On Nov 20, 12:11 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

If Evans is 'arrogant' then so is Adorjan

Hmm... two GMs are *both* arrogant -- is this really
supposed to be a "defense" of greed?

----

Alleged problem: sandbagging

Proposed by GMs' solution: funnel more money... to GMs!

My point: even further-reduced participation by the peons

Your response: agreement between two GMs that more
money for them sounds tasty, makes LE seem "right".


But Adorjan certainly asked sardonically if the monied

EW sends you this brief message: *Moneyed*, you dolt!
Even Ray Keene -- a complete imbecile -- spells better than
Phillip Innes. --end of message--


classes in chess also
contained all its genius? He went on to ask if we really thought that if the
top few hundred players were to take part in a 13 round Swiss, that the
finish result would accord to ELO?

Quite a few published and annotated games betwixt
famous players are rather drab affairs, so I think it is
crazy to even imagine these "top few hundred" might
contain all the genius in chess. The truth is, when
asked, many cannot even explain their moves, or why
they did not play (insert random Fritz improvement)
instead. In sum, if you want /true genius/, you may
need to look a bit higher up. (The more I looked over
a famous GM Spassky vs. GM Fischer game, the
more I realized there was a good reason for both to
play the strange-looking moves they chose.)


At high levels there is no rating floor, but a celebrity class of player,
and just 50 of them earn 95% of available chess money.

My comments referred primarily to the state of
chess here in the USA; it was not any attempt
at discussing what you seem to want to discuss.
See those comments regarding "class prizes",
if you are still confused. My understanding was
that we were talking about Swiss tourneys in
which money is already funneled up to the top
finishers, and GM Evans wanted still more for
his own buddies, the GMs. My experience
from talking to many players around here is that
this would only make matters worse than they
already are. (Perhaps things are different where
there are many GMs, and money can be made
from the spectators themselves.)


To add just one more name, the year before he became world champ [by
something of a fluke] Khalifman of Petersburg said the same - that it was
nigh on impossible to get into that top group, because they rarely played
the level below it.

I see. You are obviously talking about FIDE chess,
while the subject here had been USCF open Swiss
style tourneys, where entries are taken and divvied
up something like this:

1st: 25%

2nd: 15%

Expert: 5%

Class A: 5%

Class B: 4%

Class C: 4%

Class D/E/Unr: 3%

Organizer: all the rest


The idea of taking more from the lowly peons and
funneling it up to the top-place finishers could kill off
their participation, which is counterproductive. What
is need is to increase participation, and as a matter
of course, the prizes would increase proportionately.


-- help bot