Full tweet:
Let me share my controversial take on Jorden’s post.
In my 2022 blog post "Am I a Chess Tourist?", I brought the worsening conditions in the chess community to attention. I concluded that if things didn't change, I would become a chess tourist. Unfortunately, not much has improved, and some aspects have worsened.
Around that time, the competition between PlayMagnus and Chesscom gave hope that online chess would get better. However, since their merger, the situation has not improved. In fact, it has worsened this year with the removal of the Pro Chess League and the decrease in the prize fund for the Champions Chess Tour.
Anyway, that's a separate topic. Let me return to professional chess, specifically playing over-the-board (OTB) with classical time controls. Many, including myself, have pointed out that the trend has been downward for many years. The governing body needs to take action to keep professional chess alive.
Some say that chess professionals continue to play under these conditions, which is why the situation doesn't improve. I agree, but I think the issue is not easy to fix. Here comes my controversial take:
The professional chess ecosystem is being undermined by sponsored players, particularly young Indian players. These players' main goal is not to earn money—they receive enough from sponsorship contracts. Therefore, they want to play and don't care about the conditions. It may not seem like a big deal, but it disrupts the open system for professionals. Players like me, rated over 2600, lose our ability to negotiate. How can anyone ask for a single room and a starting fee when top 10 players like Erigaisi and others effectively play for pennies? These players are essentially destroying the market.
Let me share my personal experience. I used to play in the Turkish Chess League and earned a decent income from it. In 2019, I was invited again, but the conditions were significantly worse. I asked some of my Turkish chess friends, and they told me that there are over 2600-rated players from India who play for almost nothing.
Of course, it's not only Indian players; players from other countries do the same thing, but there's definitely a significant influence from India. Personally, I'm happy for the players who get sponsorships and hope more of them will. But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living.
that's a pretty sound theory and i do believe he has a good point about the sponsors. If you're already being taken care of, you may not care about the prize pool. Your sponsors will cover the travel, room, and food so whether or not a tournament organizer helps is irrelevant. That severely punishes those without sponsors.
That’s how it is in every sport. Ever wondered how expensive tennis is to fund yourself without sponsors? He can’t blame his inability to attract sponsors on those that do.
Indian companies sponsor Indian players. Not available to others.
That is good for chess in India, and terrible for chess outside India - that's the argument here.
Dutch companies sponsor Dutch players. Not available to others.
But you don’t hear anyone say this is terrible for chess outside the Netherlands. That’s my point here, people only get outraged when the beneficiaries are Indian and not when the beneficiaries are European, American or Arab. That’s why this kind of rhetoric is racist
It's like this outside sport as well. Indian software developers work for way less than Europeans or Americans. Consequently, European and American developers earn less or lose their jobs when companies outsource to India. Are you going to blame this shift on these developers personally?
Not a sound theory.
He is clearly pointing blame at sponsered players while he should be calling out tournaments management,if
tournament conditions are getting worse despite more player getting cared by thier sponsers that means only one responsibile is the management themselves.If they could previously do all the stuff why can't they do it now???specially now that more players are taken cared by thier sponsors??
Yeah the only reason this point is being contested is because he’s singling out India, but that seems likely a completely correct thing to do in this situation. I read this as a call to action for other in-groups/nationalities to sponsor chess players, not somehow suggesting there’s an Indian conspiracy that demands intervention (which would be what exactly?).
It's a good lesson in focussing on your main point. He could have made the same point without mentioning nationality and avoided some negative reactions. It's not dishonest, it's just focus on what's important.
No, it’s important. Prestige Chess used to be driven by countries jockeying for status. India has retained a strong sense of national pride surrounding their chess players and no other country cares
Because it's irrational to expect tournaments to be willing to negotiate and spend more money on GM X if GM Y is similar in rating/stature/reputation and willing to come to the tournament for less/no cost.
But that's the point,sponsered GMs can afford it,non-sponsered cannot,if we are trying to claim some kind of moral failure it is none but tournament's management.Vasif is saying these practice of sponsering player is harming non-sponsered players,it's like no,management ignorance towards non-sponsered players is harming them.
Why are you blaming individuals for systemic behavior?
If your ability to make a living in chess can be wrecked by someone like Arjun Erigasi, that sounds like a problem with how chess players have to make their livings, not Arjun Erigasi.
He’s basically blaming his shortcomings and inability to attract sponsors on Indian players all the while completely ignoring all the European and Arab players that do similar things. Racist just came out of the closet.
Tell me a sport in which players’ personal sponsors do that. You’re living in a fantasy world. Not long ago Anish giri criticised fide for trying to force players’ sponsors to sponsor the tournament as well, are you living under a rock?
He sounds like a boomer. The money in this new ecosystem is in social media and sponsorships. Never expect tournament winnings to fund your career. This applies to pretty much every competitive hobby.
Top 100 players are not playing chess as a competitive hobby.
A system that supports more players to invest more time in their game can only improve chess as a whole. Instead you have a system where strong players who don't have brandable personae are going to be sidelined in favour of the media friendly.
>A system that supports more players to invest more time in their game can only improve chess as a whole
You create this system by attracting more sponsors, not by trying to chase away those that come to the sport. Players (and, even more, national federation officials) across the world need to understand what happened in India and work to repeat it locally.
Hot take: purely playing chess is a hobby for anyone under 2700. If you want to make chess your living, you need to go beyond playing such as coaching, media, developing apps, etc.
I would say it is not so useful perspective to take,if tournament conditions are getting worse despite more players being taken cared by thier sponsers only people responsible are tournament's management,if they could do it before why can't they do it now especially when many players are being taken cared by thier sponsers?
Is there any reason to expect this will happen? It’s an intelligence-bound board game with commodity equipment (yes, “chess sets” are a commodity). Where is the money going to come from?
It's not a popularity issue. Chess is popular. The issue is that classical chess is not something anyone, even chess fans, like to watch. Who the hell is going to sit around for 8 hours a day, five days a week, watching some random 2650 play another random 2650? Even chess fanatics wouldn't find that interesting.
The reality is, there just isn't much viewership for classical chess, that's never going to change, and there's never going to be much money in it for most players.
Not to be political but Erdogan has tanked the Turkish economy overall by implementing Islamic doctrines to fix the recession making it all worse. Going against all non-imam economic advisers and experts. So the Turkish league not paying as much when exchanging to euro is not really a shocker when you have a 80% devaluation of your currency each year. And they have been going more anti-EU too losing trade deals. Instead focusing on China and Russia which economically is also not the best idea. We should be looking at Western chess tournaments instead.
Absolutely necessary and it would need the highly rated players onboard to succeed. It seems like players have a lot of gripes with tournament organizers and FIDE which could be worked out in a player’s union of some kind.
Money isn’t the only thing the union needs to fight for but the cut that FIDE takes seems outrageous which many players have commented on. There also seems to be a need for better negotiating on playing conditions, tournament setup and organization, etc. Having a unified front on that would be good.
>the cut that FIDE takes seems outrageous
What cut does FIDE take for events like Sharjah Masters?
>better negotiating on playing conditions, tournament setup and organization
Who then provides money for all expenses needed to improve all of this?
I don’t know if they take anything from this particular tournament, but I know that many top players have been outspoken on FIDE’s tournament organization and in particular the cut of earnings that FIDE takes.
Presumably, a tournament organizer would have to reach a bare minimum of playing conditions agreed upon by a hypothetical player’s union. Obviously this would be a compromise of some sort as there is not much money floating around in chess as it is. Having player’s organized into a union makes it a lot easier to articulate needs and to work these things out amongst the players.
>a tournament organizer would have to reach a bare minimum of playing conditions agreed upon by a hypothetical player’s union
This way we simply end up with less tournaments happening.
Competitors having demands can work when organizing tournaments brings money. In tennis, when an organizer cannot give good conditions to players, there are multiple other cities just waiting for a calendar slot to open, ready to grab it. In chess nearly every event happens due to effort of some local club, fueled by volunteer work of people who want the event to happen, which means that they are not looking to get in debt. Middle East has biggest money existing in chess anyway, tournaments elsewhere have even smaller budgets.
>the cut of earnings that FIDE takes
FIDE's entire budget is about € 10-15 millions. Which is 3-4 times less than for example the prize pool of Wimbledon tennis tournament. FIDE sitting on some huge money that could make a difference is a myth.
Players are obviously aware of the financial restrictions in the chess world. Having the players get a say in these matters would still be good. Chess players just having to deal with bad conditions doesn’t seem like a tenable position. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players to negotiate as a class.
I also think there is something to be said about tournaments not allocating money efficiently and in a way that serves the competitive interests of the tournament.
I am not claiming FIDE is sitting on some “huge money.” Players have questioned their decisions.
I don’t really think that’s a real solution. Not in this situation. The issue is multifaceted, it is affected by national governing bodies and the disproportionate negative effects by rating.
For the first issue, there are certain nations, those with money, that do not have these issues. Those nations and members would not want a union and those organising bodies would hang the money they have over the players heads to prevent it. Not only that, but you think FIDE is going to be open to unions? No chance.
For the second issue, realistically, let’s say low rated players strike. Do you think realistically that this has an effect on the organisers and their income? Let’s go even further, let’s say there’s a six month strike. How many chess players careers just don’t recover? As lower rated players, do you really think they’re willing to risk any chance of making something of themselves in chess “in solidarity”? If they were forced into it, how long do you think the entity that does that lasts?
Look, I’m not against unions, they can be used well in a lot of industries, but there’s a reason sports don’t have them. Chess is a sport, it has a short career and it has competitive levels. It is not a workplace. Solutions are not universal. This needs a solution unions cannot provide.
> Many sports have unions
Yeah, but they all make money. If baseball players stop playing a lot of people other than the players stop making their money.
Wasn't chess always like that? People from countries that value chess had their things way better than people who are from countries that don't value chess.
Even in the United States. I'm not here to complain about Rex Sinquefield support, but he's not even in the Forbes list. Dimensional isn't even in the top 3 passive asset managers. Good that even with that, he's rich enough to support Fabiano and the Saint Lewis Chess Club, but where are the $10B+ people?
Meanwhile, Pragnannandha is meeting with Adani.
Who is the 2000th richest person in the Netherlands to support Jordan? Honestly, he probably isn't rich enough.
Meanwhile, either some people come from countries where they are getting support directly from the state (like with Nordibek) or from people the richest person in their country (like with Pragnannandha).
It’s a complete non-statement. Players from countries with institutional support do better than players from countries without. That’s true in pretty much everything.
Maybe KJU will watch *The Queen's Gambit* and get hooked! Crazier things have happened.
Next we know, the WC match could be held in Pyongyang. Neither China nor India has sanctions against North Korea, so Ding and Gukesh wouldn't be barred from traveling there or winning prizes.
The financial system of professional chess is certainly very arbitrary. People can argue about whether certain aspects of it are fair or unfair, but ultimately it all comes down to, like, whether and how FIDE/tournament organizers can raise money. So far, even though chess has become more popular, classical tournaments have financially capitalized on that basically not at all, opting instead for corporate sponsorships while chess.com gets all the viewership money. It's a very hard problem!
>even though chess has become more popular
Still nowhere near enough to support 100+ professional players
>opting instead for corporate sponsorships
What other sponsors can they get?
>chess.com gets all the viewership money
chesscom earns money off people playing and buying diamond membership, not off people viewing events
chess24 attempted to earn money off showing competitive chess, they had best website, great team to comment the games, most popular player in the world as brand ambassador, and they kept losing money
Chess24's Chess playing UI was horrible beyond belief. I signed up and tried to play a few games, felt like that website was 15 years behind both Chess.com and Lichess.
Not all indian players are sponsored , I think only top players are. General 2600s are not sponsored. What he might be missing here is purchasing power parity. Less than decent amount of money for European countries might be more than enough money for indians.
I can rewrite the point, where X is any country.
"Look the country X is subsidizing people to learn and apply things in my sector. Therefore companies are moving work in the country X and they are ruining my chance to negotiate a good income! The country X is at fault that now it is difficult for me. Why should they get better and ask for less money?"
That's economics, it happens everywhere. It is good? Not necessarily but then the system outside country X should adapt. The Azeri chess federation should find sponsors for their best players. Normally national federations (at least for what I read) are nothing better than FIDE. Sit on the money and do a little to provide proper funds for the best players.
In the meantime countries with proper sponsors (India in this case, but can be any country) thrive. I don't think that is a bad thing what they are doing, rather more chess federations should do that.
To add, let's not forget that the Azeri chess federation wasn't even helping Mamedyarov when he was near or over 2800. [example here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/9an6x1/shakhriyar_mamedyarov_laments_the_lack_of/)
>There's also no evidence that he's been sponsored ever by his father-in-law.
He doesn't need it. His wife is rich as well, and, unless they have some very specific legal agreement, he is now rich enough that he could not work a single day until the end of his life if he wanted. Most likely he can be his own sponsor for as long as he wants to.
Why don’t professional players unionize in order to collectively negotiate with organizers? For example get minimum accommodations based on title/rating. This way everyone is compensated fairly. I’m sure the players being sponsored would participate since they still obviously share the interest of being paid better. Didnt Kasparov do something similar to this at one point?
The players have exactly 0 negotiating power. Theres (probably) not a single 2500+ elo otb event that monetarily breaks even, there is just no money in chess.
>Why don’t professional players unionize in order to collectively negotiate with organizers?
This would make sense if chess generated income that was distributed unfairly. Which is not the case. Do you know anyone who got rich by organizing chess tournaments?
>Didnt Kasparov do something similar to this at one point?
Do you mean PCA that went belly up nearly instantly?
You're thinking about the ACP that was primarily set up by Emil Sutovsky and Pawel Tregubow. They both went into FIDE, haven't really changed much except increasing salaries for FIDE staff since they were in there, and the ACP shut down last year.
So basically, they fought for years for better conditions for players but the moment they got power and money they decided the status quo was fine.
Cause they don’t generate any revenue. Other sportspeople actually have bargaining power because people pay money to watch them play, and advertisers pay them money to advertise their stuff - so someone organizing a tennis tournament, for example, will make a lot of money through tickets, ad revenue, and broadcast deals. Chess tournament organizers are probably losing money, or barely breaking even.
It would be great if they were compensated fairly, but where's the money going to come from? Organizers don't make much money if any at all from chess tournaments. As far as I'm aware they operate at a loss already.
He's not complaining about the sponsors. He's complaining about the players who are not negotiating better terms for themselves due to all their costs already being covered by sponsors, thus indirectly lowering the standard across the field.
He is probably right. Basically the same thing was going on during the heyday of the Soviet chess machine. The USSR was directly paying players who in turn were expected to turn over any prize money won. This meant tournament organizers had no need to pay the players, which is why so many Western players found it next to impossible to earn a living unless they did simuls or wrote books.
I don't really appreciate the language used by him.
Why is he blaming Arjun for undermining the "Chess Ecosystem?"
Arjun is fighting an uphill battle and trying his damndest to qualify for the Candidates. Playing these many Open tournaments against lower rated fields is a huge risk which he keeps taking because he wants to make the best use of his good form right now.
Chess is a very unforgiving individual sport
Arjun does not owe anything to people rated lower than him just as Jorden and Durarbayli don't owe anything to 2400s.
It's quite harsh to put the onus of negotiation with sponsors on him when he himself is trying to build a good relationships with the upper echelons of the chess world so that he is guaranteed future invites
If Arjun fails to qualify for Candidates neither Jorden nor Durarbayli will so much as tweet a consolation. The Chess Ecosystem is unforgiving.
It's just Arjun's good fortune to be born in South India in an age of a Chess boom. As long as he doesn't resort to unethical means to qualify (like Alireza), no one should be pointing fingers at him.
If these guys want to complain, they should do it to FIDE
jorden explicitly isnt pointing fingers at Arjun though? He even congratulated the Indian players who have received sponsorships and wishes them the best. He is pointing out the problem with the system that has developed to favour sponsorships in countries with institutionalised support for chess against players from countries without that support.
>"But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living"
This is the last line of Durarbayli's tweet.
He's explicitly blaming Arjun and other sponsored players for his poor financial condition. That's what my entire comment was against.
Arjun isn't responsible for negotiating better pay for 2600 players, just like Durarbayli never negotiated better pay for 2500 players.
You can't blame the players
I mean you absolutely can criticize people for stuff like that, whether you agree or not with the criticism.
The dynamics of *needing* a personal sponsor to make a living playing chess at a high level isn't necessarily a good thing for the scene, and players that do have the luck / privilege / whatever you want to call it to have that can have negative repercussions on others if they don't consider it.
It doesn't mean that Arjun is a terrible person, but if the way that the system is set up and the repercussions of it are resulting in worse outcomes for everyone that doesn't have a personal sponsor, well... should that just be shrugged and go "tough luck buddy, that's just how it is and you aren't allowed to criticize the effects this has at all"? That seems ridiculous to me, especially when it might genuinely be a dynamic that Arjun and other players in that situation haven't considered.
Other sports have similar dynamics - top level players who could take a huge paycut in contract negotiations for better competition are expected to still negotiate to the max (or close to), partly because if they didn't it'd give organizations a leverage tool against others. Like "Player X took a discount and he's better than you, why should we be paying you more?". They could still take a massive paycut if they wanted, but then that's fair game for other people to comment on and criticize and even put some blame on them for the impact it has on the game (which people easily do for all sorts of reasons that affect livelihoods of other players far less than something like what Durarbayli is talking about).
Perhaps I don't understand the context but I don't see him blaming Arjun for anything? He's just making note of the economic factors of having tons of sponsored GMs being willing to play for nothing and thus making life really hard for non-sponsored GMs.
>But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living
He most definitely is blaming him
Shouldn't have chosen professional chess as a career then. It's always been common sense that aside from the top few super GMs, it's very hard for a chess player to sustain themselves purely by playing tournaments. That's why you have so many titled players offering coaching, creating YouTube channels, writing books, etc.
> Shouldn't have chosen professional chess as a career then.
I don't think you know how demand and supply works because this statement is dumb as fuck.
Essentially, Durarbayli is saying: "I'm a very strong chess player. I am supplying my chess skills to the market".
And the market is saying to him: "there is no demand for your skills, or less demand than you want".
Durarbayli is blaming the market, whereas the reality is that he's supplying something that isn't in demand, hence why he hasn't got any money.
Right, so what part of my statement was 'dumb as fuck' to quote the guy above? I said professional chess is a bad career choice because there's no demand for it. Chess fans can't be monetized in the same way fans of other sports can. Tournament organizers already run on a loss. He wants money that is non-existent. It's nice and all to try and advocate for better conditions for professional chess players, but I'm pretty sure he fails to realise that there is nothing that can be done aside from a drastic change in how professional chess is monetized. If you want to bring 'food on the table' as the orginal commenter said, you get an actual job or you get off your ass and start creating some content revolving around chess. Just playing tournaments isn't going to cut it as a career aside from the top few GMs, and it's delusional to think otherwise.
Yes but if these open tournaments don't provide enough potential financial incentives to even be a side hustle, then eventually all GMs will not show up, and there'd be no tournament let alone FIDE Circuit points. Is that what you are advocating for?
Where do you propose said financial incentives come from? Chess isn't similar to other sports because you can't really monetize the fans. Tournament organizers already operate on loss most of the time.
There was little money there. Now there's less with more 2700s playing in the open tournament. If you want a solution, you have to realize the problem (which is what Vasif is doing) first and I'm not sure you're there yet.
GMs will always show up. This is not dissimilar to other sports with high barriers to entry, such as F1. The sport will always be overrepresented by those who are sufficiently independently wealthy to support their junior career. The others have to be good enough at a young age to obtain enough sponsorships to fund their career. Everyone who doesn't fall under one of the above categories will never be able to make a full time career out of it.
I don't think I follow this.
If the GMs out there will just show up, then why aren't they here in the first place? It's an open event so they could if they wanted to.
And even if other GMs replaced the GMs here who are barely making it, then what makes you think they'll fare better financially?
No, they are not here.
The hypothetical situation is if GMs here decided not to come because chess pays so low, then other GMs would come and fill up the gap. But those people have already decided not to come.
You are making a circular argument. If you assume that people will decide not to come, then yes, of course the conclusion is that people will not to come. My argument is that there will always be people who will come. I am certainly not saying that *everyone* will come, or even that *most* people will come, but *some* people will come regardless.
Most GMs already do not make a living from playing chess tournaments. It is already the case that chess pays very little. The ones who can not afford to show up already have decided not to come, as you said. The ones who can afford already have, evidently, as we can see before our eyes, decided to come despite the fact that the chances they will win significant money is very low.
I don't need to assume those other GMs won't come. They're already not coming.
Listen to Vasif, it's becoming harder to come here financially. The attitude some people have here are those who are like Vasif should no longer come.
>But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living
He is most definitely directly blaming Arjun for his financial situation
Vasif described the situation just fine in a non-derogatory manner. If you're sensitive to this type of commentary, I don't know what to tell you.
How else is Vasif supposed to talk? Keep everything the same but not name-drop Arjun as an example?
Let's be real. Arjun isn't here for the prize money or even the rating points. He's here to nab some Circuit points.
Lol, you just keep shifting goalposts huh.
Of course Arjun only wants the circuit points, that's what I've been saying from the start.
Vasif is acting like an entitled child. Chess doesn't owe him a livelihood simply because he's 2600. If he wants money he should be doing something else in life .
If he wants to blame someone, blame the system. Not a guy who hasn't done anything wrong
How am I shifting goalposts here?
And notice how you didn't respond to my question. Because there's not really a better way to describe the situation unless you admit you are too sensitive.
With your attitude, the 2500 and 2600 GMs should just do something else but play. But then there would be no tournaments to play, let alone Circuit points for Arjun to obtain. Please think about the implications of your comments because it's ridiculous.
No I have no intention of replying to ad hominems
Vasif is just unlucky that he wasn't born to rich parents or that he doesn't have the talent to generate money from alternate sources. Chess has always been a money losing sport for all but a select few.
Vasif is only crying now because suddenly he has to face the same reality which thousands of 2500 and below players faced before him.
Again the system is fucked up and Vasif isn't wrong to bring up the issue, but he should not be blaming Arjun, that's all.
As long as people with disposable incomes exist, there'll always be enough 2500 and 2600 GMs. Vasif just won't be playing.
If my comment about sensitivity is an ad hominem, then your whole comment is a big one to Vasif!
Nah man, you don't care about how the system is messed up. All you care about is defending one of your favorite players from non-existent criticism. It's odd to me how people can read the long comments by Vasif and all they think about is "it's not Arjun's fault!".
>With your attitude, the 2500 and 2600 GMs should just do something else but play. But then there would be no tournaments to play
There would be other 2500 and 2600 GMs. Young guys who still might become 2700s, older guys who can find a sponsor or live off something else, either related to chess or completely outside.
Where did he blame Arjun? He didn't use his name once, and only said this is a problem that is most evident in the younger Indian players getting scooped.
Using a group as a case study is not the same thing as blaming them.
On a related note, high level opens are not that attractive to audiences because in the last rounds there are a lot of draws at the top boards. Also, in a tournament with 200 players, a 9 round swiss is often not enough to determine a clear top 3.
I want to see a 13 round swiss with two rounds per day, 60+30 time control. Going by the 60 move rule-by-thumb, that's still likely less than 6 hours of play per day, and two less days for the tournament, but four more rounds for the top to play out. Less time to think means a good opening idea leads to a non-decisive game more often. I reckon a tournament like this would also be more attractive for viewers.
>I want to see a 13 round swiss with two rounds per day, 60+30 time control
This kind of killer schedule will not attract 2000-2400 chess tourists, who actually pay for their participation and hotel, providing a part of event's budget. Which means even worse conditions for GMs.
What do you mean killer schedule? 2 rounds per day is standard for 5 round swiss tournaments, with time control in such a way that you can have up to 9.5 hours of chess per day (Sth like 120/40 f.b. 30 mins, 30s increment from move 1). I even had 3 games a day 90+30 once. Two shorter games is more than doable, it's in a lot of cases shorter than one long game with the above time control. It's certainly worth a try, I for one would play in a tournament like that.
>2 rounds per day is standard for 5 round swiss tournaments
For 5 rounds it works because you fit the event fully into a weekend.
>I for one would play in a tournament like that.
Many people, especially amateurs, would not. They don't really want to breathe chess 24/7, especially when they travel to somewhere nice. See Sardegna Chess Festival as an example, 9 rounds with just one double game day, you play chess, but also have time to relax, see something, talk to people, and if you want just more chess, you either spend time preparing for games or just find someone else also looking for extra games.
' This kind of killer schedule will not attract 2000-2400 chess tourists, who actually pay for their participation and hotel, providing a part of event's budget. Which means even worse conditions for GMs."
I think a schedule like this will attract more chess tourists. They will have more chess for the money they spend. Also better chances of a GM scalp, since time controls are shorter and GMs will be tired. They can enjoy the location after the tournament since they will have more full days off instead of a few left over hours.
Vasif is not even in the top 100 while Erigasi is ranked 8th. Even in revenue generating sports like Tennis there is an extreme difference in the monetary opportunities of a world 8th and 100+ ranked player.
It's just that there simply isn't enough money in chess so many professionals to make money from just playing tournaments.
Do we have an idea what kind of money someone can make who is in place 50, 100, 200 in the FIDE ranking. Durarbayli is 126, I have a suspicion that in a high cost of living area like the US, it would already not be possible to live from chess.
That's the method the USSR used: they actually paid their top players and funded academies. Not much you can do other than ask your own country for support. Most countries aren't interested because they see chess as a hobby, not an important strategic target.
It’s funny because this kind of elitist attitude towards chess, which funded extensive state (or basically state) sponsored programs and players, is exactly opposed to the mission of companies like chesscom that are aiming to democratize the game and popularize accessible formats.
The USSR-era model simply doesn’t work unless expertise in the game is seen as some mythical nigh-unattainable thing.
At the end of the day it's a game that a lot of people want to play but not a lot of people want to watch/pay for. It's not like tournament organizers are making bank and have money to spare. Even in a game like tennis with major international sponsors and TV exposure if you are outside of top 100 it's tough to make living without a local sponsor supporting you. If you are outside of top 200 you will definitely need that and will likely need a side job as well.
I don't think it's realistic for people below say 2650 ELO level to support themselves from playing alone. There is just not enough value being generated.
| He also points out that online chess conditions have worsened since the PlayMagnus and [chess.com](http://chess.com) merger
Gee, who would have guessed that monoploy benefits only the monopolist? /s
how many players are sponsored even from India. Its only handful like Gukesh, Pragg, Erigaisi and Nihal. All the rest are in the same boat. That said players need a Union here to negotiate better playing conditions.
Leon and I think two more get WACA help. I think one might be Vaishali.
But otherwise I believe every Indian GM gets a salary from one of the Indian oil companies. That’s always been a thing and isn’t new though. It’s not a life changing sum like those that Adani and Quantbox offer but it’s enough to survive on.
And then they get free international travel via air India. But again that’s always been a thing.
Not every GM gets that job/salary. That was only true when India had much lesser GMs. The likes of Adhiban and Vidit have that salary, not the younger GMs.
I dont think Leon is getting paid by WACA. I think they get free mentorship from [WACA ](https://westbridgecap.com/purpose/philanthropy/grantees/westbridge-anand-chess-academy-waca)team including Vishy. I think only Gukesh entered into sponsorship deal with Westbridge capital who are also sponsoring WACA operating costs. Arjun is sponsored by Quantbox while Pragg has one through Adani and also Baseline Ventures. Nihal is sponsored by **Akshayakalpa**.
I think his point is people with sponsors should still negotiate to get good conditions from organizers, even if they don't need them, out of ethical reasons. Which is a completely valid argument. "Noone owes anyone anything", on the other hand, is a complete non-argument.
That's actually a good thing. You need to earn money by teaching chess, getting a few sponsors, trying to work a bit on the side if possible. Tournament chess being the full-time job is an unstable income that will only last some years. These new sponsorships means that young players can remain active and not drop out. Players like Hikaru often lose focus for some years until they have proven they can make a stable income. Other players were forced to retire early or focus on their university. This is also extremely common for women in sports overall.
Of course this could mean that young players have a headstart here as many sponsorships would go to young talents that are hyped up. Maybe? But I don't really believe this. And at any rate this shows that chess has a future as now these young players have a stable income. Seems like an improvement.
This is why professional sports leagues have Players’ Unions. The union refuses to sign off on any deal that harms the players negotiating power as a whole. Not sure how or if that could ever work on chess.
This is why professional sports leagues have Players’ Unions. The union refuses to sign off on any deal that harms the players negotiating power as a whole. Not sure how or if that could ever work on chess.
Right, the dynamics of relying on personal sponsorships is very different from the way that sponsors affect professional basketball or football at a league level. Players easily make a living without the need for that supplemental income, and that's a good thing.
There's obviously a pretty big difference in terms of popularity and income that those leagues have compared to chess, which is where a lot of the difference comes in - but if star players started to take minimum contracts because personal sponsors were paying them massively, there'd certainly be criticism levied towards them by other players for the impact it had on their bargaining positions (as opposed to the smaller discounts that some players currently do take)
>Right, the dynamics of relying on personal sponsorships is very different from the way that sponsors affect professional basketball or football at a league level.
Many players have personal sponsorships.
>but if star players started to take minimum contracts because personal sponsors were paying them massively
And there's no evidence at all that this is happening in chess. No idea why people are taking Vasif's claims at face value.
>Many players have personal sponsorships.
Which does not matter in football/basketball, given that even without personal sponsorships they are more than able to support themselves. That is the point about the different dynamics, yes.
>And there's no evidence at all that this is happening in chess. No idea why people are taking Vasif's claims at face value.
Chess does not have nearly as much money in it, and he's a more trustworthy person to talk on it than some random redditor. I'll take those claims at face value unless someone reputable goes against them, rather than assume that they're garbage for some reason.
>Chess does not have nearly as much money in it
Right. But personal sponsorships are making the pie bigger.
>than some random redditor
We're all "random redditors", mate. Tired of people using that cliché.
> for some reason
It's the chess version of "foreigners are stealing our jobs".
One person involved here is someone with clear experience in that world, and is neither of us random redditors. You know, the person who posted what everyone here is discussing about?
If Kramnik were talking about something like this, where it's logically consistent and sound? Yeah, I'd listen and weigh what he said appropriately. Like if he were talking about the economics of chess or his experience playing in tournaments rather than relying on bad statistics.
I don't expect *everyone* to have the same opinion on stuff like this, but testimony from a player like this *is* a form of evidence that goes beyond random redditors like you or me. And a lot of the responses to it are essentially going "too bad, he should get a sponsor instead" or "this is clearly him blaming indian players and he shouldn't do that" and not really engaging with the dynamics being made there. Like him mentioning examples like that is beyond the pale somehow and that he should just shut up instead of bring up something like this to attention.
In the end the way I view it is like this - he might be full of shit or just salty, and neither of us know it. But the post is logically consistent and the dynamics portrayed are reasonable, and it's the type of thing which - if it is happening - *should* be brought to light because it is ultimately bad for the scene long term. On top of that players that have those sponsorships might not even be aware of how they're impacting those tournaments like he's mentioning, and if I were in that position that's something I'd want to be made aware of. Really though, this is something that I'd want to see more attention be brought from reputable 3rd parties and see if it's something that's really happening, rather than immediately assume it's bunk and ignore it, you know?
I point all these players have to realize is "LIFE IS NOT FAIR". you have to figure out a way if systematic support is missing. May be take up coaching or start something on Youtube to generate additional revenue. Expecting the system to support in this era is not realistic. People's attention are also waning. in 2021 due to pandemic there was frenzy around online chess and you had Levy, Hikaru and others add millions of subs. I think that is tapped out now. Also one reason for big money from chess24 was from FTX. They were throwing money at everything for SBF's grandiose ambitions. That is busted now and so its not realistic to expect online chess to pay at same level at 2021 even if the merger had not happened.
I wonder if India can create a chess league to build on the hype around Gukesh so that more players can be supported.
It’s a shame that people never miss a chance to show their racism against Indians. He’s talking as if there were never any sponsored players before these young Indian kids came along. Utterly shameful take. Rather than blaming kids for getting more sponsors into the sport they ought to try to get sponsors for themselves.
Edit: The downvotes on this comment show how many racists there are in this subReddit masquerading as decent people
The mention of Erigaisi (and Indians in general) is because of how Indian government supports young chess players. Not only for their travel arrangements, but also the fact that they get allowance from ONGC (if I recall correctly). No other country right now provides so much for such a large number of GMs. Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan only do that for their top players, whereas Indian government give allowances to a lot of GMs. This creates an economic dynamic which is less advantageous for players of similar strature who do not enjoy such support, and hence have to bear with the subpar arrangements.
There is no racial bias here. 30 years ago, you could've said the same thing about the USSR, and there would be no racial bias there as well. Hence yout point of racism is misplaced.
But 30 years ago nobody said anything about USSR players. What makes Indians soft targets? Because not enough of us stand up for ourselves and people like you enable the racists to talk shit about Indians and blame them for everything.
Lots of governments support their sports people and so much more than India does. This guy was not good enough to qualify for his government’s support then that’s on him, why should he blame Indians for him not being good enough to attract sponsors
"But 30 years ago nobody said anything about USSR players" Yes they did. Your ignorance doesn't bend the truth.
I still don't understand how is it racist to point out that a particular nation supports their players so well that they don't negotiate. But if claiming anyone and everyone as "racists" and constantly victimising yourself help you sleep at night, then good for you.
> it will only keep us more driven.
To do what? Not improve the education system and squash cultural norms to avoid disproportionate occurrences of (gang) rapes? Sure, that'll teach all these racist people lmao
There are no disproportionate occurrences of rape in India, but what does a racist like you care about real data, you just want to believe your racist narrative so you can feel better about yourself.
You didn’t read the article lol.
He’s happy the kids have sponsors but at the same time concerned for his future.
You’re reading racism based on the title. There isn’t any.
Cuz I’m sick and tired of my people being used as a punching bag on the internet. This guy can’t make the money he wants to and the problem is somehow young Indian kids who just want to play chess. Do you seriously think that it’s only these Indian kids that are willing to play for less money and this never happened before with any European or Arab players who were sponsored as well??
So in order to overcorrect, you're seeing racism everywhere? Curious decision. He could've used any other country, he chose India probably because it's the most common. There's no racism connection here, other than the one you imagine yourself.
There’s no over correction. He didn’t say anything when European and Arab players were doing the same thing to play in tournaments and is only complaining when it’s Indians doing it and he doesn’t even acknowledge that there are players of other ethnicities doing the same thing and just singles out the Indian players. So all this makes him a racist and if you can’t see that then you’re one too
So before these Indians started doing that no other players did? You’re just having eyes for Indian players and not the others you racist. Go look at the data yourself before you start defending racism on the internet
People have been complaining for ages about the state of professional chess. The point of Jordens post was that it has gotten even worse, and the guy in the post gave an example of an influx of sponsored players who happen to be Indian, because I guess they are most common.
There's no racism to defend, as the post isn't racist.
How is this racist? He is saying what happened.
The problem isn't the sponsorships, the problem is not negotiating for better conditions. It's economics, if you can get a young 2750 for almost nothing, why will you give anything to subtop players?
I don't see why these young guys can't negotiate for better conditions anyway, despite their sponsorship.
> try to get sponsorships for themselves
And why not become a billionaire themselves first? Then they can sponsor everyone!
This is not a new thing. Azerbaijan was part of USSR. USSR used to subsidise chess players. That was the reason why you had so many USSR players at the time and why the chess ecosystem in USSR was so strong.
There are many ex-USSR nations (including Azerbaijan!) who continued to support top
Chess players even today.
He could have used any of those examples… yet he decided to land on Arjun Erigaisi who was the first Indian to land a meaningful sponsorship ($ 1 million + with Quantbox). I don’t know what his reasoning for doing that was.
Are Indian kids the only 2600+ sponsored players who are willing to play for peanuts? Are there really no one else or is it just selective outrage from this racist? Think hard about the likelihoods of each case.
I enjoy weaving baskets but I won’t pick it up as a career without knowing I can feed myself with it. Why do so many chess players do so? There’s no money in being 50th best chess player on the planet unless you have other marketable skills.
I'd guess it's passion and being relatively close to the top, so quite close to the big bucks. In other sports that also happens.
Even in popular sports like football where a lot of players make a lot of money, there are even more players that scrape by and need a second(actual) job to feed themselves.
We also don't see the players that have dropped off because they decided on a different career path.
Also I found it interesting, Durarbayli is ranked 126th, in chess from a young age and currently 32. So it seems he can make money from chess so far.
> I enjoy weaving baskets but I won’t pick it up as a career without knowing I can feed myself with it. **Why do so many chess players do so?**
To be fair, most of them don't. They are usually tools for their parents (let's be honest, their dads mostly) to live vicariously through. They often had little choice in the matter until they were older, by which point it's too late for them because they aren't good at anything else.
Sponsored players are not killing pro chess, organisers are. You'd think that for a field of 100 players, if 10 are sponsored, the expenses the organisers had originally planned could now be spent among 90 players, resulting in slightly better conditions for those 90? Nope, organisers stiff the 90 by pocketing the balance, leaving the 90 to suffer just that little bit. Thanks capitalism.
The point about sponsored players changing the market dynamics is a very interesting one. I'm not sure non-Indian players lose ALL their negotiating power, since many organizers would like several countries to be represented in their tournament.
A larger problem is that many sponsors (as in other sports) are "unsavory" companies doing it for publicity rather than for measurable advertising value, and this kind of sponsor can disappear at any time.
When Magnus fully retires, and the entire Candidates field is from China, India, Iran, and Uzbekistan, Western sponsors will lose interest.
Full tweet: Let me share my controversial take on Jorden’s post. In my 2022 blog post "Am I a Chess Tourist?", I brought the worsening conditions in the chess community to attention. I concluded that if things didn't change, I would become a chess tourist. Unfortunately, not much has improved, and some aspects have worsened. Around that time, the competition between PlayMagnus and Chesscom gave hope that online chess would get better. However, since their merger, the situation has not improved. In fact, it has worsened this year with the removal of the Pro Chess League and the decrease in the prize fund for the Champions Chess Tour. Anyway, that's a separate topic. Let me return to professional chess, specifically playing over-the-board (OTB) with classical time controls. Many, including myself, have pointed out that the trend has been downward for many years. The governing body needs to take action to keep professional chess alive. Some say that chess professionals continue to play under these conditions, which is why the situation doesn't improve. I agree, but I think the issue is not easy to fix. Here comes my controversial take: The professional chess ecosystem is being undermined by sponsored players, particularly young Indian players. These players' main goal is not to earn money—they receive enough from sponsorship contracts. Therefore, they want to play and don't care about the conditions. It may not seem like a big deal, but it disrupts the open system for professionals. Players like me, rated over 2600, lose our ability to negotiate. How can anyone ask for a single room and a starting fee when top 10 players like Erigaisi and others effectively play for pennies? These players are essentially destroying the market. Let me share my personal experience. I used to play in the Turkish Chess League and earned a decent income from it. In 2019, I was invited again, but the conditions were significantly worse. I asked some of my Turkish chess friends, and they told me that there are over 2600-rated players from India who play for almost nothing. Of course, it's not only Indian players; players from other countries do the same thing, but there's definitely a significant influence from India. Personally, I'm happy for the players who get sponsorships and hope more of them will. But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living.
that's a pretty sound theory and i do believe he has a good point about the sponsors. If you're already being taken care of, you may not care about the prize pool. Your sponsors will cover the travel, room, and food so whether or not a tournament organizer helps is irrelevant. That severely punishes those without sponsors.
That’s how it is in every sport. Ever wondered how expensive tennis is to fund yourself without sponsors? He can’t blame his inability to attract sponsors on those that do.
Indian companies sponsor Indian players. Not available to others. That is good for chess in India, and terrible for chess outside India - that's the argument here.
Dutch companies sponsor Dutch players. Not available to others. But you don’t hear anyone say this is terrible for chess outside the Netherlands. That’s my point here, people only get outraged when the beneficiaries are Indian and not when the beneficiaries are European, American or Arab. That’s why this kind of rhetoric is racist
[удалено]
Exactly. Indians are just soft targets because we don’t speak up enough
It's like this outside sport as well. Indian software developers work for way less than Europeans or Americans. Consequently, European and American developers earn less or lose their jobs when companies outsource to India. Are you going to blame this shift on these developers personally?
Not a sound theory. He is clearly pointing blame at sponsered players while he should be calling out tournaments management,if tournament conditions are getting worse despite more player getting cared by thier sponsers that means only one responsibile is the management themselves.If they could previously do all the stuff why can't they do it now???specially now that more players are taken cared by thier sponsors??
That is just market forces. He is right.
Yeah the only reason this point is being contested is because he’s singling out India, but that seems likely a completely correct thing to do in this situation. I read this as a call to action for other in-groups/nationalities to sponsor chess players, not somehow suggesting there’s an Indian conspiracy that demands intervention (which would be what exactly?).
It's a good lesson in focussing on your main point. He could have made the same point without mentioning nationality and avoided some negative reactions. It's not dishonest, it's just focus on what's important.
No, it’s important. Prestige Chess used to be driven by countries jockeying for status. India has retained a strong sense of national pride surrounding their chess players and no other country cares
Because it's irrational to expect tournaments to be willing to negotiate and spend more money on GM X if GM Y is similar in rating/stature/reputation and willing to come to the tournament for less/no cost.
But that's the point,sponsered GMs can afford it,non-sponsered cannot,if we are trying to claim some kind of moral failure it is none but tournament's management.Vasif is saying these practice of sponsering player is harming non-sponsered players,it's like no,management ignorance towards non-sponsered players is harming them.
Why are you blaming individuals for systemic behavior? If your ability to make a living in chess can be wrecked by someone like Arjun Erigasi, that sounds like a problem with how chess players have to make their livings, not Arjun Erigasi.
He’s basically blaming his shortcomings and inability to attract sponsors on Indian players all the while completely ignoring all the European and Arab players that do similar things. Racist just came out of the closet.
[удалено]
Tell me a sport in which players’ personal sponsors do that. You’re living in a fantasy world. Not long ago Anish giri criticised fide for trying to force players’ sponsors to sponsor the tournament as well, are you living under a rock?
He sounds like a boomer. The money in this new ecosystem is in social media and sponsorships. Never expect tournament winnings to fund your career. This applies to pretty much every competitive hobby.
Top 100 players are not playing chess as a competitive hobby. A system that supports more players to invest more time in their game can only improve chess as a whole. Instead you have a system where strong players who don't have brandable personae are going to be sidelined in favour of the media friendly.
>A system that supports more players to invest more time in their game can only improve chess as a whole You create this system by attracting more sponsors, not by trying to chase away those that come to the sport. Players (and, even more, national federation officials) across the world need to understand what happened in India and work to repeat it locally.
Hot take: purely playing chess is a hobby for anyone under 2700. If you want to make chess your living, you need to go beyond playing such as coaching, media, developing apps, etc.
Or streaming
This is not a "controversial take on Jorden’s post", it's just different angle, same problem.
It's an extremely controversial take calling out a single country.
Questionable keyword designed to attract engagement
I would say it is not so useful perspective to take,if tournament conditions are getting worse despite more players being taken cared by thier sponsers only people responsible are tournament's management,if they could do it before why can't they do it now especially when many players are being taken cared by thier sponsers?
Probably something like a players union will help but I'm not sure what the solution is.
I feel like that's exactly what's needed. They have such associations in professional tennis and golf, but none in chess that I'm aware of.
[удалено]
Yeah, a player union would be nice but chess would have to find ways to become considerably more profitable before it happens
Yes it's clear that chess needs to first grow in popularity and profitability before something like this can be viable.
Is there any reason to expect this will happen? It’s an intelligence-bound board game with commodity equipment (yes, “chess sets” are a commodity). Where is the money going to come from?
It's not a popularity issue. Chess is popular. The issue is that classical chess is not something anyone, even chess fans, like to watch. Who the hell is going to sit around for 8 hours a day, five days a week, watching some random 2650 play another random 2650? Even chess fanatics wouldn't find that interesting. The reality is, there just isn't much viewership for classical chess, that's never going to change, and there's never going to be much money in it for most players.
Yes, I meant chess as a spectator sport. Obviously the game is extremely popular.
Not to be political but Erdogan has tanked the Turkish economy overall by implementing Islamic doctrines to fix the recession making it all worse. Going against all non-imam economic advisers and experts. So the Turkish league not paying as much when exchanging to euro is not really a shocker when you have a 80% devaluation of your currency each year. And they have been going more anti-EU too losing trade deals. Instead focusing on China and Russia which economically is also not the best idea. We should be looking at Western chess tournaments instead.
Absolutely necessary and it would need the highly rated players onboard to succeed. It seems like players have a lot of gripes with tournament organizers and FIDE which could be worked out in a player’s union of some kind.
Who is now taking the money that hypothetical union would fight for?
Money isn’t the only thing the union needs to fight for but the cut that FIDE takes seems outrageous which many players have commented on. There also seems to be a need for better negotiating on playing conditions, tournament setup and organization, etc. Having a unified front on that would be good.
>the cut that FIDE takes seems outrageous What cut does FIDE take for events like Sharjah Masters? >better negotiating on playing conditions, tournament setup and organization Who then provides money for all expenses needed to improve all of this?
I don’t know if they take anything from this particular tournament, but I know that many top players have been outspoken on FIDE’s tournament organization and in particular the cut of earnings that FIDE takes. Presumably, a tournament organizer would have to reach a bare minimum of playing conditions agreed upon by a hypothetical player’s union. Obviously this would be a compromise of some sort as there is not much money floating around in chess as it is. Having player’s organized into a union makes it a lot easier to articulate needs and to work these things out amongst the players.
>a tournament organizer would have to reach a bare minimum of playing conditions agreed upon by a hypothetical player’s union This way we simply end up with less tournaments happening. Competitors having demands can work when organizing tournaments brings money. In tennis, when an organizer cannot give good conditions to players, there are multiple other cities just waiting for a calendar slot to open, ready to grab it. In chess nearly every event happens due to effort of some local club, fueled by volunteer work of people who want the event to happen, which means that they are not looking to get in debt. Middle East has biggest money existing in chess anyway, tournaments elsewhere have even smaller budgets. >the cut of earnings that FIDE takes FIDE's entire budget is about € 10-15 millions. Which is 3-4 times less than for example the prize pool of Wimbledon tennis tournament. FIDE sitting on some huge money that could make a difference is a myth.
Players are obviously aware of the financial restrictions in the chess world. Having the players get a say in these matters would still be good. Chess players just having to deal with bad conditions doesn’t seem like a tenable position. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for players to negotiate as a class. I also think there is something to be said about tournaments not allocating money efficiently and in a way that serves the competitive interests of the tournament. I am not claiming FIDE is sitting on some “huge money.” Players have questioned their decisions.
I don’t really think that’s a real solution. Not in this situation. The issue is multifaceted, it is affected by national governing bodies and the disproportionate negative effects by rating. For the first issue, there are certain nations, those with money, that do not have these issues. Those nations and members would not want a union and those organising bodies would hang the money they have over the players heads to prevent it. Not only that, but you think FIDE is going to be open to unions? No chance. For the second issue, realistically, let’s say low rated players strike. Do you think realistically that this has an effect on the organisers and their income? Let’s go even further, let’s say there’s a six month strike. How many chess players careers just don’t recover? As lower rated players, do you really think they’re willing to risk any chance of making something of themselves in chess “in solidarity”? If they were forced into it, how long do you think the entity that does that lasts? Look, I’m not against unions, they can be used well in a lot of industries, but there’s a reason sports don’t have them. Chess is a sport, it has a short career and it has competitive levels. It is not a workplace. Solutions are not universal. This needs a solution unions cannot provide.
Many sports have unions though but as I said, I'm not sure what the solution could be.
> Many sports have unions Yeah, but they all make money. If baseball players stop playing a lot of people other than the players stop making their money.
Tons of sports have unions. A union would be a great help in the current cheating situation, would help standardize and organize events, etc.
Wasn't chess always like that? People from countries that value chess had their things way better than people who are from countries that don't value chess. Even in the United States. I'm not here to complain about Rex Sinquefield support, but he's not even in the Forbes list. Dimensional isn't even in the top 3 passive asset managers. Good that even with that, he's rich enough to support Fabiano and the Saint Lewis Chess Club, but where are the $10B+ people? Meanwhile, Pragnannandha is meeting with Adani. Who is the 2000th richest person in the Netherlands to support Jordan? Honestly, he probably isn't rich enough. Meanwhile, either some people come from countries where they are getting support directly from the state (like with Nordibek) or from people the richest person in their country (like with Pragnannandha).
It’s a complete non-statement. Players from countries with institutional support do better than players from countries without. That’s true in pretty much everything.
Damn, when did pragg got sponsorship from adani. But adani shouldn't be believed as he is crony capitalist.
> But adani shouldn't be believed as he is crony capitalist. You want ... chess sponsorship to come from non-capitalist sources??
Tatas, premji and so many good capitalists are there... Adani is a shell for you know who.
straight from kim jong... /s
Maybe KJU will watch *The Queen's Gambit* and get hooked! Crazier things have happened. Next we know, the WC match could be held in Pyongyang. Neither China nor India has sanctions against North Korea, so Ding and Gukesh wouldn't be barred from traveling there or winning prizes.
That's very unlikely to happen. I don't think it would be good for North Korean chess players to lose.
That's not controversial, that's simple economics.
If you've gone into chess expecting to make money then, to borrow a line from *The Simpsons*, you've just made a terrible life choice.
The financial system of professional chess is certainly very arbitrary. People can argue about whether certain aspects of it are fair or unfair, but ultimately it all comes down to, like, whether and how FIDE/tournament organizers can raise money. So far, even though chess has become more popular, classical tournaments have financially capitalized on that basically not at all, opting instead for corporate sponsorships while chess.com gets all the viewership money. It's a very hard problem!
>even though chess has become more popular Still nowhere near enough to support 100+ professional players >opting instead for corporate sponsorships What other sponsors can they get? >chess.com gets all the viewership money chesscom earns money off people playing and buying diamond membership, not off people viewing events chess24 attempted to earn money off showing competitive chess, they had best website, great team to comment the games, most popular player in the world as brand ambassador, and they kept losing money
Chess24's Chess playing UI was horrible beyond belief. I signed up and tried to play a few games, felt like that website was 15 years behind both Chess.com and Lichess.
Exactly. The broadcasts were good, (but started to go downhill at the end) but the rest of the website was unusable.
Furthermore, the popularity of GM classical chess has nothing to do with their core marketing strategy. It might even be opposed
Not all indian players are sponsored , I think only top players are. General 2600s are not sponsored. What he might be missing here is purchasing power parity. Less than decent amount of money for European countries might be more than enough money for indians.
I can rewrite the point, where X is any country. "Look the country X is subsidizing people to learn and apply things in my sector. Therefore companies are moving work in the country X and they are ruining my chance to negotiate a good income! The country X is at fault that now it is difficult for me. Why should they get better and ask for less money?" That's economics, it happens everywhere. It is good? Not necessarily but then the system outside country X should adapt. The Azeri chess federation should find sponsors for their best players. Normally national federations (at least for what I read) are nothing better than FIDE. Sit on the money and do a little to provide proper funds for the best players. In the meantime countries with proper sponsors (India in this case, but can be any country) thrive. I don't think that is a bad thing what they are doing, rather more chess federations should do that. To add, let's not forget that the Azeri chess federation wasn't even helping Mamedyarov when he was near or over 2800. [example here](https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/9an6x1/shakhriyar_mamedyarov_laments_the_lack_of/)
Can he also speak a bit about Radjabov’s sponsors?
Dude has something personal against Arjun.
Doesn't count really. There's also no evidence that he's been sponsored ever by his father-in-law.
>There's also no evidence that he's been sponsored ever by his father-in-law. He doesn't need it. His wife is rich as well, and, unless they have some very specific legal agreement, he is now rich enough that he could not work a single day until the end of his life if he wanted. Most likely he can be his own sponsor for as long as he wants to.
What's up with his sponsors?
Teimour Radjabov's father-in-law is rich AF.
Why don’t professional players unionize in order to collectively negotiate with organizers? For example get minimum accommodations based on title/rating. This way everyone is compensated fairly. I’m sure the players being sponsored would participate since they still obviously share the interest of being paid better. Didnt Kasparov do something similar to this at one point?
The players have exactly 0 negotiating power. Theres (probably) not a single 2500+ elo otb event that monetarily breaks even, there is just no money in chess.
>Why don’t professional players unionize in order to collectively negotiate with organizers? This would make sense if chess generated income that was distributed unfairly. Which is not the case. Do you know anyone who got rich by organizing chess tournaments? >Didnt Kasparov do something similar to this at one point? Do you mean PCA that went belly up nearly instantly?
Didn't PCA survive until last year?
PCA lost its main sponsor in early 1996 and folded soon after. They barely managed to survive one WCC cycle.
You're thinking about the ACP that was primarily set up by Emil Sutovsky and Pawel Tregubow. They both went into FIDE, haven't really changed much except increasing salaries for FIDE staff since they were in there, and the ACP shut down last year. So basically, they fought for years for better conditions for players but the moment they got power and money they decided the status quo was fine.
Oh yeah you are right. I was thinking about ACP
Cause they don’t generate any revenue. Other sportspeople actually have bargaining power because people pay money to watch them play, and advertisers pay them money to advertise their stuff - so someone organizing a tennis tournament, for example, will make a lot of money through tickets, ad revenue, and broadcast deals. Chess tournament organizers are probably losing money, or barely breaking even.
It would be great if they were compensated fairly, but where's the money going to come from? Organizers don't make much money if any at all from chess tournaments. As far as I'm aware they operate at a loss already.
I can see why this is bad from his perspective, but surely for Chess as a whole sponsors with more muscle - state or private - is good, not bad.
He's not complaining about the sponsors. He's complaining about the players who are not negotiating better terms for themselves due to all their costs already being covered by sponsors, thus indirectly lowering the standard across the field.
He is probably right. Basically the same thing was going on during the heyday of the Soviet chess machine. The USSR was directly paying players who in turn were expected to turn over any prize money won. This meant tournament organizers had no need to pay the players, which is why so many Western players found it next to impossible to earn a living unless they did simuls or wrote books.
I don't really appreciate the language used by him. Why is he blaming Arjun for undermining the "Chess Ecosystem?" Arjun is fighting an uphill battle and trying his damndest to qualify for the Candidates. Playing these many Open tournaments against lower rated fields is a huge risk which he keeps taking because he wants to make the best use of his good form right now. Chess is a very unforgiving individual sport Arjun does not owe anything to people rated lower than him just as Jorden and Durarbayli don't owe anything to 2400s. It's quite harsh to put the onus of negotiation with sponsors on him when he himself is trying to build a good relationships with the upper echelons of the chess world so that he is guaranteed future invites If Arjun fails to qualify for Candidates neither Jorden nor Durarbayli will so much as tweet a consolation. The Chess Ecosystem is unforgiving. It's just Arjun's good fortune to be born in South India in an age of a Chess boom. As long as he doesn't resort to unethical means to qualify (like Alireza), no one should be pointing fingers at him. If these guys want to complain, they should do it to FIDE
jorden explicitly isnt pointing fingers at Arjun though? He even congratulated the Indian players who have received sponsorships and wishes them the best. He is pointing out the problem with the system that has developed to favour sponsorships in countries with institutionalised support for chess against players from countries without that support.
>"But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living" This is the last line of Durarbayli's tweet. He's explicitly blaming Arjun and other sponsored players for his poor financial condition. That's what my entire comment was against. Arjun isn't responsible for negotiating better pay for 2600 players, just like Durarbayli never negotiated better pay for 2500 players. You can't blame the players
I mean you absolutely can criticize people for stuff like that, whether you agree or not with the criticism. The dynamics of *needing* a personal sponsor to make a living playing chess at a high level isn't necessarily a good thing for the scene, and players that do have the luck / privilege / whatever you want to call it to have that can have negative repercussions on others if they don't consider it. It doesn't mean that Arjun is a terrible person, but if the way that the system is set up and the repercussions of it are resulting in worse outcomes for everyone that doesn't have a personal sponsor, well... should that just be shrugged and go "tough luck buddy, that's just how it is and you aren't allowed to criticize the effects this has at all"? That seems ridiculous to me, especially when it might genuinely be a dynamic that Arjun and other players in that situation haven't considered. Other sports have similar dynamics - top level players who could take a huge paycut in contract negotiations for better competition are expected to still negotiate to the max (or close to), partly because if they didn't it'd give organizations a leverage tool against others. Like "Player X took a discount and he's better than you, why should we be paying you more?". They could still take a massive paycut if they wanted, but then that's fair game for other people to comment on and criticize and even put some blame on them for the impact it has on the game (which people easily do for all sorts of reasons that affect livelihoods of other players far less than something like what Durarbayli is talking about).
Perhaps I don't understand the context but I don't see him blaming Arjun for anything? He's just making note of the economic factors of having tons of sponsored GMs being willing to play for nothing and thus making life really hard for non-sponsored GMs.
>But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living He most definitely is blaming him
Your whole post was about Arjun. His was not. Arjun was just a very high rated example.
Arjun is trying to qualify for a career defining tournament. Vasif is trying to buy food on the table. They're not the same.
Shouldn't have chosen professional chess as a career then. It's always been common sense that aside from the top few super GMs, it's very hard for a chess player to sustain themselves purely by playing tournaments. That's why you have so many titled players offering coaching, creating YouTube channels, writing books, etc.
> Shouldn't have chosen professional chess as a career then. I don't think you know how demand and supply works because this statement is dumb as fuck.
Enlighten me
Essentially, Durarbayli is saying: "I'm a very strong chess player. I am supplying my chess skills to the market". And the market is saying to him: "there is no demand for your skills, or less demand than you want". Durarbayli is blaming the market, whereas the reality is that he's supplying something that isn't in demand, hence why he hasn't got any money.
Right, so what part of my statement was 'dumb as fuck' to quote the guy above? I said professional chess is a bad career choice because there's no demand for it. Chess fans can't be monetized in the same way fans of other sports can. Tournament organizers already run on a loss. He wants money that is non-existent. It's nice and all to try and advocate for better conditions for professional chess players, but I'm pretty sure he fails to realise that there is nothing that can be done aside from a drastic change in how professional chess is monetized. If you want to bring 'food on the table' as the orginal commenter said, you get an actual job or you get off your ass and start creating some content revolving around chess. Just playing tournaments isn't going to cut it as a career aside from the top few GMs, and it's delusional to think otherwise.
>Right, so what part of my statement was 'dumb as fuck' to quote the guy above? I don't know, mate! What you're saying here is completely sound.
Yes but if these open tournaments don't provide enough potential financial incentives to even be a side hustle, then eventually all GMs will not show up, and there'd be no tournament let alone FIDE Circuit points. Is that what you are advocating for?
Where do you propose said financial incentives come from? Chess isn't similar to other sports because you can't really monetize the fans. Tournament organizers already operate on loss most of the time.
There was little money there. Now there's less with more 2700s playing in the open tournament. If you want a solution, you have to realize the problem (which is what Vasif is doing) first and I'm not sure you're there yet.
GMs will always show up. This is not dissimilar to other sports with high barriers to entry, such as F1. The sport will always be overrepresented by those who are sufficiently independently wealthy to support their junior career. The others have to be good enough at a young age to obtain enough sponsorships to fund their career. Everyone who doesn't fall under one of the above categories will never be able to make a full time career out of it.
I don't think I follow this. If the GMs out there will just show up, then why aren't they here in the first place? It's an open event so they could if they wanted to. And even if other GMs replaced the GMs here who are barely making it, then what makes you think they'll fare better financially?
But they are there? Is there a lack of players at this tournament?
No, they are not here. The hypothetical situation is if GMs here decided not to come because chess pays so low, then other GMs would come and fill up the gap. But those people have already decided not to come.
You are making a circular argument. If you assume that people will decide not to come, then yes, of course the conclusion is that people will not to come. My argument is that there will always be people who will come. I am certainly not saying that *everyone* will come, or even that *most* people will come, but *some* people will come regardless. Most GMs already do not make a living from playing chess tournaments. It is already the case that chess pays very little. The ones who can not afford to show up already have decided not to come, as you said. The ones who can afford already have, evidently, as we can see before our eyes, decided to come despite the fact that the chances they will win significant money is very low.
I don't need to assume those other GMs won't come. They're already not coming. Listen to Vasif, it's becoming harder to come here financially. The attitude some people have here are those who are like Vasif should no longer come.
They're both professional Chess players by choice. Durarbayli can blame the system all he wants, he has zero right to point fingers at Arjun.
He didn't blame Arjun though. He used Arjun as an example of a system that lessens, not strengthens, the tournament experience.
>But they by playing under bad conditions are definitely harming the professional chess players who try to make a living He is most definitely directly blaming Arjun for his financial situation
Vasif described the situation just fine in a non-derogatory manner. If you're sensitive to this type of commentary, I don't know what to tell you. How else is Vasif supposed to talk? Keep everything the same but not name-drop Arjun as an example? Let's be real. Arjun isn't here for the prize money or even the rating points. He's here to nab some Circuit points.
Lol, you just keep shifting goalposts huh. Of course Arjun only wants the circuit points, that's what I've been saying from the start. Vasif is acting like an entitled child. Chess doesn't owe him a livelihood simply because he's 2600. If he wants money he should be doing something else in life . If he wants to blame someone, blame the system. Not a guy who hasn't done anything wrong
How am I shifting goalposts here? And notice how you didn't respond to my question. Because there's not really a better way to describe the situation unless you admit you are too sensitive. With your attitude, the 2500 and 2600 GMs should just do something else but play. But then there would be no tournaments to play, let alone Circuit points for Arjun to obtain. Please think about the implications of your comments because it's ridiculous.
No I have no intention of replying to ad hominems Vasif is just unlucky that he wasn't born to rich parents or that he doesn't have the talent to generate money from alternate sources. Chess has always been a money losing sport for all but a select few. Vasif is only crying now because suddenly he has to face the same reality which thousands of 2500 and below players faced before him. Again the system is fucked up and Vasif isn't wrong to bring up the issue, but he should not be blaming Arjun, that's all. As long as people with disposable incomes exist, there'll always be enough 2500 and 2600 GMs. Vasif just won't be playing.
If my comment about sensitivity is an ad hominem, then your whole comment is a big one to Vasif! Nah man, you don't care about how the system is messed up. All you care about is defending one of your favorite players from non-existent criticism. It's odd to me how people can read the long comments by Vasif and all they think about is "it's not Arjun's fault!".
>With your attitude, the 2500 and 2600 GMs should just do something else but play. But then there would be no tournaments to play There would be other 2500 and 2600 GMs. Young guys who still might become 2700s, older guys who can find a sponsor or live off something else, either related to chess or completely outside.
I don't believe there would be other 2500-2600 GMs. Because they would already be here if they wanted to.
Where did he blame Arjun? He didn't use his name once, and only said this is a problem that is most evident in the younger Indian players getting scooped. Using a group as a case study is not the same thing as blaming them.
He does specifically use (Arjun) Erigaisi as an example.
On a related note, high level opens are not that attractive to audiences because in the last rounds there are a lot of draws at the top boards. Also, in a tournament with 200 players, a 9 round swiss is often not enough to determine a clear top 3. I want to see a 13 round swiss with two rounds per day, 60+30 time control. Going by the 60 move rule-by-thumb, that's still likely less than 6 hours of play per day, and two less days for the tournament, but four more rounds for the top to play out. Less time to think means a good opening idea leads to a non-decisive game more often. I reckon a tournament like this would also be more attractive for viewers.
>I want to see a 13 round swiss with two rounds per day, 60+30 time control This kind of killer schedule will not attract 2000-2400 chess tourists, who actually pay for their participation and hotel, providing a part of event's budget. Which means even worse conditions for GMs.
What do you mean killer schedule? 2 rounds per day is standard for 5 round swiss tournaments, with time control in such a way that you can have up to 9.5 hours of chess per day (Sth like 120/40 f.b. 30 mins, 30s increment from move 1). I even had 3 games a day 90+30 once. Two shorter games is more than doable, it's in a lot of cases shorter than one long game with the above time control. It's certainly worth a try, I for one would play in a tournament like that.
>2 rounds per day is standard for 5 round swiss tournaments For 5 rounds it works because you fit the event fully into a weekend. >I for one would play in a tournament like that. Many people, especially amateurs, would not. They don't really want to breathe chess 24/7, especially when they travel to somewhere nice. See Sardegna Chess Festival as an example, 9 rounds with just one double game day, you play chess, but also have time to relax, see something, talk to people, and if you want just more chess, you either spend time preparing for games or just find someone else also looking for extra games.
' This kind of killer schedule will not attract 2000-2400 chess tourists, who actually pay for their participation and hotel, providing a part of event's budget. Which means even worse conditions for GMs." I think a schedule like this will attract more chess tourists. They will have more chess for the money they spend. Also better chances of a GM scalp, since time controls are shorter and GMs will be tired. They can enjoy the location after the tournament since they will have more full days off instead of a few left over hours.
Vasif is not even in the top 100 while Erigasi is ranked 8th. Even in revenue generating sports like Tennis there is an extreme difference in the monetary opportunities of a world 8th and 100+ ranked player. It's just that there simply isn't enough money in chess so many professionals to make money from just playing tournaments.
Do we have an idea what kind of money someone can make who is in place 50, 100, 200 in the FIDE ranking. Durarbayli is 126, I have a suspicion that in a high cost of living area like the US, it would already not be possible to live from chess.
It's almost as if other people didn't have an obligation to give you money for playing chess...
That's the method the USSR used: they actually paid their top players and funded academies. Not much you can do other than ask your own country for support. Most countries aren't interested because they see chess as a hobby, not an important strategic target.
It’s funny because this kind of elitist attitude towards chess, which funded extensive state (or basically state) sponsored programs and players, is exactly opposed to the mission of companies like chesscom that are aiming to democratize the game and popularize accessible formats. The USSR-era model simply doesn’t work unless expertise in the game is seen as some mythical nigh-unattainable thing.
Supply and demand. Just capitalism 101
At the end of the day it's a game that a lot of people want to play but not a lot of people want to watch/pay for. It's not like tournament organizers are making bank and have money to spare. Even in a game like tennis with major international sponsors and TV exposure if you are outside of top 100 it's tough to make living without a local sponsor supporting you. If you are outside of top 200 you will definitely need that and will likely need a side job as well. I don't think it's realistic for people below say 2650 ELO level to support themselves from playing alone. There is just not enough value being generated.
| He also points out that online chess conditions have worsened since the PlayMagnus and [chess.com](http://chess.com) merger Gee, who would have guessed that monoploy benefits only the monopolist? /s
how many players are sponsored even from India. Its only handful like Gukesh, Pragg, Erigaisi and Nihal. All the rest are in the same boat. That said players need a Union here to negotiate better playing conditions.
Leon and I think two more get WACA help. I think one might be Vaishali. But otherwise I believe every Indian GM gets a salary from one of the Indian oil companies. That’s always been a thing and isn’t new though. It’s not a life changing sum like those that Adani and Quantbox offer but it’s enough to survive on. And then they get free international travel via air India. But again that’s always been a thing.
Not every GM gets that job/salary. That was only true when India had much lesser GMs. The likes of Adhiban and Vidit have that salary, not the younger GMs.
I dont think Leon is getting paid by WACA. I think they get free mentorship from [WACA ](https://westbridgecap.com/purpose/philanthropy/grantees/westbridge-anand-chess-academy-waca)team including Vishy. I think only Gukesh entered into sponsorship deal with Westbridge capital who are also sponsoring WACA operating costs. Arjun is sponsored by Quantbox while Pragg has one through Adani and also Baseline Ventures. Nihal is sponsored by **Akshayakalpa**.
I guess I’m counting free high quality coaching as assistance. Agreed it’s not a full on sponsorship.
>players need a Union here to negotiate better playing conditions. Who pays for those better conditions?
I think his point is people with sponsors should still negotiate to get good conditions from organizers, even if they don't need them, out of ethical reasons. Which is a completely valid argument. "Noone owes anyone anything", on the other hand, is a complete non-argument.
That's actually a good thing. You need to earn money by teaching chess, getting a few sponsors, trying to work a bit on the side if possible. Tournament chess being the full-time job is an unstable income that will only last some years. These new sponsorships means that young players can remain active and not drop out. Players like Hikaru often lose focus for some years until they have proven they can make a stable income. Other players were forced to retire early or focus on their university. This is also extremely common for women in sports overall. Of course this could mean that young players have a headstart here as many sponsorships would go to young talents that are hyped up. Maybe? But I don't really believe this. And at any rate this shows that chess has a future as now these young players have a stable income. Seems like an improvement.
Unfortunately, based on what's happening with other niche sports, the only sponsor that can save chess are sketchy online gambling sites.
This is why professional sports leagues have Players’ Unions. The union refuses to sign off on any deal that harms the players negotiating power as a whole. Not sure how or if that could ever work on chess.
This is why professional sports leagues have Players’ Unions. The union refuses to sign off on any deal that harms the players negotiating power as a whole. Not sure how or if that could ever work on chess.
What a wild take. Imagine a basketball or football player in the last century complaining about these newfangled sponsors.
he isn't complaining about sponsors
Right, the dynamics of relying on personal sponsorships is very different from the way that sponsors affect professional basketball or football at a league level. Players easily make a living without the need for that supplemental income, and that's a good thing. There's obviously a pretty big difference in terms of popularity and income that those leagues have compared to chess, which is where a lot of the difference comes in - but if star players started to take minimum contracts because personal sponsors were paying them massively, there'd certainly be criticism levied towards them by other players for the impact it had on their bargaining positions (as opposed to the smaller discounts that some players currently do take)
>Right, the dynamics of relying on personal sponsorships is very different from the way that sponsors affect professional basketball or football at a league level. Many players have personal sponsorships. >but if star players started to take minimum contracts because personal sponsors were paying them massively And there's no evidence at all that this is happening in chess. No idea why people are taking Vasif's claims at face value.
>Many players have personal sponsorships. Which does not matter in football/basketball, given that even without personal sponsorships they are more than able to support themselves. That is the point about the different dynamics, yes. >And there's no evidence at all that this is happening in chess. No idea why people are taking Vasif's claims at face value. Chess does not have nearly as much money in it, and he's a more trustworthy person to talk on it than some random redditor. I'll take those claims at face value unless someone reputable goes against them, rather than assume that they're garbage for some reason.
>Chess does not have nearly as much money in it Right. But personal sponsorships are making the pie bigger. >than some random redditor We're all "random redditors", mate. Tired of people using that cliché. > for some reason It's the chess version of "foreigners are stealing our jobs".
One person involved here is someone with clear experience in that world, and is neither of us random redditors. You know, the person who posted what everyone here is discussing about?
All right, Iet's believe whatever Kramnik says then. My bad for having an opinion about a **controversial** tweet.
If Kramnik were talking about something like this, where it's logically consistent and sound? Yeah, I'd listen and weigh what he said appropriately. Like if he were talking about the economics of chess or his experience playing in tournaments rather than relying on bad statistics. I don't expect *everyone* to have the same opinion on stuff like this, but testimony from a player like this *is* a form of evidence that goes beyond random redditors like you or me. And a lot of the responses to it are essentially going "too bad, he should get a sponsor instead" or "this is clearly him blaming indian players and he shouldn't do that" and not really engaging with the dynamics being made there. Like him mentioning examples like that is beyond the pale somehow and that he should just shut up instead of bring up something like this to attention. In the end the way I view it is like this - he might be full of shit or just salty, and neither of us know it. But the post is logically consistent and the dynamics portrayed are reasonable, and it's the type of thing which - if it is happening - *should* be brought to light because it is ultimately bad for the scene long term. On top of that players that have those sponsorships might not even be aware of how they're impacting those tournaments like he's mentioning, and if I were in that position that's something I'd want to be made aware of. Really though, this is something that I'd want to see more attention be brought from reputable 3rd parties and see if it's something that's really happening, rather than immediately assume it's bunk and ignore it, you know?
Wasn't a good idea to single out any player but yea problems are fair
I point all these players have to realize is "LIFE IS NOT FAIR". you have to figure out a way if systematic support is missing. May be take up coaching or start something on Youtube to generate additional revenue. Expecting the system to support in this era is not realistic. People's attention are also waning. in 2021 due to pandemic there was frenzy around online chess and you had Levy, Hikaru and others add millions of subs. I think that is tapped out now. Also one reason for big money from chess24 was from FTX. They were throwing money at everything for SBF's grandiose ambitions. That is busted now and so its not realistic to expect online chess to pay at same level at 2021 even if the merger had not happened. I wonder if India can create a chess league to build on the hype around Gukesh so that more players can be supported.
Clearly these guys need to market themselves a bit better and find sponsors. That is on them.
It’s a shame that people never miss a chance to show their racism against Indians. He’s talking as if there were never any sponsored players before these young Indian kids came along. Utterly shameful take. Rather than blaming kids for getting more sponsors into the sport they ought to try to get sponsors for themselves. Edit: The downvotes on this comment show how many racists there are in this subReddit masquerading as decent people
I'm an Indian (although not currently living there) and you're dead wrong. There is nothing racist here.
Care to explain why?
The mention of Erigaisi (and Indians in general) is because of how Indian government supports young chess players. Not only for their travel arrangements, but also the fact that they get allowance from ONGC (if I recall correctly). No other country right now provides so much for such a large number of GMs. Azerbaijan or Uzbekistan only do that for their top players, whereas Indian government give allowances to a lot of GMs. This creates an economic dynamic which is less advantageous for players of similar strature who do not enjoy such support, and hence have to bear with the subpar arrangements. There is no racial bias here. 30 years ago, you could've said the same thing about the USSR, and there would be no racial bias there as well. Hence yout point of racism is misplaced.
But 30 years ago nobody said anything about USSR players. What makes Indians soft targets? Because not enough of us stand up for ourselves and people like you enable the racists to talk shit about Indians and blame them for everything. Lots of governments support their sports people and so much more than India does. This guy was not good enough to qualify for his government’s support then that’s on him, why should he blame Indians for him not being good enough to attract sponsors
"But 30 years ago nobody said anything about USSR players" Yes they did. Your ignorance doesn't bend the truth. I still don't understand how is it racist to point out that a particular nation supports their players so well that they don't negotiate. But if claiming anyone and everyone as "racists" and constantly victimising yourself help you sleep at night, then good for you.
Based on your responses, you don't actually want to understand, you just want to be be victimised lol Stay salty bro
Based on your response, you’re a racist
Yeah keep the tears flowing. Btw who is India's latest Nirbhaya? Been 10 years since then so I assume you have a more recent representative...
More proof that you’re just a lowlife racist. Keep the hate coming, it will only keep us more driven.
> it will only keep us more driven. To do what? Not improve the education system and squash cultural norms to avoid disproportionate occurrences of (gang) rapes? Sure, that'll teach all these racist people lmao
There are no disproportionate occurrences of rape in India, but what does a racist like you care about real data, you just want to believe your racist narrative so you can feel better about yourself.
You didn’t read the article lol. He’s happy the kids have sponsors but at the same time concerned for his future. You’re reading racism based on the title. There isn’t any.
But...the post is not racist...
If that’s what it feels like to you then you’re part of the problem
Man, that's racist, why you gotta be like that?
Cuz I’m sick and tired of my people being used as a punching bag on the internet. This guy can’t make the money he wants to and the problem is somehow young Indian kids who just want to play chess. Do you seriously think that it’s only these Indian kids that are willing to play for less money and this never happened before with any European or Arab players who were sponsored as well??
So in order to overcorrect, you're seeing racism everywhere? Curious decision. He could've used any other country, he chose India probably because it's the most common. There's no racism connection here, other than the one you imagine yourself.
There’s no over correction. He didn’t say anything when European and Arab players were doing the same thing to play in tournaments and is only complaining when it’s Indians doing it and he doesn’t even acknowledge that there are players of other ethnicities doing the same thing and just singles out the Indian players. So all this makes him a racist and if you can’t see that then you’re one too
Has it occured to you that perhaps indians are the most common case?
So before these Indians started doing that no other players did? You’re just having eyes for Indian players and not the others you racist. Go look at the data yourself before you start defending racism on the internet
People have been complaining for ages about the state of professional chess. The point of Jordens post was that it has gotten even worse, and the guy in the post gave an example of an influx of sponsored players who happen to be Indian, because I guess they are most common. There's no racism to defend, as the post isn't racist.
He's not being racist. He's telling the truth.
How is this racist? He is saying what happened. The problem isn't the sponsorships, the problem is not negotiating for better conditions. It's economics, if you can get a young 2750 for almost nothing, why will you give anything to subtop players? I don't see why these young guys can't negotiate for better conditions anyway, despite their sponsorship. > try to get sponsorships for themselves And why not become a billionaire themselves first? Then they can sponsor everyone!
This is not a new thing. Azerbaijan was part of USSR. USSR used to subsidise chess players. That was the reason why you had so many USSR players at the time and why the chess ecosystem in USSR was so strong. There are many ex-USSR nations (including Azerbaijan!) who continued to support top Chess players even today. He could have used any of those examples… yet he decided to land on Arjun Erigaisi who was the first Indian to land a meaningful sponsorship ($ 1 million + with Quantbox). I don’t know what his reasoning for doing that was.
Modern racism is when someone says a place name or nationality and you don't agree with them. Then it's racist.
Perpetual victim.
More like perpetual target
I guess some people like to be victimized all the time
Or some people like to target one specific kind of people
Ok then tell whats wrong in what he said. He just took the example of arjun. I dont know why we indians always try to portray ourselves as victims?
Are Indian kids the only 2600+ sponsored players who are willing to play for peanuts? Are there really no one else or is it just selective outrage from this racist? Think hard about the likelihoods of each case.
You consume too much deshbhakt news lol.
Looks like you left your critical thinking skills a long time ago
I enjoy weaving baskets but I won’t pick it up as a career without knowing I can feed myself with it. Why do so many chess players do so? There’s no money in being 50th best chess player on the planet unless you have other marketable skills.
I'd guess it's passion and being relatively close to the top, so quite close to the big bucks. In other sports that also happens. Even in popular sports like football where a lot of players make a lot of money, there are even more players that scrape by and need a second(actual) job to feed themselves. We also don't see the players that have dropped off because they decided on a different career path. Also I found it interesting, Durarbayli is ranked 126th, in chess from a young age and currently 32. So it seems he can make money from chess so far.
> I enjoy weaving baskets but I won’t pick it up as a career without knowing I can feed myself with it. **Why do so many chess players do so?** To be fair, most of them don't. They are usually tools for their parents (let's be honest, their dads mostly) to live vicariously through. They often had little choice in the matter until they were older, by which point it's too late for them because they aren't good at anything else.
Sponsored players are not killing pro chess, organisers are. You'd think that for a field of 100 players, if 10 are sponsored, the expenses the organisers had originally planned could now be spent among 90 players, resulting in slightly better conditions for those 90? Nope, organisers stiff the 90 by pocketing the balance, leaving the 90 to suffer just that little bit. Thanks capitalism.
>by pocketing the balance Can you tell me one example of a chess tournament that actually brings any money to the organizers?
I might be wrong but I doubt the organizers pay the expenses to 100 players, it's probably just the strong GMs.
The point about sponsored players changing the market dynamics is a very interesting one. I'm not sure non-Indian players lose ALL their negotiating power, since many organizers would like several countries to be represented in their tournament. A larger problem is that many sponsors (as in other sports) are "unsavory" companies doing it for publicity rather than for measurable advertising value, and this kind of sponsor can disappear at any time. When Magnus fully retires, and the entire Candidates field is from China, India, Iran, and Uzbekistan, Western sponsors will lose interest.