Announcing Lichess Titled Arena 5

I believe the question why the tournaments are 1+0 has been answered in some forum. Certain moderator said that's what the preferred time control is by a majority of players who play in the tournament.

Sure, giving 1 through 5 the same amount will take the fun out, but that was never suggested, "more evenly distributed" does not mean "exactly evenly distributed", it could mean something like "$2100,$800,$400,$200,$100" instead of "$3000,$250,$175,$100,$75".
In any case, if the money was donated to fund the winner's prize, to the winner's prize it must go.

I really enjoy these, but I'll also echo wanting to see 3/2 or 5/0, also. had their largest titled event recently of $5000.
They allocated it:

$2,000 for first
$1,200 for second
$800 for third
$600 for fourth
$400 for fifth

But since first place has always donated the money back it kind of makes sense to only increase the first place prize.

The tournaments are good enough of course.
Online chess is the future.
1+0 practically avoids any possible cheating.
What do you think of the idea to organize online chess tournaments like poker tournaments - with participation fee?

That would be fun at the high level, but us patzars would have no chance.
On the other hand, it is common to pay anyway to sign up for a tournament, so it could make sense to give some to the winner.
Also, such prize-money tournaments exist.
On the other hand, giving prize money is giving incentive to win at any cost, which can "bring the game of chess into disrepute".

Can't wait for this one! Can Magnus win it again? :D

@PArnaudov Lichess doesn't like to handle money if we can avoid it. That's probably one of several reasons I wouldn't expect us to start taking tournament participation fees.

We like chess being free for all!

Organizing a tournament for different Elo ranges is possible.
For example U1400, U1600, U2000.
I will try to organize a tournament without starting fee, but with prizes - not money, gift cards for chess related products.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.