to pay to attend a trial (at least, at one club)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/13669132.stm

I wasn't making 'random comments'- I was making instinctive comments which were all reasonably accurate. If I wanted to spend more time on it, I could have dug up all the UK players who were making money in poker- there are a large number who simply decide to take a break from doing their job or studies, and earn at least £30,000 a year doing it.

Money isn't everything. Social status isn't everything. But society conditions people that they're two of the most important things. That's why in the UK very few people want to be or can be proffessional chess players. It's a shame- chessplayers are some of the smartest people I know, and should be rewarded for their talents. A chessplayer today would have to fight against the temptation to get a 'normal' job where he could earn much more money, or play poker and earn much more money. There are rewards for them in the people they get to meet, and the places they see, but I still think it's quite a tough life. Check out Bogdan Lalic's comments about it on Facebook- pretty scathing. As the chessplayers get older, there're always new ones popping up, which makes life increasingly difficult as they move into their late forties and fifties. Quite a few seem to play little and teach instead, which pays them a bit more money.

And I still think an IM is very good- compared to the average person who plays chess anyway! I still think very good overall- not great but very good, very competent. With the amount of brainpower and determination needed to be an IM, most people could achieve many other things!

Never mind Simon, I'm sure many would be OK with having a 'terrible' year if they made $120,000 for making SuperNova elite in another year!

Things are going pretty well for me this year but I'm not making that kind of money!

Simon Ansell wrote:IM's are not very good at chess. Believe me, I know

And how good that makes the rest of us feel

Matt Mackenzie wrote:

Simon Ansell wrote:IM's are not very good at chess. Believe me, I know

And how good that makes the rest of us feel

Like we are in with a chance occasionally?

I wondered idly recently whether I could destroy poker with an Elo system.

My thinking was, the top poker players sit at the top of a pyramid, funded from mass participation at the bottom. You can't do it in chess because weak players wont pay to enter an open tournament. The rating system shows them they have little chance. But throw in the illusion of luck and the absence of ratings and people lose objectivity, about their ability and their chances. I suspect the majority of people at the base of the poker pyramid would get better odds from the lottery.

But then I realised all the tricks we outlaw in chess to keep the ratings honest would be considered sound strategy in poker (dumping rating points to win minors, etc). So I think poker is safe

(I'm not claiming to know much about poker, I tried it online for a few months but felt like I was being paid minimum wage to be slightly bored )

Whereas GMs get about minimum wage to work really hard!

I probably should have emphasised the "very" in "not very good".

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, Mark. Personally I think anyone that can make any sort of living playing a board game (or a card game, for that matter) is pretty lucky. Not everyone is motivated by money.

I think most chessplayers would still believe IMs are 'very' good or very good... ask people on this thread who aren't IMs or over .

I wasn't really trying to make a point, just saying what's on my mind.

I think very few chessplayers are motivated by money- I think with practically all poker players, money is certainly one of their main motivations. Thing is, practically anyone could make OK money at poker (enough to make 'any sort of living') whereas very few can in chess- which is a bit sad. Chessplayers don't want a LOT of money... but I'd guess they do want enough to have a bit of comfort... which not many can obtain.

A lot of chessplayers have already come to this conclusion, and given up the game to do something else (even if they're IMs or GMs), but they all should be aware that their 'market value' is higher in a lot of other areas...

Simon Ansell wrote:
Personally I think anyone that can make any sort of living playing a board game (or a card game, for that matter) is pretty lucky. Not everyone is motivated by money.

Well said Simon. Nearly always when a top chess player decides to apply his brain to ''orthodox'' employment, he is very successful from the point of view of earnings. However, It is a case of weighing up what he is gaining vs what he is losing.

Blair Connell has kindly written round to round reports on the Big Slick international. You can view these reports at http://www.gingergm.com/category/guest-articles/

Yesterday was very interesting. Rain started to pour through the roof from various points...