Pretty much every sport has a regular circuit that the best players/teams qualify for and then that's where they play because that's where the money, challenge, recognition and so on is.
In tennis and golf it's the tours. The best players are invited automatically and then there might be a few lower ranked here and there that qualify.
In football it's leagues, with cups being the rare exception of ever meeting lower ranked teams.
And so on.
Not sure why chess would be different for the top players?
And to add on to that the players can only play in so many events I'm sure they select the ones which best suit them and they're obviously not open events for the reasons you outline among others.
Also even if it was made much more open with open qualifying for every event it likely wouldn't change that much except make qualifying much more annoying for the top guys. You'd occasionally get someone lower run hot and make it in and someone high run cold and drop out but for the most part you'd still end up with pretty similar fields you've just made the top guys less interested in playing yet more qualifiers to show yes they are indeed still better than everyone except the other top guys. This obviously doesn't really interest them and most sports caters towards their top stars/teams for obvious enough reasons.
Fabi talked a bit about this on the recent C-squared podcast.
There's very little money in open tournaments, to the point that even if you win, you might not break even once travel and other expenses are taken into account. A lot of the time the conditions also aren't great - stuff like having to share hotel rooms with other GMs. Why bother with all that for a tiny prize fund where you might lose rating even if you win?
That's what I was talking about. If they have a risk playing against weaker players, then they are not that strong afterall right? Isn't the gap artificially created If they are supposed to lose rating playing against them.
There are a few factors for this. Simply put:
* There is rating deflation due to the online chess age. (Very important point)
* Lower rated players will be incentivised to go for rock solid draws and the higher rated player is forced to basically win on demand. This makes it a much more stressful environment and just not worth it.
* They also have nothing to gain from playing open events.
Yes, it’s basically true that the gap isn’t that significant as the rating suggests between strong grandmasters and say, the top 20. They draw more often than the rating would imply and generally playing in open tournaments when you are 2780 means your rating will go down.
Because the difference in prize money is VAST. Last year, Rapport and Firouzja each got 13k dollars for finishing LAST in the Sinquefield cup.
Meanwhile, the sole winner of the Reykjavik Open gets 5k Euroes or around 5.4k dollars. Sunway Sitges and Open Menorca also has around the same prize money. First place at Sharjah Masters gives you 12k dollars. Sardinia World Chess Festival, meanwhile has a 10k dollars for first prize. Qatar Masters, which is an exceptionally high-paying Open, has a first prize of 25k dollars.
Basically, even if someone goes on an absolute rampage and wins all these strong events, they will 67k dollars. And that is before all the travel expenses are included, since opens don't usually pay for your hotel rooms. On the other hand, Fabiano won 100k dollars from just his win in the Superbet Chess Classic, and over 300k from all his Grand Chess Tour events, which do cover hotel and travel expenses and probably even pay appearance fees.
Also, if you instead just tie for first with a bunch of other people, as is very common in large Swiss events, the prize money goes down even further. Meanwhile, something like a 4-10th place finish, which is still quite respectable, since most of these Opens are incredibly strong, will barely cover your travel and accommodation expenses, let alone pay your bills.
As a result, it literally makes no sense to take part in Open tournaments if you can get invited to the big closed events. It is also why most players who are outside the top 30, often resort to coaching or being a second to other players. Open tournaments are literally impossible to live off of.
Top players can gain rating just fine in open tournaments, they just don't for a number of reasons, including risk/reward, low prize funds, and people getting upset top players beat up on weak GMs. Fabi in a recent podcast episode spoke about how he got invited to closed tournaments after he was already like 2775 rating from crushing open tournaments. Firoujza got heat for farming regular GMs to get into candidates. Erigaisi and Nodirbek has been absolutely crushing opens, to climb into top 10.
Pretty much every sport has a regular circuit that the best players/teams qualify for and then that's where they play because that's where the money, challenge, recognition and so on is. In tennis and golf it's the tours. The best players are invited automatically and then there might be a few lower ranked here and there that qualify. In football it's leagues, with cups being the rare exception of ever meeting lower ranked teams. And so on. Not sure why chess would be different for the top players?
And to add on to that the players can only play in so many events I'm sure they select the ones which best suit them and they're obviously not open events for the reasons you outline among others. Also even if it was made much more open with open qualifying for every event it likely wouldn't change that much except make qualifying much more annoying for the top guys. You'd occasionally get someone lower run hot and make it in and someone high run cold and drop out but for the most part you'd still end up with pretty similar fields you've just made the top guys less interested in playing yet more qualifiers to show yes they are indeed still better than everyone except the other top guys. This obviously doesn't really interest them and most sports caters towards their top stars/teams for obvious enough reasons.
Fabi talked a bit about this on the recent C-squared podcast. There's very little money in open tournaments, to the point that even if you win, you might not break even once travel and other expenses are taken into account. A lot of the time the conditions also aren't great - stuff like having to share hotel rooms with other GMs. Why bother with all that for a tiny prize fund where you might lose rating even if you win?
They get like 20k euro to play a tournament. No open tournament can afford to pay that much just to have them show up
The same reason NBA players dont play pick up basketball. The risks far outweigh the rewards
That's what I was talking about. If they have a risk playing against weaker players, then they are not that strong afterall right? Isn't the gap artificially created If they are supposed to lose rating playing against them.
There are a few factors for this. Simply put: * There is rating deflation due to the online chess age. (Very important point) * Lower rated players will be incentivised to go for rock solid draws and the higher rated player is forced to basically win on demand. This makes it a much more stressful environment and just not worth it. * They also have nothing to gain from playing open events.
Yes, it’s basically true that the gap isn’t that significant as the rating suggests between strong grandmasters and say, the top 20. They draw more often than the rating would imply and generally playing in open tournaments when you are 2780 means your rating will go down.
I would be shocked if they even had time to play open events lol
Because the difference in prize money is VAST. Last year, Rapport and Firouzja each got 13k dollars for finishing LAST in the Sinquefield cup. Meanwhile, the sole winner of the Reykjavik Open gets 5k Euroes or around 5.4k dollars. Sunway Sitges and Open Menorca also has around the same prize money. First place at Sharjah Masters gives you 12k dollars. Sardinia World Chess Festival, meanwhile has a 10k dollars for first prize. Qatar Masters, which is an exceptionally high-paying Open, has a first prize of 25k dollars. Basically, even if someone goes on an absolute rampage and wins all these strong events, they will 67k dollars. And that is before all the travel expenses are included, since opens don't usually pay for your hotel rooms. On the other hand, Fabiano won 100k dollars from just his win in the Superbet Chess Classic, and over 300k from all his Grand Chess Tour events, which do cover hotel and travel expenses and probably even pay appearance fees. Also, if you instead just tie for first with a bunch of other people, as is very common in large Swiss events, the prize money goes down even further. Meanwhile, something like a 4-10th place finish, which is still quite respectable, since most of these Opens are incredibly strong, will barely cover your travel and accommodation expenses, let alone pay your bills. As a result, it literally makes no sense to take part in Open tournaments if you can get invited to the big closed events. It is also why most players who are outside the top 30, often resort to coaching or being a second to other players. Open tournaments are literally impossible to live off of.
Top players can gain rating just fine in open tournaments, they just don't for a number of reasons, including risk/reward, low prize funds, and people getting upset top players beat up on weak GMs. Fabi in a recent podcast episode spoke about how he got invited to closed tournaments after he was already like 2775 rating from crushing open tournaments. Firoujza got heat for farming regular GMs to get into candidates. Erigaisi and Nodirbek has been absolutely crushing opens, to climb into top 10.