What do I expect GCCC v RCC April 7th, Lichess Fixed Roster Match to achieve?

[Kerry Corker]

Yes Kerry, it is sarcasm. Thanks for noticing. I sometimes forget that deadpan doesn't work so well on the internet. I guess I should have put an emoji on my first post as well!

PS Perhaps one way to attract the attention of top 10 players would be a suggestion to make titles no longer for life? We could switch to the system used in Sumo, where you only keep a title if you continue to perform at the required level. If not, you are demoted. And when you retire from regular competition, and have your ceremonial top-knot cut off, you lose any title at all. [And would have to pay entry fees! ]

Yes, the whole world of classic OTB is stuck in a time warp. There has to be radical change.

Newspapers missed the boat with the internet re advertising.
Sir Frank Packer described ads in newspapers as “rivers of gold”.
The result of this miss is that newspapers will slowly disappear

FIDE missed the boat when with the internet re online play.
Chess.com 28 million (the highest figure for membership – 7 being the lowest I have seen)
28 million by A$40 = $1,120,000,000 per annum

Nah, stick with slow weekenders. Forget fast chess. It’s just a fad. Shrewd.

The mainline media has zero interest in old slow chess. No media, no money.
And what is the behemoth that is “online chess”? 5 minutes or less.

Its like restoring an old “barn find” car. You can spend the rest of your life applying patches,
(OTB chess in Australia and FIDE at the moment) or strip it back to the metal.

Take everything out and rebuild from the shell up.

Slow chess is the guy at the bottom of the rope. If you don’t cut him off, we all die.

Time to cut the rope.
Should have been done a long time ago.

Never liked him anyway.

[pappubahry]

Chess.com 28 million (the highest figure for membership – 7 being the lowest I have seen)
28 million by A$40 = $1,120,000,000 per annum

$40/user seems much too high, given that most users don't pay for membership, and they're probably not as good as Facebook at generating advertising revenue.

[Kerry Corker]

$40/user seems much too high, given that most users don't pay for membership, and they're probably not as good as Facebook at generating advertising revenue.

I just paid my fee the other day. A$39. That is what I paid. I am guessing that is what the average punter pays.

The Last 400 are looking at these figures I keep putting up and saying,
“That cannot be right. Something has to be wrong with his addition”.

Ok, so only half of them pay the A$40 per annum.
The A$40 is confirmed because I just paid it!
So, then I am out by half a billion dollars.
But that still leaves them with this particular income stream bringing in half a billion dollars per annum.

Maybe it is only 5 million accounts x A$40. That’s still A$20 million per year.
So only half of them pay. Still $10 million dollars per year.

I haven’t even started to look at advertising on these sites. It may dwarf yearly fees! Does anyone have ideas on advertising revenue?

World Chess is now awash with money! More than ever before in history.

That’s ok. They can have their money. We don’t need it. We’ve got……………….

------------------------------------
The Last 400 are driven by “Confirmation Bias”.
They don’t want to talk about anything that doesn’t fit with their version –
“Weekenders and slow chess”.

Bay of Pigs is a classic example. Anyone disagreeing with JFK in that room would have been cut out of the circle.
Within minutes they would be outside the loop and looking for a job.
When the Bay of Pigs became the disaster that it was always going to be, the military wanted to send in more troops (so that they could get back control of the casinos for the Mafia). They did not want to believe that their school boy plan would not work. The fact that the Cubans were sick of having their island run by the Mafia was not relevant to them.

I fully expect there to be MORE WEEKENDERS than ever this year.

And that is a good thing.

Most people have to crash first before recovery can begin. We are not there yet.

[Shaun94]

Just as a point of interest: https://www.chess.com/news/view/anno...mpionship-2022

This is a completely online rapid tournament with $650,000USD or nearly 900kAUD.

Something tells me that Chess.com is more than comfortable financially and their business model is working much better than Australian chess, unless of course someone would like to offer the equivalent for a weekender.

It is clear to me that faster time controls are the future, online chess will certainly have its place as it does already i expect this to grow. I do believe that OTB tournaments are also very important but I think slow chess is dying off with the dinosaurs that fight to keep it so badly.

[pappubahry]

I just paid my fee the other day. A$39. That is what I paid. I am guessing that is what the average punter pays.

Four of my last 50 opponents on chess.com are paid members; most users pay zero. I suspect the rate of paying membership varies by rating level, though I haven't tried investigating this.

[Shaun94]

Four of my last 50 opponents on chess.com are paid members; most users pay zero. I suspect the rate of paying membership varies by rating level, though I haven't tried investigating this.

I agree that this would vary based on rating amongst other factors (poorer countries less likely I guess).

But I read somewhere chess.com had 50 million accounts even if 10% are financial members that's a lot. There are different subscription levels, but also advertising and other ways the site makes money. Streams are very profitable it seems

[Kerry Corker]

I agree that this would vary based on rating amongst other factors (poorer countries less likely I guess).

But I read somewhere chess.com had 50 million accounts even if 10% are financial members that's a lot. There are different subscription levels, but also advertising and other ways the site makes money. Streams are very profitable it seems

I'll see your 50 and raise you 20

And the plot thickens…………….

NIC 2021 Issue 7 – Nepo in a vest on the front page. Page 49. Luxury lad, we can’t afford vest.

Article by James Altucher, “Is it crazy to think adults can improve at chess?

And I quote verbatim,

“Frank Shamrock also told me, “EQUALS are the people who you are competing with. Who are trying to improve just like you.”
70,000,000 people are members of Chess.com. Plenty of equals to choose from.

Is it a typo? Is he correct?

Do I have to get my calculator out and work out their income from this one particular stream?

Tell ya what ima gonna do. I’ma feeling good today. Ima gonna drop a zero off the 70,000,000.

Then the poor dears are left with only $28 million per year.

As to a sliding scale for payment.
They asked me for my FIDE rating when I joined which is 2040 and I paid my A$40 up front for the year.

So, they charge me A$40 per year because I am just over 2000.
Do they charge more or less for those under 2000 – which is the majority of their client base?
I am going to guess they charge more for being rated less than me. Please post if you have info. to the contrary.
I would be surprised if they charged less because it doesn’t make business sense.
And make no mistake, these people are business people, they may play chess, but they are business people.
We have to adapt to their way of thinking.

All this proves is that the people who have left slow OTB, and they are in the MILLIONS, are making chess a very lucrative game,
all around the world.

We should move on from, “are there 400 adult OTB players left in Australia, or is it 600 or 200?”

And “Is Chess.coms membership in the billions of dollars or just in the millions of dollars”

It is not the exact number that matters.

Come on Australia - How do we catch up? Give us your ideas.

[pappubahry]

So, they charge me A$40 per year because I am just over 2000.
Do they charge more or less for those under 2000 – which is the majority of their client base?
I am going to guess they charge more for being rated less than me. Please post if you have info. to the contrary.

They charged you $40 because you chose the membership plan that costs $40 and you are not a titled player. They give diamond memberships to titled players for free, and everyone else is offered the same tiers of memberships (free, gold, platinum, diamond). I don't know if the pricing varies by country.

Anyway I'm sure chess.com are doing fine financially, whatever the details are, but their market is substantially bigger than Australia, so I don't think comparisons are particularly useful.

[Kerry Corker]

They charged you $40 because you chose the membership plan that costs $40 and you are not a titled player. They give diamond memberships to titled players for free, and everyone else is offered the same tiers of memberships (free, gold, platinum, diamond). I don't know if the pricing varies by country.

Anyway I'm sure chess.com are doing fine financially, whatever the details are, but their market is substantially bigger than Australia, so I don't think comparisons are particularly useful.

Thanks for that. It all helps if we decide to launch a local version. Still not sure if the member's number would include free guests. For instance Life members of organizations get free membership. Every other member usually pays - I could be wrong.

As you say, we have established that their business model works very very well and we can move on. Cheers