On Nov 20, 8:30 am, David Richerby
wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc.

*** To its niche market, ***

it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess
economy' on anything other than its entertainment value.

Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass
TV market to bring big bucks into chess.

I tried. They insinuated that I somehow wanted to hold chess back and
deny it its place in the sun.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Edible Crystal Book (TM): it's likewww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a romantic novel but it's completely
transparent and you can eat it!

Welcome to the conspiracy, David!

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 10:43 am, " wrote:

"As long as we have the goofy system of paying large class prizes we
will have sandbagging. Reward excellence and just maybe there will be
more of it," said an idealistic official, a voice in the wilderness.
--

GM Larry Evans in a chapter about sandbagging in THIS CRAZY WORLD OF
CHESS (page 143),

Coming from a grandmaster, this comes off as
greed. IMO, the top players are already getting
the lion's share of prize money, so grasping for
even more is selfish and worse, it ignores the
inevitable result: less participation overall by the
lowly masses, the peons GM Evans and his ilk
hold in disdain. If arrogance could be replaced
by a sweeter attitude, the result might be more
akin to the work of Zorro, and less like that seen
in a famous quote:

"...let them [the peons] eat cake."

O come on! That is a "Morphy's Shoes" anecdote, based on missunderstanding
of Creole, and Marie's was to misunderstand what she said, which was to give
the people who asked for bread, [cake-] bread. Or simple round loaves.

---

If Evans is 'arrogant' then so is Adorjan, who recently addressed the same
issue with the same sentiment. In fact I had to water down his comments in
order to present them to another GM in a form of question that would be
answered.

But Adorjan certainly asked sardonically if the monied 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?

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.

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.

This sort of 'fixing' is not Soviet, its our capitalistic version, no?

Phil Innes





-- help bot

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Richerby wrote:

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc.

*** To its niche market, ***

it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.

Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV market
to bring big bucks into chess.

Define "big"

99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?

Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
tournaments. It lists 7 major international
tournaments, with a winner's purse
totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.

The world checkers title was recently defended.
The prize fund was $3740.

It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
marketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
and obvious flaws as virtues.

David Kane wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Richerby wrote:

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc.
*** To its niche market, ***

it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.
Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV market
to bring big bucks into chess.

Define "big"

e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the
NFL, and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...


99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?


I do not see how this relates...

Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
tournaments. It lists 7 major international
tournaments, with a winner's purse
totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.


Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in
Japan? I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of
chess in the USA. I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great
game.

Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing
of Sam Sloan then.

The world checkers title was recently defended.
The prize fund was $3740.


Goodbye checkers...

It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
marketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
and obvious flaws as virtues.


Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

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

"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Richerby wrote:

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc.
*** To its niche market, ***

it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.
Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
market
to bring big bucks into chess.

Define "big"

e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the NFL,
and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...


99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?


I do not see how this relates...

There are two points. First, it attracts a much bigger portion of
the entertainment pie than chess. Second, it's a sport that is often criticized
for being "boring". I suspect if the hundredth best chess player in the world
could make even 1% of what his golf counterpart makes, there would
be a lot more people working to get better at chess.


Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
tournaments. It lists 7 major international
tournaments, with a winner's purse
totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.


Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in Japan?
I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of chess in the USA.
I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great game.


Sorry, I don't. In fact, I don't even have comparable purse numbers for chess.
For various reasons, I believe they are quite a bit lower, but don't know by how
much. But no matter how you count, there are a very large number of
Americans with some interest in chess.

Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing of
Sam Sloan then.

The world checkers title was recently defended.
The prize fund was $3740.


Goodbye checkers...

Checkers still has enthusiasts - as will chess after it's high level game
is completely marginalized by the marketplace. That doesn't
mean that this trend is good for the game.


It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
marketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
and obvious flaws as virtues.


Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
--

Look in the archives and you'll find that I've gone
on at great length about some of my pet peeves, but
in broad terms I see the main obstacles as being the slavish
worship of the status quo coupled with a culture that
is out of step with the mainstream in many significant
ways.

David Richerby wrote:

David Richerby wrote:

J.D. Walker wrote:
Summarizing: where is the economic legitimacy of professional chess
in a capitalist society?

I don't see why you're singling out chess. Where is the economic
legitimacy of professional sport as a whole in a capitalist society?

Market share dumbkoff - witness coke-snorter Angelica Hingis quits
celeb. swiss + Adidas Fed. triumphs again! Really, my long held
suspicions about this 'Dave' character being nothing more than an
overeducated moron have proved correct..

But isn't it just that people are prepared to pay for entertainment?

I single out chess because I care about it, and because it is topical
here.

OK but I don't think that chess is in a significantly different
position to other sports/games/whatever-you-want-to-call-them-s.

As for entertainment, my point was that chess makes poor
entertainment for the masses, thus basing a chess economy on the
entertainment dollar is not sensible.

It's poor entertainment for the masses, yes. But fine wine, haute
couture, supercars and luxury yachts are also poor entertainment for
the masses

Who told you this garbage you chocolate fart-muscle? You really trying
to posit that the 99% aren't interested (entertained) by the 1% who have
all this garbage you spiel on about - you envious little poofter?..

and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
high-value markets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
unless they started rich.

It also indicates that you're a typical whining, snivelling & swingeing
new englunder who seriously needs to get your inbred envies & jealousies
well in line. Sadly, for a moron like you that doesn't look like any
time soon.. Try to deal with it & try to get of the sound o

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc.

Really? I was under the impression 'chess' was more about huge ideas in
life & the affairs of _man_ somewhat like War (for keeps) but maybe I'm
mistaken here. Oh well, pompous one, as an Englunder you're doubtless a
yawn cricket fanatic..

To its niche market, it's very
entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.

More inane flummery & received god-oath 25th hand asininity from one of
our regular hole digging idiotic morons..


Dave.

On Nov 20, 10:02 pm, chocdonuts wrote:

Who told you this garbage you chocolate fart-muscle? You really trying
to posit that the 99% aren't interested (entertained) by the 1% who have
all this garbage you spiel on about - you envious little poofter?..

and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
high-value markets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
unless they started rich.

It also indicates that you're a typical whining, snivelling & swingeing
new englunder who seriously needs to get your inbred envies & jealousies
well in line. Sadly, for a moron like you that doesn't look like any
time soon.. Try to deal with it & try to get of the sound o


Hey Skip. 'Bout time you came back, after all that
work on the Fake-Sloan job.

Remember: while at your age you can get away
with chowing down on chocolate donuts all day
long, there will eventually come a time when old
age will take hold, and make you pay by puffing
out your belly, adding to your weight. The best
strategy is to launch a preemptive attack, giving
up such nasty foods beforehand. Try Ovaltine, or
if that is too much to tackle all at once, adjust
gradually by switching first to pizza, then add a
little Metamusil or broccoli. But then, who am I
to give advice in this area? A failure... a lard-ass...
a bloated pig... an overstuffed, over-fed hippo... .


-- donut bot

David Kane wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Kane wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Richerby wrote:

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc.
*** To its niche market, ***

it's very entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.
Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV
market
to bring big bucks into chess.
Define "big"
e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the NFL,
and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...

99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?

I do not see how this relates...

There are two points. First, it attracts a much bigger portion of
the entertainment pie than chess. Second, it's a sport that is often criticized
for being "boring". I suspect if the hundredth best chess player in the world
could make even 1% of what his golf counterpart makes, there would
be a lot more people working to get better at chess.

Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
tournaments. It lists 7 major international
tournaments, with a winner's purse
totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.

Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in Japan?
I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of chess in the USA.
I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great game.


Sorry, I don't. In fact, I don't even have comparable purse numbers for chess.
For various reasons, I believe they are quite a bit lower, but don't know by how
much. But no matter how you count, there are a very large number of
Americans with some interest in chess.

Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing of
Sam Sloan then.

The world checkers title was recently defended.
The prize fund was $3740.

Goodbye checkers...

Checkers still has enthusiasts - as will chess after it's high level game
is completely marginalized by the marketplace. That doesn't
mean that this trend is good for the game.

It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
marketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
and obvious flaws as virtues.

Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
--

Look in the archives and you'll find that I've gone
on at great length about some of my pet peeves, but
in broad terms I see the main obstacles as being the slavish
worship of the status quo coupled with a culture that
is out of step with the mainstream in many significant
ways.

I am going to mull this subject over for a few days and see if I can
come up with a better approach. I will see what I can find in the
archives, as you suggest, at the same time. Maybe I will have something
after the turkeys last gobble... :^)
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.

chocdonuts wrote:
Market share dumbkoff

That's `Dummkopf', Dummkopf.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Umbrella (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an umbrella but it doesn't work
in the dark!