6 points
Thank you for sharing your insights!
That said, my experience of a GM rated between 2667 and 2700 since late 2020 (and often slightly above 2700 before) is somewhat different.
Vast majority of my income comes from playing, and a vast majority of it comes from the over-the-board events. Various European leagues provide a stable and foreseeable income to many professional players. Moreover, I like the atmosphere in my teams as well and feel comfortable playing there. Open tournaments are usually much less attractive in financial terms, unless you are going to finish at the top. (Which is never guaranteed.)
As for online chess, there is a lot of money, but it is not so easy to get it. As for streaming, chess qualities are often not the main factor, just one of many. Playing is more natural for professional players, but I do not see it as such an important source of income.
On Lichess I have so far earned slightly less than 100$ (no typo!) in prize events, and gave up almost one half of it, as it was a charity event. I also earned there several hundreds of euros for two simultaneous displays and several hundreds for some other chess-related work.
In chess.com's Titled Tuesdays I earned 200$ from my 22 tournaments. (One 4th place, several times close to winning a prize, but not quite there.) I have several times won big money in online rapid events (typically with obligatory two cameras), three of which were sort of invitational, with the fourth being open for titled players. (The Champions chess tour from Magnus Carlsen looks the most promising in financial terms.) My impression is that the number of events where one has a realistic chance of winning serious money is very limited.
To win a prize in events like Titled Arenas or Titled Tuesdays one needs to meet at least two of the following criteria:
1. be very strong (at least in blitz)
2. be in a very good form
3. be very quick
4. be very lucky
5. be cheating
Point (5) typically leads to a ban and a big reputational damage sooner or later, and therefore cannot be recommended.
Personally I am not quick enough to perform well with a berserk, and often struggle with this even in ordinary blitz. (Not too surprising for a middle-aged player who started playing online regularly well in his 30's.) That said, luck also plays a role. One can be quick and berserk all the time, but it does not help if the opponents do not do the same.
At times a strong GM can finish in Titled Tuesdays, Titled Arenas or other prize events very far away from top places even with pretty decent play. (I have several such experiences myself.)
I would also like to remark that in my youth I often asked for significantly less money than would be adequate. I was not experienced enough and was talented enough to perform well without too much work. I see the things a bit differently now, when the competition is fiercer and more work is needed to be successful. Competing in open tournaments with players who get paid by companies without really working there is not very attractive for me, and the practice looks a bit questionable to me. (Well, I get some money from the Czech Chess Union. It is also connected with some obligations like playing the Olympiad or the European Team Championship and while it is nice to receive such support, it is definitely not enough for a living, rather a nice and welcome bonus to my other earnings.)
Coaching can be really attractive if you have the right opportunities and if you are good at it. I got some interesting proposals, which was especially welcome during the pandemic. That said, I had to create the materials from the scratch and my ratio of the time spent on preparation and on the lecture itself was so high that I eventually quit once I got the opportunity to play over-the-board again. I might do some coaching once I become older, but I still prefer playing. My materials were typically too extensive, which should not surprise you if you have read my whole comment. :-)
I just want to stress that this comment is about earnings, but it is very important to like what one is doing, have good colleagues, a healthy lifestyle and so on.
That said, my experience of a GM rated between 2667 and 2700 since late 2020 (and often slightly above 2700 before) is somewhat different.
Vast majority of my income comes from playing, and a vast majority of it comes from the over-the-board events. Various European leagues provide a stable and foreseeable income to many professional players. Moreover, I like the atmosphere in my teams as well and feel comfortable playing there. Open tournaments are usually much less attractive in financial terms, unless you are going to finish at the top. (Which is never guaranteed.)
As for online chess, there is a lot of money, but it is not so easy to get it. As for streaming, chess qualities are often not the main factor, just one of many. Playing is more natural for professional players, but I do not see it as such an important source of income.
On Lichess I have so far earned slightly less than 100$ (no typo!) in prize events, and gave up almost one half of it, as it was a charity event. I also earned there several hundreds of euros for two simultaneous displays and several hundreds for some other chess-related work.
In chess.com's Titled Tuesdays I earned 200$ from my 22 tournaments. (One 4th place, several times close to winning a prize, but not quite there.) I have several times won big money in online rapid events (typically with obligatory two cameras), three of which were sort of invitational, with the fourth being open for titled players. (The Champions chess tour from Magnus Carlsen looks the most promising in financial terms.) My impression is that the number of events where one has a realistic chance of winning serious money is very limited.
To win a prize in events like Titled Arenas or Titled Tuesdays one needs to meet at least two of the following criteria:
1. be very strong (at least in blitz)
2. be in a very good form
3. be very quick
4. be very lucky
5. be cheating
Point (5) typically leads to a ban and a big reputational damage sooner or later, and therefore cannot be recommended.
Personally I am not quick enough to perform well with a berserk, and often struggle with this even in ordinary blitz. (Not too surprising for a middle-aged player who started playing online regularly well in his 30's.) That said, luck also plays a role. One can be quick and berserk all the time, but it does not help if the opponents do not do the same.
At times a strong GM can finish in Titled Tuesdays, Titled Arenas or other prize events very far away from top places even with pretty decent play. (I have several such experiences myself.)
I would also like to remark that in my youth I often asked for significantly less money than would be adequate. I was not experienced enough and was talented enough to perform well without too much work. I see the things a bit differently now, when the competition is fiercer and more work is needed to be successful. Competing in open tournaments with players who get paid by companies without really working there is not very attractive for me, and the practice looks a bit questionable to me. (Well, I get some money from the Czech Chess Union. It is also connected with some obligations like playing the Olympiad or the European Team Championship and while it is nice to receive such support, it is definitely not enough for a living, rather a nice and welcome bonus to my other earnings.)
Coaching can be really attractive if you have the right opportunities and if you are good at it. I got some interesting proposals, which was especially welcome during the pandemic. That said, I had to create the materials from the scratch and my ratio of the time spent on preparation and on the lecture itself was so high that I eventually quit once I got the opportunity to play over-the-board again. I might do some coaching once I become older, but I still prefer playing. My materials were typically too extensive, which should not surprise you if you have read my whole comment. :-)
I just want to stress that this comment is about earnings, but it is very important to like what one is doing, have good colleagues, a healthy lifestyle and so on.
@RealDavidNavara said in #12:
> Thank you for sharing your insights!
> That said, my experience of a GM rated between 2667 and 2700 since late 2020 (and often slightly above 2700 before) is somewhat different.
> Vast majority of my income comes from playing, and a vast majority of it comes from the over-the-board events. Various European leagues provide a stable and foreseeable income to many professional players. Moreover, I like the atmosphere in my teams as well and feel comfortable playing there. Open tournaments are usually much less attractive in financial terms, unless you are going to finish at the top. (Which is never guaranteed.)
> As for online chess, there is a lot of money, but it is not so easy to get it. As for streaming, chess qualities are often not the main factor, just one of many. Playing is more natural for professional players, but I do not see it as such an important source of income.
> On Lichess I have so far earned slightly less than 100$ (no typo!) in prize events, and gave up almost one half of it, as it was a charity event. I also earned there several hundreds of euros for two simultaneous displays and several hundreds for some other chess-related work.
> In chess.com's Titled Tuesdays I earned 200$ from my 22 tournaments. (One 4th place, several times close to winning a prize, but not quite there.) I have several times won big money in online rapid events (typically with obligatory two cameras), three of which were sort of invitational, with the fourth being open for titled players. (The Champions chess tour from Magnus Carlsen looks the most promising in financial terms.) My impression is that the number of events where one has a realistic chance of winning serious money is very limited.
> To win a prize in events like Titled Arenas or Titled Tuesdays one needs to meet at least two of the following criteria:
> 1. be very strong (at least in blitz)
> 2. be in a very good form
> 3. be very quick
> 4. be very lucky
> 5. be cheating
> Point (5) typically leads to a ban and a big reputational damage sooner or later, and therefore cannot be recommended.
> Personally I am not quick enough to perform well with a berserk, and often struggle with this even in ordinary blitz. (Not too surprising for a middle-aged player who started playing online regularly well in his 30's.) That said, luck also plays a role. One can be quick and berserk all the time, but it does not help if the opponents do not do the same.
> At times a strong GM can finish in Titled Tuesdays, Titled Arenas or other prize events very far away from top places even with pretty decent play. (I have several such experiences myself.)
> I would also like to remark that in my youth I often asked for significantly less money than would be adequate. I was not experienced enough and was talented enough to perform well without too much work. I see the things a bit differently now, when the competition is fiercer and more work is needed to be successful. Competing in open tournaments with players who get paid by companies without really working there is not very attractive for me, and the practice looks a bit questionable to me. (Well, I get some money from the Czech Chess Union. It is also connected with some obligations like playing the Olympiad or the European Team Championship and while it is nice to receive such support, it is definitely not enough for a living, rather a nice and welcome bonus to my other earnings.)
> Coaching can be really attractive if you have the right opportunities and if you are good at it. I got some interesting proposals, which was especially welcome during the pandemic. That said, I had to create the materials from the scratch and my ratio of the time spent on preparation and on the lecture itself was so high that I eventually quit once I got the opportunity to play over-the-board again. I might do some coaching once I become older, but I still prefer playing. My materials were typically too extensive, which should not surprise you if you have read my whole comment. :-)
> I just want to stress that this comment is about earnings, but it is very important to like what one is doing, have good colleagues, a healthy lifestyle and so on.
Thanks for sharing!
> Thank you for sharing your insights!
> That said, my experience of a GM rated between 2667 and 2700 since late 2020 (and often slightly above 2700 before) is somewhat different.
> Vast majority of my income comes from playing, and a vast majority of it comes from the over-the-board events. Various European leagues provide a stable and foreseeable income to many professional players. Moreover, I like the atmosphere in my teams as well and feel comfortable playing there. Open tournaments are usually much less attractive in financial terms, unless you are going to finish at the top. (Which is never guaranteed.)
> As for online chess, there is a lot of money, but it is not so easy to get it. As for streaming, chess qualities are often not the main factor, just one of many. Playing is more natural for professional players, but I do not see it as such an important source of income.
> On Lichess I have so far earned slightly less than 100$ (no typo!) in prize events, and gave up almost one half of it, as it was a charity event. I also earned there several hundreds of euros for two simultaneous displays and several hundreds for some other chess-related work.
> In chess.com's Titled Tuesdays I earned 200$ from my 22 tournaments. (One 4th place, several times close to winning a prize, but not quite there.) I have several times won big money in online rapid events (typically with obligatory two cameras), three of which were sort of invitational, with the fourth being open for titled players. (The Champions chess tour from Magnus Carlsen looks the most promising in financial terms.) My impression is that the number of events where one has a realistic chance of winning serious money is very limited.
> To win a prize in events like Titled Arenas or Titled Tuesdays one needs to meet at least two of the following criteria:
> 1. be very strong (at least in blitz)
> 2. be in a very good form
> 3. be very quick
> 4. be very lucky
> 5. be cheating
> Point (5) typically leads to a ban and a big reputational damage sooner or later, and therefore cannot be recommended.
> Personally I am not quick enough to perform well with a berserk, and often struggle with this even in ordinary blitz. (Not too surprising for a middle-aged player who started playing online regularly well in his 30's.) That said, luck also plays a role. One can be quick and berserk all the time, but it does not help if the opponents do not do the same.
> At times a strong GM can finish in Titled Tuesdays, Titled Arenas or other prize events very far away from top places even with pretty decent play. (I have several such experiences myself.)
> I would also like to remark that in my youth I often asked for significantly less money than would be adequate. I was not experienced enough and was talented enough to perform well without too much work. I see the things a bit differently now, when the competition is fiercer and more work is needed to be successful. Competing in open tournaments with players who get paid by companies without really working there is not very attractive for me, and the practice looks a bit questionable to me. (Well, I get some money from the Czech Chess Union. It is also connected with some obligations like playing the Olympiad or the European Team Championship and while it is nice to receive such support, it is definitely not enough for a living, rather a nice and welcome bonus to my other earnings.)
> Coaching can be really attractive if you have the right opportunities and if you are good at it. I got some interesting proposals, which was especially welcome during the pandemic. That said, I had to create the materials from the scratch and my ratio of the time spent on preparation and on the lecture itself was so high that I eventually quit once I got the opportunity to play over-the-board again. I might do some coaching once I become older, but I still prefer playing. My materials were typically too extensive, which should not surprise you if you have read my whole comment. :-)
> I just want to stress that this comment is about earnings, but it is very important to like what one is doing, have good colleagues, a healthy lifestyle and so on.
Thanks for sharing!
The surprising part though with regard to coaching is that some NMs and FMs have systematized the coaching aspect which is good in a sense that they are taking it seriously but it's apparent that coaches are trying to just jump on the bandwagon without addressing why young players need to even consider playing at a professional level in times like these. My usual gripe.
#12 Thanks for sharing David! It's not clear how to understand your comment though. It seems depressing and sorry to put it bluntly, but feels like you're resigned to playing chess for fun without caring about the monetary aspects?!
Why aren't you trying something completely outside of chess? Maybe a career shift. @RealDavidNavara
#12 Thanks for sharing David! It's not clear how to understand your comment though. It seems depressing and sorry to put it bluntly, but feels like you're resigned to playing chess for fun without caring about the monetary aspects?!
Why aren't you trying something completely outside of chess? Maybe a career shift. @RealDavidNavara
@RealDavidNavara said in #12:
> Thank you for sharing your insights!
> That said, my experience of a GM rated between 2667 and 2700 since late 2020 (and often slightly above 2700 before) is somewhat different.
> Vast majority of my income comes from playing, and a vast majority of it comes from the over-the-board events. Various European leagues provide a stable and foreseeable income to many professional players. Moreover, I like the atmosphere in my teams as well and feel comfortable playing there. Open tournaments are usually much less attractive in financial terms, unless you are going to finish at the top. (Which is never guaranteed.)
> As for online chess, there is a lot of money, but it is not so easy to get it. As for streaming, chess qualities are often not the main factor, just one of many. Playing is more natural for professional players, but I do not see it as such an important source of income.
> On Lichess I have so far earned slightly less than 100$ (no typo!) in prize events, and gave up almost one half of it, as it was a charity event. I also earned there several hundreds of euros for two simultaneous displays and several hundreds for some other chess-related work.
> In chess.com's Titled Tuesdays I earned 200$ from my 22 tournaments. (One 4th place, several times close to winning a prize, but not quite there.) I have several times won big money in online rapid events (typically with obligatory two cameras), three of which were sort of invitational, with the fourth being open for titled players. (The Champions chess tour from Magnus Carlsen looks the most promising in financial terms.) My impression is that the number of events where one has a realistic chance of winning serious money is very limited.
> To win a prize in events like Titled Arenas or Titled Tuesdays one needs to meet at least two of the following criteria:
> 1. be very strong (at least in blitz)
> 2. be in a very good form
> 3. be very quick
> 4. be very lucky
> 5. be cheating
> Point (5) typically leads to a ban and a big reputational damage sooner or later, and therefore cannot be recommended.
> Personally I am not quick enough to perform well with a berserk, and often struggle with this even in ordinary blitz. (Not too surprising for a middle-aged player who started playing online regularly well in his 30's.) That said, luck also plays a role. One can be quick and berserk all the time, but it does not help if the opponents do not do the same.
> At times a strong GM can finish in Titled Tuesdays, Titled Arenas or other prize events very far away from top places even with pretty decent play. (I have several such experiences myself.)
> I would also like to remark that in my youth I often asked for significantly less money than would be adequate. I was not experienced enough and was talented enough to perform well without too much work. I see the things a bit differently now, when the competition is fiercer and more work is needed to be successful. Competing in open tournaments with players who get paid by companies without really working there is not very attractive for me, and the practice looks a bit questionable to me. (Well, I get some money from the Czech Chess Union. It is also connected with some obligations like playing the Olympiad or the European Team Championship and while it is nice to receive such support, it is definitely not enough for a living, rather a nice and welcome bonus to my other earnings.)
> Coaching can be really attractive if you have the right opportunities and if you are good at it. I got some interesting proposals, which was especially welcome during the pandemic. That said, I had to create the materials from the scratch and my ratio of the time spent on preparation and on the lecture itself was so high that I eventually quit once I got the opportunity to play over-the-board again. I might do some coaching once I become older, but I still prefer playing. My materials were typically too extensive, which should not surprise you if you have read my whole comment. :-)
> I just want to stress that this comment is about earnings, but it is very important to like what one is doing, have good colleagues, a healthy lifestyle and so on.
Thanks a lot, David for sharing your thoughts!
> Thank you for sharing your insights!
> That said, my experience of a GM rated between 2667 and 2700 since late 2020 (and often slightly above 2700 before) is somewhat different.
> Vast majority of my income comes from playing, and a vast majority of it comes from the over-the-board events. Various European leagues provide a stable and foreseeable income to many professional players. Moreover, I like the atmosphere in my teams as well and feel comfortable playing there. Open tournaments are usually much less attractive in financial terms, unless you are going to finish at the top. (Which is never guaranteed.)
> As for online chess, there is a lot of money, but it is not so easy to get it. As for streaming, chess qualities are often not the main factor, just one of many. Playing is more natural for professional players, but I do not see it as such an important source of income.
> On Lichess I have so far earned slightly less than 100$ (no typo!) in prize events, and gave up almost one half of it, as it was a charity event. I also earned there several hundreds of euros for two simultaneous displays and several hundreds for some other chess-related work.
> In chess.com's Titled Tuesdays I earned 200$ from my 22 tournaments. (One 4th place, several times close to winning a prize, but not quite there.) I have several times won big money in online rapid events (typically with obligatory two cameras), three of which were sort of invitational, with the fourth being open for titled players. (The Champions chess tour from Magnus Carlsen looks the most promising in financial terms.) My impression is that the number of events where one has a realistic chance of winning serious money is very limited.
> To win a prize in events like Titled Arenas or Titled Tuesdays one needs to meet at least two of the following criteria:
> 1. be very strong (at least in blitz)
> 2. be in a very good form
> 3. be very quick
> 4. be very lucky
> 5. be cheating
> Point (5) typically leads to a ban and a big reputational damage sooner or later, and therefore cannot be recommended.
> Personally I am not quick enough to perform well with a berserk, and often struggle with this even in ordinary blitz. (Not too surprising for a middle-aged player who started playing online regularly well in his 30's.) That said, luck also plays a role. One can be quick and berserk all the time, but it does not help if the opponents do not do the same.
> At times a strong GM can finish in Titled Tuesdays, Titled Arenas or other prize events very far away from top places even with pretty decent play. (I have several such experiences myself.)
> I would also like to remark that in my youth I often asked for significantly less money than would be adequate. I was not experienced enough and was talented enough to perform well without too much work. I see the things a bit differently now, when the competition is fiercer and more work is needed to be successful. Competing in open tournaments with players who get paid by companies without really working there is not very attractive for me, and the practice looks a bit questionable to me. (Well, I get some money from the Czech Chess Union. It is also connected with some obligations like playing the Olympiad or the European Team Championship and while it is nice to receive such support, it is definitely not enough for a living, rather a nice and welcome bonus to my other earnings.)
> Coaching can be really attractive if you have the right opportunities and if you are good at it. I got some interesting proposals, which was especially welcome during the pandemic. That said, I had to create the materials from the scratch and my ratio of the time spent on preparation and on the lecture itself was so high that I eventually quit once I got the opportunity to play over-the-board again. I might do some coaching once I become older, but I still prefer playing. My materials were typically too extensive, which should not surprise you if you have read my whole comment. :-)
> I just want to stress that this comment is about earnings, but it is very important to like what one is doing, have good colleagues, a healthy lifestyle and so on.
Thanks a lot, David for sharing your thoughts!
Paying to be good at chess. I just can't imagine ever doing that