lichess.org
Donate

Gambling Companies are Targeting the Chess World

So, What's the conclusion?

So, What's the conclusion?

At least there are some popular chess figures who are against promotion of gambling: Anna Cramling and Hans Niemann.

https://youtu.be/EPLz3UjgkmI?si=n7D6cEPzNLkdoW19&t=975

At least there are some popular chess figures who are against promotion of gambling: Anna Cramling and Hans Niemann. https://youtu.be/EPLz3UjgkmI?si=n7D6cEPzNLkdoW19&t=975

Is this true?
Cuz this is first time I’ve heard bout this and these are all rlly famous chess players

Is this true? Cuz this is first time I’ve heard bout this and these are all rlly famous chess players

I just saw this article and found it both very necessary and a very good research. I knew that chess.com bought Playmagnus or did business with many chess players (Carlsen, Nakamura, etc. as stated in the article) for personal gain, and I even knew that many people gambled heavily on chess competitions.But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships. The reason why I preferred and supported lichess from the very beginning was that chess.com used the chess business entirely for its own interests, while lichess only did this to popularize chess and continued despite not receiving the support of most of its users.This is a very necessary and very good article that explains how people or institutions can act in their own interests. I definitely liked it.

I just saw this article and found it both very necessary and a very good research. I knew that chess.com bought Playmagnus or did business with many chess players (Carlsen, Nakamura, etc. as stated in the article) for personal gain, and I even knew that many people gambled heavily on chess competitions.But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships. The reason why I preferred and supported lichess from the very beginning was that chess.com used the chess business entirely for its own interests, while lichess only did this to popularize chess and continued despite not receiving the support of most of its users.This is a very necessary and very good article that explains how people or institutions can act in their own interests. I definitely liked it.

Not sure the tone is correct, and maybe more the opposite, top players are targeting gambling companies, not the other way around.

Fact is, historically, outside of young children, chess has always been a gambling game. Till Fischer, almost all the top players supported themselves through gambling, including the most famous like Morphy.

In fact I would argue that gambling companies are in fact the only natural sponsors of competitive chess (with cash prizes). Children's chess without prizes and connected to education, is open to a wider form of sponsorship, and would be questionable for one to target.

I would estimate historically (before the rise of chess coaching in last 25 years), almost all the top players that were not independently wealthy, were basically professional gamblers, and chess is just the game they gamble on. Even today, probably accurate for at least 25% of titled players to call them professional gamblers.

Might as well just embrace it, not the Church is about to sponsor tournaments just beasue the Cross, gambling companies are in fact the naturally ally of adult competitive cash prize chess players.

Not sure the tone is correct, and maybe more the opposite, top players are targeting gambling companies, not the other way around. Fact is, historically, outside of young children, chess has always been a gambling game. Till Fischer, almost all the top players supported themselves through gambling, including the most famous like Morphy. In fact I would argue that gambling companies are in fact the only natural sponsors of competitive chess (with cash prizes). Children's chess without prizes and connected to education, is open to a wider form of sponsorship, and would be questionable for one to target. I would estimate historically (before the rise of chess coaching in last 25 years), almost all the top players that were not independently wealthy, were basically professional gamblers, and chess is just the game they gamble on. Even today, probably accurate for at least 25% of titled players to call them professional gamblers. Might as well just embrace it, not the Church is about to sponsor tournaments just beasue the Cross, gambling companies are in fact the naturally ally of adult competitive cash prize chess players.

@DaggeredSon said in #24:
But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships.

I don't buy Carlsen and Nakamura being pawns in this. It is much more likely them and their teams are the ones who sought out the relationship. As sure both want to make as much money as possible, and know their value, and gambling was in fact their choice of sponsored, and what they thought makes more sense for the game.

Almost seems belittling to the game to think it is even possible that Carlsen or Nakamura to be taken advantage of?

Fact is, I am against gambling, but if I were a titled player, and there were not so many people that could beat me and take my money, I would probably be a professional gambler too?
Beats getting an education?

@DaggeredSon said in #24: But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships. I don't buy Carlsen and Nakamura being pawns in this. It is much more likely them and their teams are the ones who sought out the relationship. As sure both want to make as much money as possible, and know their value, and gambling was in fact their choice of sponsored, and what they thought makes more sense for the game. Almost seems belittling to the game to think it is even possible that Carlsen or Nakamura to be taken advantage of? Fact is, I am against gambling, but if I were a titled player, and there were not so many people that could beat me and take my money, I would probably be a professional gambler too? Beats getting an education?

@DIAChessClubStudies said in #26:

But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships.

I don't buy Carlsen and Nakamura being pawns in this. It is much more likely them and their teams are the ones who sought out the relationship. As sure both want to make as much money as possible, and know their value, and gambling was in fact their choice of sponsored, and what they thought makes more sense for the game.

Almost seems belittling to the game to think it is even possible that Carlsen or Nakamura to be taken advantage of?

Fact is, I am against gambling, but if I were a titled player, and there were not so many people that could beat me and take my money, I would probably be a professional gambler too?
Beats getting an education?

I also argue that everything is conscious, both the gambling companies and the players, that is, they both support each other, I personally never thought that the players were pawns knowingly and willingly in any way.But what you don't understand is that gambling in chess has never been as widespread as it is today and has never been seen as such a normal thing, I can say the same for other sports fields or competitive sectors.

@DIAChessClubStudies said in #26: > But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships. > > I don't buy Carlsen and Nakamura being pawns in this. It is much more likely them and their teams are the ones who sought out the relationship. As sure both want to make as much money as possible, and know their value, and gambling was in fact their choice of sponsored, and what they thought makes more sense for the game. > > Almost seems belittling to the game to think it is even possible that Carlsen or Nakamura to be taken advantage of? > > Fact is, I am against gambling, but if I were a titled player, and there were not so many people that could beat me and take my money, I would probably be a professional gambler too? > Beats getting an education? I also argue that everything is conscious, both the gambling companies and the players, that is, they both support each other, I personally never thought that the players were pawns knowingly and willingly in any way.But what you don't understand is that gambling in chess has never been as widespread as it is today and has never been seen as such a normal thing, I can say the same for other sports fields or competitive sectors.

@DaggeredSon - what are you talking about? Have you seriously not done your research? Chess has been banned multiple times over hundreds of years specifically for being degenerate, related to gambling, prostitution and intoxicants.

In fact many of the earliest reference to chess entering the West, is in Islamic and Jewish texts, talking about banning chess for being a gambling game. Most likely chess came to the West specifically as a gambling game among merchants?

And as I mentioned, just read your chess history, going back to Morphy to Fischer, almost all the famous games were in fact the result of gambling? In fact a vast minority of top players from any period of time opposed gambling.

@DaggeredSon - what are you talking about? Have you seriously not done your research? Chess has been banned multiple times over hundreds of years specifically for being degenerate, related to gambling, prostitution and intoxicants. In fact many of the earliest reference to chess entering the West, is in Islamic and Jewish texts, talking about banning chess for being a gambling game. Most likely chess came to the West specifically as a gambling game among merchants? And as I mentioned, just read your chess history, going back to Morphy to Fischer, almost all the famous games were in fact the result of gambling? In fact a vast minority of top players from any period of time opposed gambling.

@DIAChessClubStudies said in #26:

But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships.

I don't buy Carlsen and Nakamura being pawns in this. It is much more likely them and their teams are the ones who sought out the relationship. As sure both want to make as much money as possible, and know their value, and gambling was in fact their choice of sponsored, and what they thought makes more sense for the game.

Almost seems belittling to the game to think it is even possible that Carlsen or Nakamura to be taken advantage of?

Fact is, I am against gambling, but if I were a titled player, and there were not so many people that could beat me and take my money, I would probably be a professional gambler too?
Beats getting an education?

I also argue that everything is conscious, both the gambling companies and the players, that is, they both support each other, I personally never thought that the players were pawns knowingly and willingly in any way.But what you don't understand is that gambling in chess has never been as widespread as it is today and has never been seen as such a normal thing, I can say the same for other sports fields or competitive sectors.
@DIAChessClubStudies said in #28:

@DaggeredSon - what are you talking about? Have you seriously not done your research? Chess has been banned multiple times over hundreds of years specifically for being degenerate, related to gambling, prostitution and intoxicants.

In fact many of the earliest reference to chess entering the West, is in Islamic and Jewish texts, talking about banning chess for being a gambling game. Most likely chess came to the West specifically as a gambling game among merchants?

And as I mentioned, just read your chess history, going back to Morphy to Fischer, almost all the famous games were in fact the result of gambling? In fact a vast minority of top players from any period of time opposed gambling.

Of course, chess, like many other things throughout history, has been used as a tool for gambling by people. That's the problem. In your opinion, are people or chess the real culprit here? Chess is just a tool, not a goal here. Let's say we banned chess, people will definitely use something else for gambling for their own interests. Banning chess is not a solution.

@DIAChessClubStudies said in #26: > But I didn't know that they were personally encouraged or that they had such extensive or detailed relationships. > > I don't buy Carlsen and Nakamura being pawns in this. It is much more likely them and their teams are the ones who sought out the relationship. As sure both want to make as much money as possible, and know their value, and gambling was in fact their choice of sponsored, and what they thought makes more sense for the game. > > Almost seems belittling to the game to think it is even possible that Carlsen or Nakamura to be taken advantage of? > > Fact is, I am against gambling, but if I were a titled player, and there were not so many people that could beat me and take my money, I would probably be a professional gambler too? > Beats getting an education? I also argue that everything is conscious, both the gambling companies and the players, that is, they both support each other, I personally never thought that the players were pawns knowingly and willingly in any way.But what you don't understand is that gambling in chess has never been as widespread as it is today and has never been seen as such a normal thing, I can say the same for other sports fields or competitive sectors. @DIAChessClubStudies said in #28: > @DaggeredSon - what are you talking about? Have you seriously not done your research? Chess has been banned multiple times over hundreds of years specifically for being degenerate, related to gambling, prostitution and intoxicants. > > In fact many of the earliest reference to chess entering the West, is in Islamic and Jewish texts, talking about banning chess for being a gambling game. Most likely chess came to the West specifically as a gambling game among merchants? > > And as I mentioned, just read your chess history, going back to Morphy to Fischer, almost all the famous games were in fact the result of gambling? In fact a vast minority of top players from any period of time opposed gambling. Of course, chess, like many other things throughout history, has been used as a tool for gambling by people. That's the problem. In your opinion, are people or chess the real culprit here? Chess is just a tool, not a goal here. Let's say we banned chess, people will definitely use something else for gambling for their own interests. Banning chess is not a solution.

@DaggeredSon - the origins of chess are disputed, and is very possible chess was created as a gambling game and always played for gambling, and never served any other purpose, till chess in education.

Without a religious / mystical interpretation of the game, it is just an ancient children's game, and not much purpose for adults to play, hence basically any adult who still plays competitive chess (outside of simply teaching children) is likely to be a gambler.

And obviously in the West today and many places around the globe, there is nothing wrong with gambling, is perfectly legal and socially acceptable for adults.

In fact at least in America, people who oppose gambling are a vast minority.

@DaggeredSon - the origins of chess are disputed, and is very possible chess was created as a gambling game and always played for gambling, and never served any other purpose, till chess in education. Without a religious / mystical interpretation of the game, it is just an ancient children's game, and not much purpose for adults to play, hence basically any adult who still plays competitive chess (outside of simply teaching children) is likely to be a gambler. And obviously in the West today and many places around the globe, there is nothing wrong with gambling, is perfectly legal and socially acceptable for adults. In fact at least in America, people who oppose gambling are a vast minority.