Hi,

What is the average salary that chess professionals make like GMs and
IMs?

I keep seeing a ton of GMs play at weekend swiss events and also
several players play international in tournaments in Europe and
Russia. A lot of them are the same players too. So what kind of
salary are they making from their winning each year?

Probably no more than US$10,000 on average. And that might be an incredibly
optimistic figure.






"EG" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,

What is the average salary that chess professionals make like GMs and
IMs?

I keep seeing a ton of GMs play at weekend swiss events and also
several players play international in tournaments in Europe and
Russia. A lot of them are the same players too. So what kind of
salary are they making from their winning each year?

On Jun 11, 12:31 pm, EG wrote:
Hi,

What is the average salary that chess professionals make like GMs and
IMs?

The word "salary" implies a set wage paid regularly, say, monthly or
bi-weekly. Few chess masters, except those in communist countries
where chess has been a state-subsidized activity, have ever made such
a regular living from chess. Few have even made starvation wages from
chess, and have had to take regular jobs like the rest of us.
Historically, the best unsubsidized players have eked out an irregular
income from a combination of tournament prizes and honoraria,
simultaneous exhibitions, lectures, writing, and teaching. Even some
world champions have died in poverty, e.g. Steinitz, Lasker,
Alekhine.

I keep seeing a ton of GMs play at weekend swiss events and also
several players play international in tournaments in Europe and
Russia. A lot of them are the same players too. So what kind of
salary are they making from their winning each year?

Of the current chess scene, IM Rashid Ziatdinov wrote in 1998:

"As sports go, chess is not lucrative for the average professional.
The well known top players who have been able to achieve millionaire
status (Karpov and Kasparov) are the exceptions. Aside from them,
there are only about 20 players world wide who do well financially
from chess ($100,000+ per year income), and another 100 or so that
make a comfortable living ($50,000+). The next 1,000 players, on
average, come out about even -- earning in prizes what they incur in
entry fees and expenses. Then come perhaps 10,000 players who invest
several thousand dollars more per year than they earn." -- from "GM
RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge" by Rashid Ziatdinov and Peter
Dyson, PROChess LLC, New York, 1998

On Jun 11, 2:34 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Somebody pronounced you dead a few days ago, so I am happy to see you
alive after all.

Sam Sloan

On Jun 11, 3:29 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:34 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:

Somebody pronounced you dead a few days ago, so I am happy to see you
alive after all.

Very much alive, but no longer with much interest at all in
rec.games.chess newsgroups. I just happened to notice this question
about chess and money, and thought Ziatdinov's comments were relevant.

On Jun 18, 12:53 pm, EG wrote:

If they don't make money and they know that being a chess professional
does make a stable living then why do they do it?

Could you rephrase that question so it makes some logical
sense?

One relevant idea is that chess can be extremely addictive.
One famous quote states that if you wish to "destroy" a man,
you should simply teach him chess!

Another idea is simply that people like to do what they are
good at, and right along with this goes the psychology of
winning ("I like to watch 'em squirm", bwahahah!).

Maybe a few are truly interested in demonstrating artistic
creativity, and the winning and the money are just added
benefits. Yet often as not, "art" is given as an excuse for
competitive failures.

From my perspective, you would have to take things on
a more individual basis; what are the viable alternatives?
Flipping burgers at McDonald's (no offense, JR), or
something far superior to GM chess, like becoming a
double-oh agent in her majesty's secret service?

-- help bot

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:53:17 -0700, EG wrote:

An example would be Alexander Alekhine
dying in poverty; obviously, this happened not because
he found it impossible to make money at chess, but due
to his unfortunate association with the Nazis, who had
lost the war

I can think of several adjectives more appropriate than
"unfortunate"...
--

"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"

On Jun 19, 3:59 am, raven1 wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:53:17 -0700, EG wrote:
An example would be Alexander Alekhine
dying in poverty; obviously, this happened not because
he found it impossible to make money at chess, but due
to his unfortunate association with the Nazis, who had
lost the war

I can think of several adjectives more appropriate than
"unfortunate"...


Maybe you think GM Alekhine was a closet Nazi all
along, and only *pretended* to let wars ruin his life.

Me, I think he was obviously obsessed with chess,
and wars served to interfere, to muck up the works.

If the Axis powers had won WWII, the propaganda
articles attributed to him would hardly have been
any problem for his chess career; but of course
they lost. Since the articles were not *anti-Nazi*
propaganda pieces, this sealed his fate. History,
of course, is written by the winners. Most of what
passes for history around here credits the victory
to us Americans, but it looks more like we just
piddled around until mid-game.

In view of what happened to GM Alekhine's chess
career, I think it was very unfortunate that his
association with those articles weighed like an
anchor around his neck. I've read one of them,
and the idea that its contents could be taken
seriously by any but the dimmest of duffers, is
laughable. Perhaps the Nazis were hoping to
impact those who knew absolutely nothing about
the game, but for others it was an obvious case
of grasping at straws. I am reminded of the GM
Evans ratpackers, who tried to attack Taylor
Kingston for "missing" a move which was in fact
missed by a famous GM, who wrote that he had
carefully analyzed every game in his book. Ad
hominem quite often defies all logic.

-- help bot