Forums

How do top chess players finance their trips to attend tournaments?

Sort:
Eo____

A chess player like Kasparov probably gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play at tournaments, but if you are barely the top player in your state/country, who pays for your plane tickets and hotel rooms? Do such chess players normally cover their tournament related expenses with money out of their own pockets? Do companies normally come forward and offer to pay for their expenses as long as they wear during the tournament a shirt with the logo of the company? Does FIDE subsidize their tournament-related expenses?

Natalia_Pogonina

Top players usually get conditions, i.e. their travel expenses and hotel are covered by the organizers. Of course, some are supported by their universities, local chess authorities, the federation or private sponsors. At some events conditions aren't available, and the person has to make a quick calculation (whether he/she will be able to earn some money at all).

Also, no one gets "hundreds of thousands" to play at tournaments. Such money is available only at world championship matches.

Meadmaker

Chess will simply never be a spectator sport because the nature of the game is that the spectators don't understand what they are watching. 

I can't play football very well, but I can recognize a spectacular catch.  If I watch two masters play Chess, I won't be able to tell you who, if anyone, is winning until one of them resigns.  The reason they are masters and I am not is that they can tell that sort of thing.

heinzie
Meadmaker wrote:

Chess will simply never be a spectator sport because the nature of the game is that the spectators don't understand what they are watching. 


Chess is the best spectator sport ever. You just don't zoom in to the players' emotional outbursts when they have captured a piece (scored a goal). Just the position, even when you are watching a game between two 1000s it's great entertainment already :)

BICHIR2
Natalia_Pogonina escreveu:

Top players usually get conditions, i.e. their travel expenses and hotel are covered by the organizers. Of course, some are supported by their universities, local chess authorities, the federation or private sponsors. At some events conditions aren't available, and the person has to make a quick calculation (whether he/she will be able to earn some money at all).

Also, no one gets "hundreds of thousands" to play at tournaments. Such money is available only at world championship matches.

What is a top player? The top 20 or 30 with the highest rating? Or, with rating equal to or greater than 2700? Very vague. If someone knows, please, tell me.

nklristic
BICHIR2 wrote:
Natalia_Pogonina escreveu:

Top players usually get conditions, i.e. their travel expenses and hotel are covered by the organizers. Of course, some are supported by their universities, local chess authorities, the federation or private sponsors. At some events conditions aren't available, and the person has to make a quick calculation (whether he/she will be able to earn some money at all).

Also, no one gets "hundreds of thousands" to play at tournaments. Such money is available only at world championship matches.

What is a top player? The top 20 or 30 with the highest rating? Or, with rating equal to or greater than 2700? Very vague. If someone knows, please, tell me.

Top 30 and over 2 700 is basically the same usually, or pretty similar. For instance Ray Robson is rated exactly 2 700 and he is world number 32.

By the way, I've heard a few years ago in some Eric Rosen clip that tournaments provide hotel accommodation for IMs (and if that is true, they do it for GMs as well).

Of course, I don't think he meant all tournaments but those who do, do it in order to have better players. Though I imagine they still have to pay traveling costs, which can be costly.

So, this is likely not only the case for the world's elite, but for some other titled players as well (though not all I imagine). happy.png

brianchesscake
Meadmaker wrote:

Chess will simply never be a spectator sport because the nature of the game is that the spectators don't understand what they are watching.

I can't play football very well, but I can recognize a spectacular catch. If I watch two masters play Chess, I won't be able to tell you who, if anyone, is winning until one of them resigns. The reason they are masters and I am not is that they can tell that sort of thing.

most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I know this comment was made over 14 years ago, when they didn't have engine evaluations of live games, but that's no excuse for not trying to analyze the game.