Main
Date: 11 Mar 2005 04:55:49
From:
Subject: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
Thanks to Fischer there came Big Money to Professional Chess. Karpov,
Kortchnoi,
Kasparov, Short, Anand, & Kramnik were able to benefit from it. Now
with
Kasparov gone will any of the remaining Chess Professionals be able to
draw such
high wages.

I for one don't think so, however I know that this remains to be seen?





 
Date: 11 Mar 2005 18:47:26
From: knucmo
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
On 11 2005 04:55:49 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Thanks to Fischer there came Big Money to Professional Chess. Karpov,
>Kortchnoi,
>Kasparov, Short, Anand, & Kramnik were able to benefit from it. Now
>with
>Kasparov gone will any of the remaining Chess Professionals be able to
>draw such
>high wages.


It is simply not logical to conclude that an event such as Kasparov
retiring will therefore lead to low wages for all. That is like
saying, when Jean-c Bosman leaves football, will there be no more
Bosman rulings? If the players do not stop getting paid as well as
they deserve, you can be sure that players like Anand, Kramnik et. al
will not take that lying down.

--
'The philosophers have interpreted the world, the point
however, is to change it'. - Karl x


  
Date: 11 Mar 2005 12:34:24
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
In article <[email protected] >,
knucmo <[email protected] > wrote:

> It is simply not logical to conclude that an event such as Kasparov
> retiring will therefore lead to low wages for all. That is like
> saying, when Jean-c Bosman leaves football, will there be no more
> Bosman rulings? If the players do not stop getting paid as well as
> they deserve, you can be sure that players like Anand, Kramnik et. al
> will not take that lying down.

But Kasparov is the only active player who's currently bigger than the
game. He's a draw, because people who play chess only casually know who
he is.

Anand and Kramnik, for better or worse, don't have that kind of name
recognition. Kasparov's retirement while he's still at the top of the
game will cast a shadow over the next world #1.

Seriously. Anand's #1 in the world if you count Kasparov out, but we all
know he's no Kasparov. How long will it take him to shake that off?

-Ron


   
Date: 12 Mar 2005 12:59:35
From: knucmo
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
On Fri, 11 2005 12:34:24 -0800, Ron <[email protected] >
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> knucmo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is simply not logical to conclude that an event such as Kasparov
>> retiring will therefore lead to low wages for all. That is like
>> saying, when Jean-c Bosman leaves football, will there be no more
>> Bosman rulings? If the players do not stop getting paid as well as
>> they deserve, you can be sure that players like Anand, Kramnik et. al
>> will not take that lying down.
>
>But Kasparov is the only active player who's currently bigger than the
>game. He's a draw, because people who play chess only casually know who
>he is.
>
>Anand and Kramnik, for better or worse, don't have that kind of name
>recognition. Kasparov's retirement while he's still at the top of the
>game will cast a shadow over the next world #1.
>
>Seriously. Anand's #1 in the world if you count Kasparov out, but we all
>know he's no Kasparov. How long will it take him to shake that off?
>
>-Ron

Yes, this is true, but Anand and the like will continue to develop, as
will Kramnik. I would personally like to Karpov start playing again,
for he proved unarguably that he could beat all of the current top 10
in Linares 1994, a masterful tournament.

The reason I object to this hypothesis that money will drop because
Kasparov leaves the game is because it happens to be a fallacious
correlation the person is drawing, it is known as 'Post Hoc'
reasoning. It is a conclusion only based on the sequence of events
and is an example of magical thinking. I think chess will be just
fine.

--
'The philosophers have interpreted the world, the point
however, is to change it'. - Karl x


    
Date: 12 Mar 2005 11:23:48
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
In article <[email protected] >,
knucmo <[email protected] > wrote:

> Yes, this is true, but Anand and the like will continue to develop, as
> will Kramnik.

Actually, you can no longer consider Kramnik and Anand young players.
I'm not at all convinced they're going to "continue to develop."
Anand's been a top player for ten years.

> I would personally like to Karpov start playing again,
> for he proved unarguably that he could beat all of the current top 10
> in Linares 1994, a masterful tournament.

That was 11 years ago. I don't think it has any particular bearing on
Karpov's ability to beat those players today.

> The reason I object to this hypothesis that money will drop because
> Kasparov leaves the game is because it happens to be a fallacious
> correlation the person is drawing, it is known as 'Post Hoc'
> reasoning. It is a conclusion only based on the sequence of events
> and is an example of magical thinking. I think chess will be just
> fine.

It's not post hoc reasoning at all. It may not come true, but it's
perfectly reasonable to assume that when the most popular player in the
game retires, there will be less public interest. Less public interest
will clearly lead to less advertiser interest. None of this means chess
won't be "fine," of course, but it's not illogical or post-hoc reasoning
to conclude that this will hurt chess, at least a small amount.

Now, this may not happen. I wouldn't expect the negative effect of
Kasparov's retirement to be of the same magnitude as the negative effect
of Fischer's retirement. But big personalities are good for the game.

-Ron


     
Date: 12 Mar 2005 19:46:47
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
In the year of our Lord Sat, 12 2005 11:23:48 -0800, Ron
<[email protected] > wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> knucmo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is true, but Anand and the like will continue to develop, as
>> will Kramnik.
>
> Actually, you can no longer consider Kramnik and Anand young players.
>I'm not at all convinced they're going to "continue to develop."
>Anand's been a top player for ten years.

Exactly. If it weren't for Kasparov, we'd all be talking about Anand
being the dominant player for the past ten years, with a sizable
minority trying to claim that position for Kramnik. Or possibly the
other way around.
>
>> I would personally like to Karpov start playing again,
>> for he proved unarguably that he could beat all of the current top 10
>> in Linares 1994, a masterful tournament.
>
> That was 11 years ago. I don't think it has any particular bearing on
>Karpov's ability to beat those players today.

Karpov seems to have lost the will to play at the top level. He had a
nice long run as both a champion and a contender, but those days will
never return.
>
>> The reason I object to this hypothesis that money will drop because
>> Kasparov leaves the game is because it happens to be a fallacious
>> correlation the person is drawing, it is known as 'Post Hoc'
>> reasoning. It is a conclusion only based on the sequence of events
>> and is an example of magical thinking. I think chess will be just
>> fine.
>
>It's not post hoc reasoning at all. It may not come true, but it's
>perfectly reasonable to assume that when the most popular player in the
>game retires, there will be less public interest. Less public interest
>will clearly lead to less advertiser interest. None of this means chess
>won't be "fine," of course, but it's not illogical or post-hoc reasoning
>to conclude that this will hurt chess, at least a small amount.

I suspect that the major effect will be a dearth of those splashy
major events that Kasparov was so good at helping to bring about. His
retirement will hurt chess awareness with the general public more than
it will prize money.
>
>Now, this may not happen. I wouldn't expect the negative effect of
>Kasparov's retirement to be of the same magnitude as the negative effect
>of Fischer's retirement. But big personalities are good for the game.

Fischer's retirement had far less of a negative effect than his
championship run had a positive effect.
>
>-Ron



Truth can never be told so as to be understood, and not be
believ'd.-- William Blake


     
Date: 12 Mar 2005 19:37:27
From: �ge
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?

"Ron" <[email protected] > skrev i melding
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> knucmo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is true, but Anand and the like will continue to develop, as
> > will Kramnik.
>
> Actually, you can no longer consider Kramnik and Anand young players.
> I'm not at all convinced they're going to "continue to develop."
> Anand's been a top player for ten years.
>
> > I would personally like to Karpov start playing again,
> > for he proved unarguably that he could beat all of the current top 10
> > in Linares 1994, a masterful tournament.
>
> That was 11 years ago. I don't think it has any particular bearing on
> Karpov's ability to beat those players today.
>
> > The reason I object to this hypothesis that money will drop because
> > Kasparov leaves the game is because it happens to be a fallacious
> > correlation the person is drawing, it is known as 'Post Hoc'
> > reasoning. It is a conclusion only based on the sequence of events
> > and is an example of magical thinking. I think chess will be just
> > fine.
>
> It's not post hoc reasoning at all. It may not come true, but it's
> perfectly reasonable to assume that when the most popular player in the
> game retires, there will be less public interest. Less public interest
> will clearly lead to less advertiser interest. None of this means chess
> won't be "fine," of course, but it's not illogical or post-hoc reasoning
> to conclude that this will hurt chess, at least a small amount.
>
> Now, this may not happen. I wouldn't expect the negative effect of
> Kasparov's retirement to be of the same magnitude as the negative effect
> of Fischer's retirement. But big personalities are good for the game.
>
> -Ron

In what way had Fisher's retirement a negative effect on chess? Perhaps
it's more correct to say it had an negative effect on "common "people's
interest in chess.Fischer was never a playing Champion like Karpov or
Kasparov.Fischer was/is not the only world class player .Kasparov was the no
1 for a lot more years than Fischer, but there of course more world class
players today than in 1972-75. .

�.t.




      
Date: 12 Mar 2005 12:36:43
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Are we now back to the days of low wage for Chess Professionals?
In article <[email protected] >,
"�ge" <[email protected] > wrote:

> In what way had Fisher's retirement a negative effect on chess? Perhaps
> it's more correct to say it had an negative effect on "common "people's
> interest in chess.

Exactly. There was less interest in the general public in chess. There
was therefore less advertiser interest in chess, and less money for
people playing at the top. The ability of chess to support good prizes
for players at the top is a direct function of "common" people's
interest in chess.

That's the exact problem I'm worried about (at a smaller level of
magnitude) with Kasparov's decision to retire despite being the
strongest player in the world.

-Ron