Only Chess
12 Jan 05
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by OuermyhteTrue, there is a lot more money potential in being good at chess, then say, being good at art, were you are basicly dirt poor no matter how adept the left side of your brain is. Of course, 400 years ago this was way different, lol.
and how often does one become world champion?
i think they can make quite a bit from books as well cant they?
Chess books make mega money. Becoming a chess teacher makes mega money too, more then most beleive, rich parents tend to be interested in chess and want their smarty ass kids to learn it, and are willing to fork out rediculous prices like 100 dollars per lesson. Then of course, you can win mega money by simply winning tournaments around the world at a master level and up, but this has risks of course, high travel costs and you not winning any tournies would make you absolutely broke, but winning at least 1 of these big tournies, or maybe geting a lot of top 5 finishes in giant tournies (not necessarily winning), would probably mass a tidy profit.
For example, Petrosian never became world champion, but he probably has more money then any other chess player because he went to every tournament imaginable around the world, big or small, and got consistant good placements in all of them.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseSome people yes can convert talent in chess into a reasonable living. These people however are very few. Even fewer are the ones who make millions. Chess prize winnings are actually a lot smaller than you seem to think. One on one matchs at the top end can earn millions yes but remember the amount of time and money spent preparing for them. Kasparov has a team supporting him, they don't work for free. Open tournaments with a decent top prize (eg. The recent US open which had as I recall around 50k in prizes) are heavily contested. Winning one is a huge achievement and not something any one person can repeat many times a year.
True, there is a lot more money potential in being good at chess, then say, being good at art, were you are basicly dirt poor no matter how adept the left side of your brain is. Of course, 400 years ago this was way different, lol.
Chess books make mega money. Becoming a chess teacher makes mega money too, more then most beleive, rich parents tend to be ...[text shortened]... nt imaginable around the world, big or small, and got consistant good placements in all of them.
You talk about how 400 years ago being good at art was a good way to be rich. I disagree. There are always the few artists that are the exception but many artists we now view as revolutionary and brilliant were almost unknown during their lifetime. They certainly never made huge amounts of money. And don't forget all the forgotten ones who never made a cent off of their art.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateulosehttp://calendar.fide.com/
True, there is a lot more money potential in being good at chess, then say, being good at art, were you are basicly dirt poor no matter how adept the left side of your brain is. Of course, 400 years ago this was way different, lol.
Chess books make mega money. Becoming a chess teacher makes mega money too, more then most beleive, rich parents tend to be ...[text shortened]... nt imaginable around the world, big or small, and got consistant good placements in all of them.
Theres listed FIDE torunaments and prize money, as you cant see its not always that much. The prize money is the prize fund its shared between players. As you can see people wont be millonaires off it.
Its a shame these days that local tournaments cant get sponsors. The prize money used to be quite a bit more, where as first place might only get say 50 pounds these days.