When professional chess conditions get worse, criticism usually goes toward FIDE, federations and organizers. Much of that criticism is deserved. But the strongest players are not powerless observers.
What is said matters. Who says it often matters more.
A top player can draw attention to a problem that hundreds of less-visible professionals have discussed for years. That influence creates an opportunity and, in my view, some responsibility.
One public intervention can move a debate
Ian Nepomniachtchi publicly criticized how easily some title norms could be manufactured. FIDE subsequently tightened its title regulations, including a requirement that at least one GM or WGM norm come from a tournament with no more than one round per day over a minimum of three days.
I cannot prove that one post caused the regulation. Rules normally result from longer internal discussions, and the final requirement was not identical to every public proposal. The point is that criticism from a recent World Championship challenger made the problem difficult to ignore.
The same pattern appears with playing conditions. In 2024, Jorden van Foreest described the worsening economics facing strong players at the Sharjah Masters: shared rooms for some grandmasters, flights not covered and prize funds that had not kept pace with increasingly strong fields. The post traveled because a recognizable top grandmaster said publicly what many professionals experience privately.
I had written similar things before with numbers. They received less attention. That is not a complaint; it is how influence works. A message from a player closer to the top of the ranking carries farther.
Conditions for the top affect everybody
Some people respond that an elite player should negotiate only for himself. If Arjun Erigaisi accepts an event, why should anyone criticize him? It is his career and his decision.
Of course it is. No player owes the internet a boycott. Tournament schedules, qualification paths and financial needs are complicated. A player may accept weak conditions because the event offers rating opportunities, circuit points or preparation for something larger.
But organizers also learn from what leading players accept. If a world-class player participates while paying significant travel costs and competing for a modest prize fund, the event can attract an exceptional field without improving terms. Players ranked 2600 or 2500 then face the same event with less invitation value and a smaller chance of winning anything.
When a top player asks for proper accommodation, travel support, a professional venue or a serious prize fund, the improvement rarely benefits only that player. It raises the standard organizers must meet for the entire event.
My experience in Azerbaijan
I have tried to use the influence I have in my own chess community. Before one Azerbaijani Championship, I argued for a better venue and asked for the prize fund to be doubled. The federation improved the venue and increased the prize fund, though not by the amount I requested.
I still chose not to play because the final conditions did not satisfy me. That decision did not transform Azerbaijani chess, and I would not pretend it did. But the players who participated received better conditions than they otherwise might have.
This is the part people miss when they call every complaint selfish. A player can refuse an event for personal reasons and still improve the environment for others.
What leading players can realistically do
Top players do not need to become politicians. A few practical actions are enough.
They can ask organizers for clear terms before accepting: prize distribution, travel, accommodation, schedule, anti-cheating measures and payment timing. They can insist that verbal promises become written agreements. They can speak publicly when a recurring problem affects the field, while distinguishing facts from rumor.
They can also avoid making private exceptions invisible. If an organizer gives one star excellent conditions while the rest of the field shares rooms, the star may not know. Asking what the broader field receives can expose the real standard.
Most importantly, several leading players can coordinate. One player refusing an event can be replaced. A group agreeing on minimum professional conditions is harder to ignore.
Influence should be used carefully
Power also creates obligations toward accuracy. A famous player can damage an organizer with one careless accusation. Public criticism should identify the exact issue, give the other side a chance to respond and correct mistakes when necessary.
Not every disappointing prize fund is exploitation. Small organizers may be operating honestly with limited resources. A local open and a World Championship qualifier should not be judged by identical standards. Transparency lets players decide whether the exchange is worthwhile.
The goal is not to shame every imperfect event. It is to stop treating declining conditions as inevitable while fields become stronger and the costs of professional play rise.
Responsibility follows influence
The highest-ranked players earned their influence through extraordinary chess. They are not responsible for every weakness in the ecosystem. FIDE writes regulations. Federations choose policies. Organizers control budgets.
Still, the players at the top possess leverage that others do not. Their participation sells an event. Their criticism becomes news. Their standards influence what organizers believe the market will tolerate.
The least they can do is demand adequate conditions for themselves and speak honestly when those conditions are disappearing. That is not sainthood. It is using bargaining power that already exists.
If the strongest players raise the floor, everyone below them has a better chance of building a sustainable career.