US Champ State of the Union

"By far and away the best US-produced players are probably Seirawan, Benjamin, Christiansen, and myself." - what about Walter Browne?

Australia's Walter Browne? Actually he's a tricky case since he came to the US as a youngster and became a strong player there, but then went back and represented Australia for around five years before returning to the US for the rest of his legendary career. His first international experience came in Australia though.

It appears AF4C is guilty of a FIDE-fehler by not discussing the format change with the players in advance. Either they didn't think it was necessary or didn't think it was a big enough change to worry about. Whenever someone wonders "why tell everyone?" the correct answer is usually "why not?" The default should always be full transparency. You can still do what you want at the end of the day, but it makes everyone feel involved and relevant, not to mention warm and fuzzy. Public debate can be scary, and I'm not suggesting they put eveyr little change up for a vote, but a quick email to the players couldn't hurt.

To be fair for a change, apparently the format change wasn't really supposed to be announced yet when I publicized it here. But the schedules I was sent to post on the website said "championship match" on the final day so I didn't imagine it was a secret, especially after I got some email asking what the heck it meant. The official announcement was supposed to come a few days later, but after the edifying debate that erupted here it's likely they are taking a closer look.

Good! We want them to know that we respect what they are doing for chess and appreciate it. But, they need to respect classical chess and the many fans of classical chess. If they want to run quick-style events because they think it will be exciting and draw coverage, well that is great too, but please, please don't mix the styles of chess! I enjoy watching and playing quick chess, but I never bother studying those games. It is a different game! Leave classical chess alone, because contrary to what FIDE is trying very hard to make everyone think, classical chess is not broken. It just needs competent organizations to run things.

Good to see such forthrightness from Hikaru, too! I love refreshing, straightforward honesty.

Sports in the US have two different business models.

Team sports, such as football, basketball, baseball, generally rely on regional rivalries. The team concept leads to the ability to promote the team as well as individual players. Mascots matter. And rivalries can last generations because of the team-before-the-players imagery. Most money, except for a very few established superstars, comes in through the team first and then out to the players.

Individual sports like tennis and golf have a few regional rivalries and team events, but almost all the promotion is about the individual players. Individual players, even at relatively low levels, have individual sponsors. Whether or not an event is televised has almost nothing to do with the level of sponsorship an individual attracts, because rather than trying to reach a wide audience with regional loyalties, sponsors are trying to associate themselves with an individual player's iconic image.

The LPGA (www.lpga.com ) remains a great model for how promotion of an individual-based sport can work. Almost no television coverage, but plenty of sponsorship money, even for individuals who win only $2,00 or $3,000 a year in prize money.

Promoting chess in the US means studying how sponsorship works for niche sports with individual competitors, and then supporting both the sponsor and the player side.

I'd like to see the USCF do 4 things at the 2006 US Championship:

1. Produce a program, also available online, with a bio of each participant, including a space allowing them to list their individual sponsors and individual websites (see the LPGA for a model)

2. Hold a sponsors' brunch to which only sponsors and players are invited. Get pictures.

3. Hold a workshop for all participants on tips on how to maintain good sponsor relations.

4. Put a link to the excellent ChampBlog that Mig does on the official USCF site in the Top Players section.

I truly believe that that would lay a foundation for successful promotion of chess in the US in the specific sense of eventually helping IMs and GMs find enough money to keep playing.

Respectfully,
Duif

awesome Hikaru. it's about time someone with your stature makes some noise publically. kudos.

Duif, I did chech out www.lpga.com, also Ladies Professional Golf Association. You write that they have almost no TV coverage, but still they have some TV coverage. Could be a good idea for chessplayers to do something like the LPGA, but still with some TV coverage.

TV-programs with highlights from long games are probably the way to go, but live rapid games might be a good TV-concept too.

Very well-said Hikaru!

Great comments Hikaru. We all need to hear from the top players. that helps us to understand what is good for chess. the top players certainly understand the issues better than I do. at least in most cases.

I was under the impression that Seriwan received his chess training outside the usa before moving here. certainly a wonderful player and person. so good for chess.

I really always enjoy Duif's comments. She seems to understand the issues very well. I am not and never was a golf fan. too slow a game and too boring to watch. how in god's name golf ever gets any sponsorship is beyond me. if golf can raise money surely chess can do 10 times better.

of course golf has one advantage in that it is so simple everyone understands they are trying to get the ball in the hole. in chess it takes more understanding and intelligence than that. maybe we just need to say it is simple. just checkmate the king.

For a long time I have felt that one major problem with chess is the draw. It would be nice if we could eliminate the draw from all games. Maybe give the win to the player who has more time on his clock. the use of digital clocks help in that one.

back in 1972 when fischer brought on the boom in chess. i was hooked. and back then I saw that USCF was not supporting chess. I always hoped against hope that they would do it. AF4C is the first bright hope to promote chess. they are so good that I am willing to allow them to experiment to solve the sponsorship problems. I am sure if we give them a little time they will come up with a good solution. I have faith in AF4C but no faith after 35 years in the USCF. Thank God I purchased a Lifetime Membership or I would really not pay any attention to USCF today.

Mig is super good for chess. He is bringing people together here on the blog to discuss the problems and solutions. this was not available back in 1972.

I had never before thought of it. but Hikaru's idea of taking the chess power away from USCF and turning it over to AF4C is a great idea. I agree that they would do a much better job. Certainly AF4C brings a professionalism to chess that USCF has never brought to chess and probably never will.

Just look at the mess at USCF. the new comers might think this is a new problem. no no. this is the normal state of affairs at USCF for the past 35 years plus. they have not had one single good year since Fischer came on the scene. and probably no good years before then either.

Mig I know FIDE is in a terrible mess. but dont forget about the USCF.

Tommy

Hirkaru says:
It is sad how ever since the golden days of Fischer the US has failed to produce any "superstar" chess players. By far and away the best US-produced players are probably Seirawan, Benjamin, Christiansen, and myself. What is the reason for this?
**********

I would like to say that the US has had lots of great chess players. they all had to quit and get jobs. There are almost too many to mention.

I think Bill Robertie is now playing professional poker. he used to play backgammon for money. but now I guess poker is big. so here is someone who is still playing a game in a sense. and he can make good money doing it. Even Gata Kamsky left to get a career but he is one of the few individuals to attempt to make a comeback in chess. I hope Gata gets back into his old peak form. I will watch him in all the tournaments. I would have to assume that Gata is now able to support himself in his new career as a lawyer and still get time to play chess.

Very poorly said, Hikaru. Good in chess, poor in grammar. I'm surprised the text was not edited by someone before posting.

I find it funny that people are suggesting the LPGA business model for chess, as if chess is in a position to pick and choose how it wants to go about marketing itself with it's vast reserves of cash and power to capture a slumbering audience. Why not model chess after the NFL, with dedicated hour-long pregame shows on all channels (including HBO), betting lines listed in Vegas and in papers across the country, daily articles written in newspaper sports sections, EA Sports simulation games, blanket coverage on Sundays, a special Monday night game, and culminating in a "Super Bowl of Chess" that will be watched my billions? It is SO OBVIOUS this would be better than how chess is promoting itself currently, right? Why is chess leadership being so dumb that they do not just do this simple plan? Please.

Individual Player Profiles? It's been done many times before, including the recent San Luis event. Did anyone bother to read them? If you did, you would have found them as bland and uninteresting as a 14 move Petroff draw. You could use Mad Libs to generate them:

"So and So started playing chess at a really young age, won some junior championships, played in some big name tournaments and did really well, including these accomplishments: A, B, C. His dream is to be world champion. His hobbies are "D", which is all he has time for since top level chess is dominated by boring personalities, all of whom have the same best friend they spend way too much time with - some guy named 'Fritz'."

Golf is a huge, profitable business. Many sporting goods stores draw the majority of their revenue from golf, where they can actually stock supplies that have a large price premium (clubs in particular). This is the result of HUGE public interest, not only in following the game, but in participating.

The LPGA has legitimate superstars that are recognized by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, including Annika Sorenstam and Michelle Wie. These names are so big that even people who are not golf fans have a great chance of recognizing the names. No one in chess comes remotely close to this. And since chess is a totally cheap sport to get into (i.e there are no 'premium golf clubs and balls' equivalent in chess, at least for a mass market), there are no big sponsors available WITHIN the sport itself (like Nike or Titlist or Ping, etc).

Apples and oranges. Chess' lack of sponsorship since the early 90's isn't becuase of Kasparov's split from FIDE and the schism that followed in the world championship title. It is because businesses finally comprehended that the ROI in sponsoring chess is very low, if not negative, and capitalism took its natural course.

If players still think they can continue to demand $1-2 Million in purse money to play 16 games of chess in a match, they are deluding themselves. This gap between what chess pros think their talents are worth and what the market is actually willing to bear is the biggest killer in chess, not lack of promotion that is supposed to uncover some hidden sponsors that actually agree with these pros' prices. Isn't it possible that the promotion is already there to draw the sponsorship chess deserves, and the simple answer is that the money on the table for chess is as good as it is going to get? It is not lack of promotion, but lack of interest. You do not hear checkers or scrabble or even pool (9-ball) complaining about lack of million dollar prize pools, simply because they acknowledge their economic reality. Perhaps chess should start to accept theirs as well.

I personally cannot imagine the point of the championship being broken into two groups. Could anyone care to justify? I feel like sports like tennis, cycling, or other such sports which I don't think are too much more popular than chess on a global scale have a considerable amount of money in them. I agree with you,Hikaru, that something is not right with the management and the USCF and I think it is a lack of understanding of what it means to be a non-profit organization. Being a non-profit doesn't mean you use a different approach from a business. The only difference is that you are sometimes willing make profit sacrifices for some greater good. Ok so they put out a garbage magazine but this is just the surface. My sense is that people come to management simply because they are well known people who have been around chess for a while not because they are actually qualified to do their job or have any clue as to what their job is about.I think they genuinely want to help chess but on the other hand just have no idea how to run such an organization. They need to bring in people, both in management and as consultants, who do. Whether they know about chess is really secondary. Still, unless Hikaru can explain otherwise, organizing a championship is one thing and being responsible for the entire US chess circuit is quite another. I have not even heard any evidence that the AF4C is willing to take on such an enormous task, much less that they have the capacity to do so.

Yasser graduated from Garfield High School in Seattle. His early chess play was in Washington and Oregon.
He did one thing that I would hope all grandmasters would do is get sponsorship for a tournament in their home town i.e. AF4C in Seattle. I know now it is in California but the start was in Seattle.
GMs need to market themselves much more than they appear to do. Be willing to wear the labels of sponsors. Look at the labels on the race cars. Do the promotion and the tours of schools and malls.

Nakamura should pickup the phone and ask Seirawan why these changes. That would clarify a few things he doesn't understand because he has never had to deal with issues of how to run major tournaments, including securing sponsorship money.

It os one thing to just play and another thing to try to "sell" chess to potential sponsors. That's a very difficult job, as the AF4C is slowly finding out.

The simple truth is that, were it not for Yasser's good connections (wife is daughter of an influential dutch guy, who in turn put Yasser in contact with people/sponsors), the AF4C would not exist. It is important to mention this because it explains why the "sponsorship" money is becoming such issue that compromises are in order if the tournament is to continue. Sad, but true.

One final note: after fisher, there was another GM with great potential who quit chess to do something better with his life: Jim Tarjan.

Bottom line: when it comes to sponsorship money in chess, "compromise" is the operative word. Professional chess players need to give this issue some serious thought in order to find peace...and money. Until then, only 2 things are guaranteed: classical chess and abject poverty.

The good news is that a young, very good player like Nakamura is adding his voice to the dialog.

I suggest he considers creating (along with Seirawan, the AF4C and other fellow pro's) an entity free from the USCF. What do they need it for, anyway? Start the non-profit APCA (American Professional Chessplayers Association), give Sonas the ratings department, invest $100K into hiring a professional fundraising firm (like the big non-profits have been doing for years) and the future will be much brighter.

Good luck!

Stern, leave the grammar nazi trolls for message boards, please. It just leads off-topic when people inevitably reply by pointing out a few of the many of mistakes in your own posts. ("as if chess is in"? "legitimate superstars that are"? "totally cheap"?) The item was posted by Hikaru to one of the items here as a comment and your gratuitious abuse reflects poorly on you. Thanks.

Chess has many natural employers within the sport, but this is not endorsement. Mostly this is due to a lack of competition in a relatively small market. Internal sponsors like online playing sites and book and software publishers do support the players both directly and indirectly, but the margins are very thin. ChessBase pays many players for producing training material but isn't going to pay Topalov a pile of money to wear a logo cap.

It's more about services. Instead of paying Topalov to wear a cap at the board - who would see it? - they can pay him to play blitz at Playchess.com, that sort of thing. As Stern says, chess is just far too small a business concern to make useful comparisons to professional sports with hundreds of millions of dollars floating around from amateurs up to pros.

Kasparov was big enough to break this mold - I'm sure he's better known worldwide than any female golfer. He did sponsorship deals even outside of chess products. But that's incredibly rare and shouldn't be considered a business model. In the last five years we've seen players with wildly unrealistic expectations, mostly based on the big K-K matches that brought in millions. Even Kasparov 2003 couldn't match Kasparov 1990 and the chess world suffered while they tried.

This is one of the things that bugged me back in 1999 when Khalifman was talking about how elitist chess was and how it wasn't fair Kasparov and a few other top players got so much money while #100 couldn't make a living. It's a professional sport! It's a top-down operation. As Kasparov put it, before #100 can make $100,000, number ten has to. I've always liked to say that chess doesn't owe anyone a living. Politicians can help or hinder, but we certainly can't rely on them, not even on the good ones.

It's also worth noting something we've discussed here many times, how the game has a very positive image but the players largely do not. Chess imagery is everywhere but nobody scoops up the US Champion to endorse their bank or consulting firm or to appear in commercials, etc. Many not-so-famous players of popular sports get endorsement deals. They are cyphers for the popularity of their sport. This sort of thing I can see happening with chess with a little luck and work.

Mig:

Normally I completely agree with you about the grammar nazi thing. It is trivial in forums and I too hate people who harp on it.

But this is not a normal forum situation. I am not the US Champion posting about the future of his sport in the US. I am a simple blog poster who wrote my response while eating lunch and not caring at all if my poor grammar made me look bad. I will probably get less sponsorship interest because I am careless in my writing. Of course I have NO potential for sponsorship interest, so it doesn't matter to me.

Hikaru HAS to care more, it matters both to his own future and that of his sport. You just posted about why companies do not hire US Champions to promote their bank or consulting firm. Things like 'on the record poor grammar' contributes to this lack of endorsement deals. Image is everything in obtaining endorsement deals. So in this case I really do believe it was justifiable to point out poor grammar and wording. Hikura has to recognize that if he wants to elevate his sport, he has to have higher standards than the rest of us, including how he presents himself in the written word. My poor grammar does not matter. His surely does.

On another topic, I think that, as admirable as Kamsky's and Nakamura's honesty are about the future of chess, the effect of these Nak vs USCF, Topalov vs Kramnik, and FIDE vs Kamsky/Shirov bantering is to make potential sponsors of chess even more fearful of participating. From a sponsor standpoint, it just seems like chess is a giant headache that demands a lot of money for little exposure in return. I don't see a way out for chess, unless a total phenomenon in chess comes along and has more drawing power than any organization or person that has come before.

Mig:

Normally I completely agree with you about the grammar nazi thing. It is trivial in forums and I too hate people who harp on it.

But this is not a normal forum situation. I am not the US Champion posting about the future of his sport in the US. I am a simple blog poster who wrote my response while eating lunch and not caring at all if my poor grammar made me look bad. I will probably get less sponsorship interest because I am careless in my writing. Of course I have NO potential for sponsorship interest, so it doesn't matter to me.

Hikaru HAS to care more, it matters both to his own future and that of his sport. You just posted about why companies do not hire US Champions to promote their bank or consulting firm. Things like 'on the record poor grammar' contributes to this lack of endorsement deals. Image is everything in obtaining endorsement deals. So in this case I really do believe it was justifiable to point out poor grammar and wording. Hikura has to recognize that if he wants to elevate his sport, he has to have higher standards than the rest of us, including how he presents himself in the written word. My poor grammar does not matter. His surely does.

On another topic, I think that, as admirable as Kamsky's and Nakamura's honesty are about the future of chess, the effect of these Nak vs USCF, Topalov vs Kramnik, and FIDE vs Kamsky/Shirov bantering is to make potential sponsors of chess even more fearful of participating. From a sponsor standpoint, it just seems like chess is a giant headache that demands a lot of money for little exposure in return. I don't see a way out for chess, unless a total phenomenon in chess comes along and has more drawing power than any organization or person that has come before.

I must say that I agree with Stern and was somewhat dissappointed in Hikaru's post. Hikaru also needs to be careful about sounding like a whiner, i.e. "I want to make a good living playing chess here in the US, somebody pay me." His contributions to chess have been mixed so far. He done some good things (maybe he was paid?), but his immaturity shows often as well. Hikaru could learn a lot from Yasser.
Potential US sponsors are probably affraid of chess because of the Fischer factor, and there simply aren't enough US (native or based) players that look, act, and speak professionally. Seirawan, Benjamin, Ashley, and the few others form a sad minority. Until more players live up to the ideals of the game, advertisers will continue use the image of the game without reference to any player.

Chris

C'mon, let's not exaggerate here. I've been a writer and editor for many years, as well as an English teacher. If there were bad typos or anything ambiguous or grammatically horrid I'd have corrected it. But I'm not going to edit or rewrite something for style or effect unless asked to do so. (Plus, I reposted it without asking him!) Yeesh.

It's not like Fischer was a great PR man; he didn't have to be. Hikaru's at the age and level where he has the potential to put chess on the map in the US by sheer force of success. In fact it may be the ONLY way to do it. His arrival to the top ten, for example, would be worth any number of PR events or whatever else it is you expect when you say his contributions so far have been "mixed." Going to school and breaking into the top 50 at the same time doesn't leave a lot of free time, I'd wager.

It's a myth to believe that if every single chessplayer in the US wore a suit and spoke Etonian chess would be well-sponsored here. In every sport the most charismatic and/or successful are plucked out of the crowd. Chess is so marginal that you don't know about its players unless you go looking, and nobody is looking. It would be interesting to see what a professional PR firm could do, or what an agent could do for a top player. (Not that I think the USCF should spend money on a PR firm.) I've spent a lot of time with Kasparov's agent and the work he does isn't just answering the phone and negotiating the appearance fees. You have to go knocking on doors.

Hi Mig:

If it is not confidential, could you let us know what Kasparov's agent does in addition to answering the phone and negotiating appearance fees. It would be helpful to know how to popularize chess.

Thanks.

Thanks for your post Nakamura, I agree that the USCF has been a failure at sponsoring chess.

Chris, US sponsors aren't afraid of chess because of what you call the "Fischer factor," rather the fact that there isn't another Fischer is the reason there's a lack of sponsorship. You know who would get a lot of sponsorship in the US? A male rated at least 2700 who looks white and has a huge ego. Note that Fischer was German and French, Morphy was Spanish and French, but they looked white enough to be popular. This explains why Kamsky (immigrated from the Soviet Union) and Nakamura (immigrated from Japan) are no where near as popular as Fischer was.

Nakamura has identified very real problems, but he should be paying someone good money to worry about these problems on his behalf, as Topalov does....

I would add Wolff and Rogoff to the list of post-Fischer top-tier GMs produced by the U.S.--both dropped out of chess early.

The more that people care the bigger the superstar. Unfortunately the cold war is over. That's why America won't produce another superstar as big as Fischer.

I support Nakamura 110%. I have ZERO complaints. He is doing a super job. wonderful.

I love to watch all his games.

I also support Kamsky and all the other American players. I hope every day that an American player can again become a world champion. I hope and expect that will be good for chess in the USA.

I also want to say that I think Nakamura's original post in this thread was SPOT ON. Perfect. I agree with him and support his view.

Seriwan has done wonderful things out in Seattle. Now we are blessed to have Susan Polgar assist us from New York. She is wonderful.

I also noticed that Alexandria Kosteniuk has apparently moved to Florida. she is now listed on the USCF listing as the top rated woman player in USCF. My impression is that Alexandria has been successful in getting company endorcements. And she does more than simplying opening her mail to find big contract offers for endorcements. I am sure she has worked to find those endorcements.

However, I agree strongly with Duif. the USCF should be assisting all grandmasters and members of the chess community in the usa to find endorcements including holding seminars to educate the players on how to find endorcements.

Tommy

Let us assume I am a rich and powerful company executive and I decide to put a million dollars into a chess tournament. Now as a powerful executive who is using my own money I dont think I have to confir with anyone on how I organize the games and tournament. I can set up the rules of the tournament any way I decide I want them to be. after all it is my money. if you dont like my tournament then please dont play in it.

I think one big problem with sponsorship occurred when Kasparov had Intel as a yearly sponsor to many big tournaments. then of course Intel was promoting chess and kasparov in the usa. and IBM came along with a single offer to play against an IBM computer. Intel did not want Kasparov to play that one tournament against IBM. but Kasparov got angry and did make a financial agreement with IBM to play the computer.

Well Intel withdrew any new financing and Kasparov lost the match with IBM. a big loss to chess in usa. it was a stupid loss. Kasparov should have remained with Intel for the good of chess and the good of his own reputation. but kasparov seemed to be interested in the short term money.

At that point the USA was in position to grow with corporate sponsorships. and Kasparov came from Russia and messed up the American market for all the other chess players.

I believe this was an important turning point for American Chess Sponsorship.

Tommy

Let me clarify a few things. By Fischer factor, I mean going off the deep end and embarassing sponsors. Many of the chess players out there have a few excentricities, as did Fischer. I don't think the sponsors want to take a chance on someone going off and saying thingds they'll have to appologize for later. In spite of the old adage, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

I am also a fan of and support Nakamura. He does raise some good points. I just think he needs to be careful about protecting his image. he does sometimes sound like a crybaby. Again he could learn a lot from S. Polgar, Kosteniuk, Seirawan, Ashley, and others who are successful at marketing themselves and the game. Finally, being white has nothing to do with being successful in the sponsorship world (and has so little to do with why Fischer was a superstar, although I'm sure it didn't hurt). Tiger Woods and Michele Wie come immediately to mind. What matters is acting like a professional when the spotlight is on (by many accounts Tiger can be a jerk off the camera, and that doesn't hurt him too much).

Chris

Fischer winning the World Championship attracted Americans to chess like was never seen before or since. Its going to be awefully tough to do that now because there is no established way to win a world championship.

To claim that doesn't matter to US chess is fooling yourself. If there was no accepted world championship system in the late 60s and early 70s there would be no Fischer boom. There won't be anything like that in the US until there is an established championship. (Ok even with a championship cycle there won't be anything like that unless we have another cold war and all the other trappings of the fishcher boom. Nevertheless the WC system was the most important requirement.)

If there are no well established events that are known worldwide there will be far fewer people introduced to the worlds best players. If there are fewer people who even know who the best players in the world are there will be fewer fans. Few fans means no sponsorship - means no money - means more of our most talented players cant hope to live off of chess.

I wont hijack this thread and talk about what sort of WC system we need. However I think its on point to say the lack of one is really hurting chess in the US. I think its also on point to say that whatever it is it shouldn't be geared toward making the top 8 or top 128 players happy. It should be set up to attract chess fans. That means it needs to be legitimate.

Peace...

First, I find it quite appalling that people are here speaking about Hikaru's writing. There is absolutely nothing glaringly wrong with what he wrote. The fact that it does not suit one's style does not provide license to chastise the writer, especially when the critics would be hard-pressed to meet what would be considered professional writing standards even though they are much older than he is.

Second, Hikaru has all right to address the ills of the chess scene, and people who say that he is just whining need to put a sock in it. Of course, spectators can say whatever they wish, because chess is but enjoyment for them, a side hobby of sorts, whereas it is a major part of this young man's life. If he does not have license to address these matters, then who does? Why should he be shy about saying that USCF does not do a good job with promoting chess? Who here disagrees with this statement?

Finally, let us not kid ourselves into believing that ethnocentrism plays no role in advertising. There exists a "norm" culture, and then individuals are evaluated based upon how closely they conform to the norm. The two ways that things work are a) The individual is accepted as being close enough to the norm to appeal to the masses who subscribe to it, and b) The individual introduces a new characteristic that those who subscribe to the norm find appealing and adopt, recreating the norm on the fly. No sponsorship will ever exist for one who strays far enough from the norm to be considered an entirely oppositional entity unless the norm shifts to accomodate it. Obviously, it is easiest to fit into the norms of American society if one is white, and to deny this is to dismiss the overly evident.

Hotep,

Maliq

quote: Obviously, it is easiest to fit into the norms of American society if one is white, and to deny this is to dismiss the overly evident.

That is probably the most idiotic statement made regarding this post. There are many others that come a close second though.

On ICC there were quite a few comments about his weight though. Probably by Europeans and Asians, jealous of all the tasty fast food we have access to here.

Peace...

Well, lwolf123, being that all research on stratification within the US demonstrates my very point, your denial of the obvious dynamic within American society has now become "the most idiotic statement made regarding this post". If the facts make you uncomfortable, then this is good; they SHOULD make you uncomfortable. Discomfort is often addressed by simple disregard for the existence of the discomforting circumstance, and you have here rejected the existence of this known dynamic in some aggressive manner. Society functions based on a vortex of stratification systems; this is not opinion, but indisputable fact. Ascribed status still carries more value than achieved status, so that the latter is regarded as a mode through which to overcome the vices of the former. Now, again, tell me that it is not easier to fit into the norms of American society if one is white, and this time counter my argument with something other than "I disagree because I don't like this," which is basically what you have told me here. Afterward, establish for me that systems of stratification do not govern our society, and that we actually live in a meritocracy. Please forward this position, so that I may blow a hole the size of the Grand Canyon through it. If you cannot both forward and support this position, then zip those lips until you know what you are talking about.

Hotep,

Maliq

Can you guys declare a cooling off period of 24 hours before turning the current top item into WW III, if that is the intention? Thanks.

As for the obvious trolls like dvdlpz please don't feed them. I can't catch every post when it first goes up, so when someone posts idiotic slander it's best to ignore it instead of destroying the thread with 20 replies with obvious refutations. Then I have to delete 21 posts instead of one to try and keep the items somewhat relevant. People often post new and useful information in the comments, but no one will ever find it if it obscured by junk. Thanks again.

Peace...

Mig, the intention is not to start some type of war, but if a person responds to a logical and research-based post by declaring that idiocy has been cited, then a response is in order. There were mentions of why it will be difficult for the current leaders of the US chess professional circuit to captivate the American public and secure sponsorship, and it is an ugly reality that such concerns actually do exist. When advertisers approach a person who is not in line with the norm and propose a working relationship, it is usually the case that the advertiser is aiming to tap into a new market by using that individual as a liason. If the population is not considered to be a meaningful market, then it is ignored, or at the very least put on the back-burner. Thus, a chess player would not be introduced into an advertising campaign to attract others to chess; he or she would be used to attract chess players to the consumer arena unless he or she transcended in such a way as to become a strong enough magnet for some other consumer population. It is quite simple to recognize that people who fit in with the American ideal stand a better chance of transcending, and this ideal, whether we like it or not, reveres the white male.

Hotep,

Maliq

The danger is having the conversation trolled away from concerns of chess to concerns of American society. Yes they are wrapped up together, so we must make a conscious effort to coax things back to relevancy or else we would be discussing the larger issues all the time and chess never. Sometimes, in order to avoid this, we must take certain things as givens instead of trying to prove every supporting argument of our argument. This is a fine example. As this isn't the place to attempt to conclusively prove that there are racial divides in America, we all must understand that, since you put it in those terms, the rest of your argument flows from that assumption. Disputing underlying assumptions is, in most cases, nothing but trollery. lwolf's comment is a good example. Dismissive insult of underlying argument with no content of its own.

Not that I worry about you of course, Maliq, but I often post these little case study analyses for the reader at large. Eventually I'll have to give up; I can't read all the comments now as it is.

Hikaru, you rock, you totally rock. There is one thing you said I might want to take issue with though: "It is sad how ever since the golden days of Fischer the US has failed to produce any 'superstar' chess players." Don't you know who you are? Rock on, Hikaru!

Well Said.

Hikaru. show the world you are the ONE.

Tommy

quote:Well, lwolf123, being that all research on stratification within the US demonstrates my very point, your denial of the obvious dynamic within American society has now become "the most idiotic statement made regarding this post". If the facts make you uncomfortable, then this is good; they SHOULD make you uncomfortable. Discomfort is often addressed by simple disregard for the existence of the discomforting circumstance, and you have here rejected the existence of this known dynamic in some aggressive manner. Society functions based on a vortex of stratification systems; this is not opinion, but indisputable fact. Ascribed status still carries more value than achieved status, so that the latter is regarded as a mode through which to overcome the vices of the former. Now, again, tell me that it is not easier to fit into the norms of American society if one is white, and this time counter my argument with something other than "I disagree because I don't like this," which is basically what you have told me here. Afterward, establish for me that systems of stratification do not govern our society, and that we actually live in a meritocracy. Please forward this position, so that I may blow a hole the size of the Grand Canyon through it. If you cannot both forward and support this position, then zip those lips until you know what you are talking about.

What??

I can't read that.

Thanks in advance

I'm just surprised Maliq hasn't whipped out his academic credentials yet. Just give him another post or two.

Please let us not get into personal attacks.

Please let us keep the discussion to the topic of Chess.

by the way. I could easily lead this conversation away from chess and stratification to come up with a totally different explaination of the argument. but I will choose to not do that. I hope both of you can choose to not do that also.

I totally support Mig on this issue. Keep the topic to CHESS.

Tommy

I totally agree with macuga. As a matter of fact, I am so familiar with Hotep's college career by now that his mere participation in the discussion totally throws it away from the topic at hand so that it automaticaly focuses on his college career. Also, his graduate student affectation is very distracting to some of us. Maybe he should get a new handle or something.

Attacks on the USCF do seem to be the fashion. I would rather see our Champion work toward positive change in a manner that does not harm and divide. Maybe that will not work.

By the way Hikaru---Thanks for giving my kids the experience of their lives at Supernationals! They played you in the simul. You were a gentleman and and terrific ambassador for chess.

Maliq? You are obviously articulate, educated and well read. This does not make your interpretation of any statistical/theoretical data correct. This is not the place---but your conclusions are your presuppositions.

If Hikaru contends for the World Championship---He will get sponsorship. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that Hikaru will not get sponsorship because he is not close enough to the societal norm--white male. He would also have a great opportunity to give chess a sustained popularity never before seen. Fischer is as much to blame for the post-Fischer decline as he is to be thanked for the Fischer boom.

The US is as much a "meritocracy" as any nation in the world.

A Societal Ideal

All

My use of societal ideal/norm is a pejorative quote---Sarcasm is not always easy to communicate in written communication

Alaskan Bishop---nobody's ideal

Well, Maliq does raise a point about sponsorship for the sake of advertising/marketing.

Company PR spending is and should be primarily for the benefit of the company, and secondarily as an act of charity.

Advertising is ethnocentric, but I hope that it was not Maliq's intention to imply that it is racist. Advertising is probably one of the most ruthlessly truth-seeking fields of human endeavor (apart from chess).

The 'white male' idea is not so simple either. Sponsorship or endorsements come most easily to pleasant, charismatic people. White males - all the Russian players (even Kamsky) who came to the US for example - do not get much support. They are viewed as foreign, chess is not a big deal, there is no Fischer vs. the rest dynamic. In other words, boring. It is hard to overcome not being perceived as 100% American. Anna Kournikova manages, but she has advantages.

Tiger Woods and Michelle Wie indicate that the corporate check book is open for the right 'image' even (or sometimes especially) not white male. Or Venus/Serena Williams excelling in a historically non-black sport.

If a black American woman chess player came along challenging for the top, there would be money there too. Probably more than for some regular white guy from New York.

Whether Nakamura wants or needs sponsorship, and for what, and how he seeks it, will be up to him and his advisors. They can use his ethnic background, personality, etc. to give an edge or differentiating appeal, or they can give up and think its hopeless because he not a white male.

Peace...

It is agreed, Tommy, that the focus of discussion must remain on chess. In truth, it actually did not stray far from this focus, because what was being discussed was sponsorship in chess and use of chessplayers in advertising campaigns, which is where the debate about bias came in. Nevertheless, I recognize how easily an entirely new direction may develop from this tangent, and so we let be what shall be.

With regard to chess sponsorship, I think that we are looking for the wrong type of attention in the search for approval and the accompanying support. Turning chess into a gimick will not increase the likelihood of gaining popularity or sponsorship. All of these moves that aim to make chess more TV-friendly are grossly misguided, first because chess is not the type of sport that lends itself to live television coverage and second because they create an inferior product to present to the public in the name of raising awareness. This diluting of chess quality inevitably leads to disenchantment among the audience that already does care about chess, and it is not wise to basically tell this audience that it is irrelevant, especially since there is no guarantee that the target audience will embrace chess and replace the disenchanted deserters.

Hotep,

Maliq

I have to agree with Maliq that chess is not suited for TV, nor should anyone be wasting efforts trying to get it on TV. Chess is perfectly suited to the medium of the future, the internet, which may surpass TV within the next decade or two. Thus, we should focus all attention to growing the popularity of chess throught the medium of the internet.

The lack of sponsorship in chess right now is strictly due to the leadership mess in chess, caused by FIDE mainly, though in America the USCF is not helping things so far. Degrading the title of World Champion and also trying to speed chess up are just making things far worse. The best way to improve world chess is to sweep away the dictator-style 'leadership' that has been running FIDE for so many years.

Peace...

It seems that people misinterpret what was being discussed when the issue of societal norms came up. We were not speaking about sponsorship, but rather about use of chess players as advertising agents. I never introduced this angle, but rather responded to the post by Dionyseus and the subsequent rebuttal by Chris Marks. (People would do well to read posts preceding posts for context before posting arrogant replies that demonstrate not the least bit of understanding of what is beind addressed.)

To individuals who see fit to focus on my academic career, please find a better use for your time than to throw this into the conversations at every possible turn. It came up previously in the context of challenge, by which I was asked to establish credibility with regard to some contention or another. I find it silly that people here are so obsessed with what I am doing with my life. I recall that when my friend Daaim was challenged in a similar manner with regard to why he speaks with authority on a matter, he clarified that his PhD was in this area of focus, at which point he got the ridiculous "Do you think you are better because you have this degree?" type of response. Sometimes, people are better qualified to address certain topics; live with it. Certainly, I acknowledge when I must defer to the understanding of someone else, and I don't see why this is so difficult. My goodness, the egos here!

To respond to scep, no, I do not feel that advertising must be termed racist just because it is ethnocentric. However, Hikaru never brought up the question of individual sponsorship from outside sources, but rather of how USCF itself is not equipped to support the talent, and so this discussion is best held in another arena.

Finally, Alaskan bishop, you miss the point; Hikaru is speaking about a climate in which he must choose either to risk dedicating transferable talents to chess without reward or to abandon what might otherwise be a successful quest for the world title because sponsorship is not available BEFORE he gets to the point at which he is challenging for the title. At no point did anyone say that ethnocentrism would cause him to miss out on those opportunities; such was not the context of the discussion. However, if a person has to make it through the gauntlet on his own and challenge for the title before he gets sponsorship, then there is clearly a problem, regardless of the cause of the obstacles laid before him.

Hotep,

Maliq

Screw Nakamura. I've been in this country for as long as he's been alive. He's pathetic with all that "true american players" talk.
Will you people get a grip and stop insulting immigrants? Correction, Russian immigrants.
I guess you hate us all because of the nuclear scare of the Cold War period. It's like genetic for you guys. Snap out of this and see the faces behind names and ratings. What wrongs have been done to American chess by Alex Yermolinsky, for example? I'm not asking for your money, mind this, so be as blunt as you wish.
I don't want to reply to other points of his whiny address. I hope Nakamura gets his sponsorship somewhere, so he'll grow up a happy man.

Maliq

I reread your comments and saw that you were chiefly speaking in an advertising context. My mistake. I would not disagree from that perspective. I certainly question the belief that our society reveres the white male---maybe "his" money. Any evaluation of the popular media's treatment of the white male would challenge that premise----

to turn back to chess before I am censored.

I believe Hikaru offers tremendous hope for chess and increasing its popularity. If he does not get significant partnership in the next couple of years from the business community, then there truly is little hope for a US World Champion. His playing style, meteroic rise, results and deportment will serve him well. The only hindrance for Hikaru is chess' overall popularity and status in the US.

A moment to "brown-nose"

As I read through these and other blogs I always check out the name of those blogs that, in my view, are a voice of reason. Mig---your the man on that score!

Peace...

Yermo, you misread the sentiments expressed here. No one is saying that there is any fault with immigrants, be they chess players or otherwise. What is being said is that chess in the United States is not popular, and that international sports become popular in the US when a competitor arouses in us a sense of patriotic pride. From this standpoint, it is easy to discern that a nation is less likely to feel this patriotic pride if the competitive leader is not an American.

Hotep,

Maliq

C'mon, Yermo, cut him some slack. I don't see any "Americans first" stuff in Hikaru's post here. He's talking about the failure of the US to produce strong native players, which is a legit concern that has nothing to do with Russians and would be relevant if there weren't any Soviets here at all. I haven't read all the comments here, but I haven't seen any Russian-bashing. Not that it never happens, but I don't see that as the point here. But of course Soviets are all paranoid...

Somebody posted some BS about Hikaru not being as popular as Fischer because he wasn't born here, which is ludicrous. I know his name causes some confusion, and there might be a slight change in tone or coverage as a result, but there is no comparison here. Fischer's situation was unique, not just his play. He was an American playing for the world championship against the Soviets during the Cold War. Americans love a winner. Had Fischer never played for the world championship he would still be largely unknown in he US. Had he not won against Spassky, Reykjavik would have been forgotten quickly. If there is a world championship worth the name and Hikaru reaches it, Americans will know about it. It still won't be anything like Fischer of course, but not because Nakamura's name or because he came over to the US when he was a baby, as if anyone is even aware of that.

I felt sorry for Kamsky in 1996 because his match with Karpov was geographically relegated to Elista and virtually relegated as irrelevant because Kasparov-Anand in NY had been so big. Kamsky won one candidates match against Anand and lost the other. Had he won the "right" match and faced Kasparov in New York we would have really tested the "Americans won't embrace an immigrant" theory. I really don't think it has been tested since neither native nor import players have reached the level that is apparently required to put pro chess into the American consciousness. Without the big national rivalry that existed in 1972, it may not be possible at all in the short run.

Thanks, ABishop. You have successfully brown-nosed your post from being censored.

Yermo, I just want you to know that I think that America is a better country and our lives enriched for your presence and the presence of other Russian grandmasters who have privileged us by choosing to live here. It is too bad that we as a country do not more sufficiently value chess itself and that great professionals like yourself are not better valued and better rewarded for your efforts. That is worrisome and unfortunate.

I dunno Mig...I may be splitting hairs..but I remember Fischer being tremendously "over" with the American public as a result of his progress towards the championship match combined with his earlier press coverage of his being a smart alecky sort of prodigy. I remember playing at a swiss event during the Taimanov match and it seemed like in our region (the Pacific northwest) the boom had already brought a rash of new players out. I'm not suggesting that further interest wasn't brought about by his actually winning the championship..but he had already appeared on the cover of Life magazine and on television for instance during the candidates match phase. Kissinger weighed in on behalf of the white house before he even flew to Iceland. My point is I don't think the right "American" player would need to actually win it all to draw huge interest to the game in the U.S. I'll go so far as to say that plenty of people including both hardcore longtime players and "newbies" wanted to see Bobby receive his comeuppance cold war or not. Why?? obviously because he behaved like an ass...a prima donna..a heel. For instance, my chess mentor at the time was a solid Republican who respected Bobby's game of course but thought he needed to be brought down a peg...like Ali. I was blindly in love with Bobby back then (and Ali too of course)...he was my hero. But there were plenty who rooted for Boris based on the personalities involved. I remember counter culture types rooting for Boris too for that matter. The masses can't really appreciate what's going on chess wise on the board..but they can be drawn in by a "buzz" (I hate that term) about an aspiring champion.

I'd include the run-up to the world championship in my analysis, especially since he was beating Soviets in the candidates. The Life cover was already in November, 1971. Everyone started to get on the bandwagon before the expected showdown.

The Fischer jerk factor is a significant one, however. Obnoxious personality and controversy go a long way when it comes to sports stars, especially if backed up by winning.

Sorry Yermo, in this life and likely the next too, you are no Anna Kournikova.

If you have enough charisma and dominance, ethnicity is not important. Look at T Dub, ratings double when he plays and he's a billionaire mostly through sponsorship. And he's a cablinasian! Maliq is talking rubbish.

Kournikova? Phew. A dumb chick with a Neanderthal forehead who never won a tournament in her life?
I've done better ( read it anyway you like) in this life, and I can certainly do better in the next one. No need to feel sorry for me, cause I'm not.
One thing to point out. Chess is not about sponsorship. Sponsorship is a selective form of welfare, there'll never be enough to spread around. When a 17-year old US Championship threatens to leave the game unless the conditions (his own I presume) improve it speaks volumes about his qualities as a person. Dog eat dog it is, but I don't want to chess reduced to exhibition oddity depended on corporate handouts.
Speaking of which, what's up with Hikaru's own brown-nosing?
He bashes the USCF and wants it replaced by a private foundation. The track record says opposite The AF4C has done nothing lately besides sparsely held US Championships (once in two years), with the next one a complete mess because of scheduling conflicts. I disagree with Hikaru's criticism of the proposed system, to me it's pretty much the same as it has been. He had the same score with Stripunsky coming from the same tournament and beat him in a rapid-tiebreak, they may meet again as the winners of their respective groups - what's the difference?
What I'd like to see is a knock-out system. You play badly, you lose and you go home. At least you save time and money because you don't have to sit there for the whole thing.
The cost of attending a US Championship is about $2,500, and that's for a privilege of playing next to an airfield? Yikes.
DOn't bother calling Yasser. He's no longer of the AF$C (not a typo) board, he lives in Holland.

Oh come on, who wouldn't pay for a Yermo swimsuit issue spread?

Which reminds me of another point about the format. Players in a swiss don't really face the same field anyway. If someone swiss gambits by losing early they can end up with a performance rating 50-100 points lower than the person with whom they tied for first. Yes, it's a slightly sneaky argument, but a half-point difference between the group winners is not a big deal. As for the rapids, I could do without them.

Pay-to-play is the way most individual sports get their start, at least in the US. Golf, bowling, there's a lot of sleeping in cars following the tour and entering opens. In golf, the number of pros who don't have to do that has steadily grown with sponsorship, and probably doubled with the appearance of Tiger Woods. Now a couple of hundred guys can live on prize money alone instead of a few dozen. I don't see chess ever becoming that popular, but with steady growth improving the demographic and the possibility of professional league play, we could get that first dozen. It the USCF isn't going to work on it, a professional body should exist.

Peace...

Matti, again, you fail to understand the point. No, I am not "talking rubbish"; this stuff has already been rooted into the ground by studies, so I am not inventing anything here, whether you like it or not. For every example you can cite, there are many counter-examples that can be cited, and the example you cite doesn't even do anything to disprove what I said. Furthermore, we were NEVER talking about individuals gaining sponsorship, but about individuals being used as advertising agents. In advertising, mass appeal is a necessity, and it is quite easier to appeal to masses if one stays closer to the norm. The norm in American society is not exclusively about being a white male, nor is it mandatory to be a white male in order to be close to the norm, so long as other areas compensate. Clarity is difficult without interjecting some theoretical background to the argument, at which point I will both be told to get back on-topic (rightfully) and that I am arrogant for actually making use of a knowledge base (wrongfully), so I'll just say that there are various hierarchies that interact within our society, of which race and ethnicity continues to be at the fore, albeit clearly less so than in generations past.

Hotep,

Maliq

Nobody hates the Soviet immigrants, its just embarrasing to some that they can just come in and clean up so easily without any resistance from the "natives" (with a few notable exceptions). In the technical sense both Hikaru and Seirawan are immigrants, again not like people really care. Yermo, I can't imagine that you don't want to make a better living from chess? To me you sound like someone who has sort of given up on playing professionally. You therefore talk about not turning the game into a circus show or whatever. I ask you----why wouldn't Hikaru be thinking about his financial security at this stage in his life ? I didn't here any "threat" in his statement, I simply heard a voicing of his present thoughts. Indeed, it does say something about his character--- he is practical and ambitious. If you want to keep your life the way it is, then fine. But don't chew out Hikaru for being "whiny", what most of us call try to make a difference.

The sad fact is chess ranks very low in the public eye as a performance art/sport. To appreciate chess, one has to have immersed oneself in the intricacies of the game. How many of you bloggers understood in the past such simple themes as blockade, positional sacrifice, dynamic equality etc before you became booked-up tournament players? And how many of you would honestly say that someone not aware of these nuances (ie John Q Public) or even something rudimentary like a pin or a skewer would have any interest in "watching" a chess match?

Aside from those rare cases when noteriety and personality raises public awareness, chess is inherently boring to the average spectator. To the average seasoned chessplayer of course, its endlessly fascinating. My point is, unless you have the potential audience of millions of seasoned chessplayers, chess will never climb out of its obscurity. One can appreciate sports and music without the precondition of some level of personal expertise. These activities are visually and aurally stimulating. This is not the case with chess. Chess is cerebrally stimulating and only for those who speak the language.

fluffy speaks

Nak doesn't sound whiny to me. he's just pointing out what most us us already know. about damn time someone did. the USCF hs been a joke for years and so has Chess Life. Let's hope the new editor fires most of the columnists and gets some real writers. Maybe "news" coverage can be less than two months behind too. Notice almost all titled players do not like the USCF/CL. I know that Goichberg and Shahade are very competent people, but righting this ship is no easy feat. time will tell.

Talk of chess on tv is a pipe dream. it won't work. any idiot can follow espn poker, but chess? come on. the last USCF sponsorship idea was those brain pills at the National Open. brilliant. I don't have all of the answers, but chasing television and selling weird pills is not the answer.

Maybe there is some hope in the AF4C. they certainly are not worse run than the USCF has been since I have been playing chess. Ok, the US ch schedule change is bad. big conflict with Women's world ch. Format change is bad too. it's not the format that is broken. If a 16 year old winning the US ch didn't make much mainstream noise, a rapid playoff certainly will not. but hey, at least they're trying.

Yermo you are really eager to be offended here. Come on man, you have one of the best chess jobs in the US and are one of out finest players. let's come up with something positive, as difficult as it can be sometimes. Nak pointing out the lack of homegrown talent in the US is not a knock on Russians. I'm not saying that there are no xenophobes, but I do not think Nak is one of them. Personally I take the same great pleasure in losing to you as I do in losing to Benjamin.

What I take from Nak's post is that he does not necessarily feel chess owes him anything, and he realizes that he also owes nothing to chess...

DV

My previous post was merely expressing a generality about the saleability of chess as it relates to sponsorship, endorsement, marketability, etc. As far as making a good living from the game, this is afforded only to those very few grandmasters, such as Nakamura, who are endowed with staggering talent and a record to match. And, this can only be achieved if this talent reaches fruition by attaining a ranking of say top ten in the world.

I would suggest that Nakamura consider teaching in the meantime as an aside to his tournament winnings. A player of his status could easily charge upwards of $200/hr. I'm guessing there are well-heeled chessplayers in New York who would be thrilled to meet with and learn from the Michael Jordan of chess. Personally speaking, if I had a generous pool of disposable income (which I don't), I would gladly meet this fee for the chance of going one-on-one with a chess celebrity of such stature.

It would be sad indeed if Nakamura were to hang up the chessboard given that the rewards are scant and elusive. Not since Fischer have we had a player representing America with this kind of potential. While he's quite correct in pointing out the precarious living facing the professional player, he does seem to have the potential to reach the pinnacle. The chance for worldwide fame is not something to easily dismiss.

Let's be honest some people like Kaidanov derive most of their money from teaching. Others derive no pleasure from it. Should a chess player really have to teach to make a living in chess?

To DP:
There's a scene in the movie Amadeus where his father Leopold inquires into the source of his son's income. Mozart replies that there's an opera in the works to which Leopold warns that there's no money in composition and asks if Mozart has any students. Mozart fires back with "I don't want students - they get in the way!"

Your point is well taken - teaching is not for everyone. On the other hand, a number of America's foremost writers taught at prestigious institutions of higher learning and found great satisfaction from this: Philip Roth, Kurt Vonnegut, William Styron to name a few. Both Alan Dershowitz (OJ Simpson dream team) and Henry Kissinger taught at Harvard. Its a matter of personal preference I'd say.

To DP:
There's a scene in the movie Amadeus where his father Leopold inquires into the source of his son's income. Mozart replies that there's an opera in the works to which Leopold warns that there's no money in composition and asks if Mozart has any students. Mozart fires back with "I don't want students - they get in the way!"

Your point is well taken - teaching is not for everyone. On the other hand, a number of America's foremost writers taught at prestigious institutions of higher learning and found great satisfaction from this: Philip Roth, Kurt Vonnegut, William Styron to name a few. Both Alan Dershowitz (OJ Simpson dream team) and Henry Kissinger taught at Harvard. Its a matter of personal preference I'd say.

Does Mig have annual awards for Most Entertaining thread? 'Cause this one's getting there.

The thing that frustrates me about yermo is that he nerver speaks his mind, he's always holding back! Come on Yermo, tell us what you REALLY think! :-)

World Team Championship in Beersheva. Why would an American corporate sponsor want to put money into this "US" team of "white men" (Maliq's favored group)? Nakamura should find it a lot easier to get money.

1 Alexander Onischuk GM 2628
2 Boris Gulko GM 2589
3 Gregory Kaidanov GM 2614
4 Alexander Goldin GM 2615
5 Ildar Ibragimov GM 2605
6 Igor Novikov GM 2589

Peace...

Scep, there is nothing wrong with white men gaining sponsorship to forward their quests for accomplishments. The solution of disadvantaged majorities has never been an adequate one, in my opinion. Note that the US is in the unique position, as I have argued many times, of being a nation of immigrants, so that by default many of our high achievers will be first-generation or second-generation immigrants. What is frowned upon are the GM-for-hire moves of, say, the UTD and UMBC of yesteryear, which brings foreign talent (i.e. Smirin) to the US specifically to compete for chess prizes. If these players came to the US without being beckoned and decided to become citizens for whatever reason, why should they not be allowed to play? I am dismayed by this tendency to think in extremes, either making no allowances for improving native-born American talent to gain necessary experience or excluding all who were not born or raised on US soil regardless of merit. Surely, there is an agreeable medium. There is nothing wrong with GMs moving to the US for their own reasons, even if those reasons include advancement of their own chess careers. Where the problem comes in is if the US imports GMs to compete on its behalf in lieu of giving developing talent a shot.

Hotep,

Maliq

I am all in favor of Russian GM's.

But from a sponsor/ endorsement point of view, they have little value. Will you buy an Omega watch or a Buick automobile, or bank with Citibank, because Ildar Ibragimov plays for the USA?

One of the consequences of US open immigration has been to damage development of home-grown talent in many areas.

Other countries do not have a lot of Russian GMs (England, France) and their home-developed chess level is better than the US.

How can a young player put in the effort in the US when the top is blocked for a couple of decades by a group of foreigners?

Scep,

I'm not sure what measurement you're using to say that England and France have better home-developed techniques for producing talent. International youth tournaments would show that this is not the case. You only have to look at the recent World Youth tournament in Belfort, France as an example. USA performed better than both France and England and have always had an abundance of talent at the youth level. Where the real issue comes is as these youth mature, they drop off because they may perceive fewer opportunities. The issue we are debating here is why. Is is lack of funding? Is is poor techniques for bringing talent to next level? Is it poor marketing? Is is too much emphasis on attracting immigrant talent?

I would agree with your comment about endorsements by a Russian player. It doesn't have the same effect for a number of reasons... some of which are historic. I remember talking to a GM about the Nakamura-Stripunsky tiebreak in the last US Championship. The GM said something to the effect that only a Nakamura victory will mean anything in term so raising the excitement level of chess in the US.

Scep,

I'm not sure what measurement you're using to say that England and France have better home-developed techniques for producing talent. International youth tournaments would show that this is not the case. You only have to look at the recent World Youth tournament in Belfort, France as an example. USA performed better than both France and England and have always had an abundance of talent at the youth level. Where the real issue comes is as these youth mature, they drop off because they may perceive fewer opportunities. The issue we are debating here is why. Is is lack of funding? Is is poor techniques for bringing talent to next level? Is it poor marketing? Is is too much emphasis on attracting immigrant talent?

I would agree with your comment about endorsements by a Russian player. It doesn't have the same effect for a number of reasons... some of which are historic. I remember talking to a GM about the Nakamura-Stripunsky tiebreak in the last US Championship. The GM said something to the effect that only a Nakamura victory will mean anything in term so raising the excitement level of chess in the US.

Actually, I think there are quite a few products that could benefit from the endorsement of a Russian immigrant GM. Maybe not Buicks but how about vodka, computer softwear, cigars, micro-brew and (for the lack of a better word) "playboy man" products?? I think the Grandmaster title carries weight with the sort of folks who watch poker competitions, the History channel, Discovery, Bravo and listen to classical music. Some of those guys would likley make great guests for gourmet cooking shows, celebrity poker, etc. Of course there's also plenty of local sponsors in these fellows local communities who'd be happy to benefit from the Grandmaster "mystique". The biggest "corporate" sponsors may have little need for them but a lot of Americans avoid Buicks and Doritos and Bud Light. Pardon my ignorance, but do many GM's actively pursue endorsements?? Do they hire agents? Or do they avoid that sort of thing finding it distasteful??

Daaim,

For home-developed talent, I mean all the way through to GM level. England and France have strong locally produced GMs who participate actively nationally and internationally.

Surely, it is exactly the point that the US has some good young players (how can it not, with nearly 300 million population). Why do they stop and say, well this was fun now off to college?

Surely a big part of that must be the depressing prospect moving to the adult master level of playing against a group of extraordinarily strong Russians in any money or prestige event in the US.

And do not over-rate US culture in producing the enthusiastic strong teenage players that you do have. A lot of them come out of new immigrant backgrounds where chess culture is more ingrained.

Even Nakamura, a Japanese born boy growing up in the home a professional chess coach who plays for Sri Lanka. Not exactly a sign of an emergence of new talent in the mid-west.

scep,
I don't believe that it would be off-putting for young masters to get to face strong foreign players here in the states. If anything it is thrilling and good for experience and gaining in playing strength. I just haven't met many people who only play chess for the money. I think it has more to do with society in the US vs society in Britain or France. The US expects our workers to dedicate themselves to working longer and longer hours and be content with very little time off. European countries are not (yet) quite so brutal to their workers. They have more time available to be able to work on leisure-time activities such as chess. America has an 'either-or' type attitude, where you must simply choose whether you are going to make a decent living by working in a career or barely scrape by in chess.

Peace...

Scep, I know quite a few of the young talents in the US today, and certainly most of the ones who live in New York. I honestly haven't met one yet who is concerned about playing Russians et al. The Cold War hysteria, thankfully, is not a part of the consciousness of these youngsters, because for many of them, the Soviet Union has not existed in their lifetimes, and for others, they were babies when the USSR fell. It is pretty clear that financial security is a primary concern for many of our talented youngsters, and why should it not be? People speak as though there is some great tragedy when a person decides that he wants to earn a PhD and work for Google instead of continuing life as a nid-level GM. There is absolutely nothing wrong with chess talents deciding to go to college instead of dedicating themselves full-time to chess study. When they finish school, most young talents are 22, not exactly over the hill. If they choose to continue with chess, then this is fine, but if they don't there is NOTHING wrong with this. The primary responsibility for these youngsters is to secure a future for themselves which befits their skill set. It should not be incumbent upon any of them to avert the more logical paths in the name of trying to be a trailblazer. Therefore, I never see it as a tragedy when someone decides to do something other than play chess. I would suggest that there is something severely wrong when a population that is supposed to represent the ultimate intellectual sport gasps whenever a young player decides to go to college; it is almost as though we are a cult which feels threatened by one of our members discovering the outside world.

Hotep,

Maliq

Maliq:

I just pointed out there is not much point playing chess in the USA, financially or emotionally.

It has nothing to do with the Cold War, where did that come from? It has to do with a young (20-ish) player fighting for money and position with an army of 35-55 year old professionally trained foreigners.

A US born player is most unlikely to become champion of his country, or even to play on its Olympiad team, or to win a major prize in a US event.

If a US player overcomes the odds of the dozens of mid-life Russian GMs, well then the State Department will open the gates and another 50 of the young generation will trot in to take the places.

Maybe it is a tragedy. If more Americans followed fulfilling but non-destructive lives, like playing chess instead of making Hummers, the world would be better off.

Peace...

Seriously, man, the world will be better off if more Americans play chess? Make sense of this statement. As long as there is a market for Hummers, there will either be Hummers built or manufacturers would be foolishly depriving themselves of capital; it matters not whether the manufacturers are Americans or not. There is little drawback for society if people do not play chess professionally; the drawback exists primarily for lovers of our sport and people who hope to be able to do it for a living.

Hotep,

Maliq

"..the world will be better off if more Americans play chess? Make sense of this statement." I'll have a go. Let's assume that more Americans play chess and that the increase in the number of players is seen equally in every group of Americans, no matter how you group them. Then there must be more teenagers playing chess among those who would otherwise have nothing better to do than hang around the streets and cause trouble, right? That would make the world better off, wouldn't it?

Of course you may well argue the point. For example, maybe the benefit of getting the idle youth into chess would be offset by air traffic controllers, neurosurgeons and oil tanker captains daydreaming about the ruy lopez or something like that.

Swell...we'll just sprinkle fairy dust into the water supply and Americans will just magically gravitate towards chess. While we're at it we'll wave our magic wands and end world hunger, disease and "bad vibes" in general. Have another buddy.....

Peace...

Mr. Foster, even if we ignore the fact that there is never equal trend representation across groups in any category, there is a flaw in your theory, which is that chess is not a necessary substitute for idleness, and that idleness is not guaranteed to lead to trouble-making. (Indeed, many people who are idle just simply remain idle.) As a former scholastic coach, I am well aware of the benefits of students being involved in chess, but these benefits are not overwhelmingly more evident than the benefits of being involved in the school band, for instance. I would argue that chess programs serve a purpose that has nothing to do with producing high-level talent, and that we must therefore look elsewhere for justification of why young talents should consider professional chess careers as offering more than mere involvement in the sport offers. While I do hope that there will someday exist an infrastructure that will allow talented players the option of pursuing a professional chess career if they so choose, I just do not see why such a development is manadatory for the betterment of society, nor how such a development reasonably can be argued to benefit the society at large.

Hotep,

Maliq

Maliq,

Making Hummers is bad, fullstop. The manufacturer and the user do not pay anything like full share for the environmental damage they do.

Oh, wouldn't capitalism have led to a great world if all become so productive that every American has two Hummers and every Iraqi and Chinese has one each.

Then the whole world will go down in a cloud of pollution and global heating, not even warming.

Yes, chess, band, ballet, healthy lifestyle are all better than some mindless economic growth at any cost model.

I agree with the statement that the USA must have a greater talent pool than France or England purely because of its size and that this is why we have more little U-8 champs than France or England. Whats clear is that our guys have trouble getting beyond a certain point. Without naming names, I can think of a massive number of very young players who have gotten stuck in the 21-2200 range, and then give up in frustration. This is probably due to a lack of good training in this country. At this level, I feel like it is pretty hard to manage without a coach, not least of all for motivation and dealing with setbacks. The other problem of course is that even guys who get to a good level have this college/professional issue to cope with. Who knows how good Ken Rogoff, ALex Fishbein, Michael Rohde or Tal Shaked and now Dima Schneider or Lev Milman could have been? This in the end is what made the Russian machinery so powerful--- its size, the training system, as well as the respectability of a chessplayer.

Maliq, I was just trying to make sense out of the statement, not prove it.

Chess only has to be a sufficient substitute for
idleness, it doesn't have to be necessary. Yes, it would also be good if more kids were in the band, or involved in some other worthwhile activity. Just give them something to do and encourage them to do it. When you were a scholastic coach, didn't you think that you were helping some of your kids to stay out of trouble?

Maliq, I was just trying to make sense out of the statement, not prove it.

Chess only has to be a sufficient substitute for
idleness, it doesn't have to be necessary. Yes, it would also be good if more kids were in the band, or involved in some other worthwhile activity. Just give them something to do and encourage them to do it. When you were a scholastic coach, didn't you think that you were helping some of your kids to stay out of trouble?

Peace...

Jim, I DEFINITELY know that some of my kids were staying out of trouble by being involved with chess! In fact, because the coordinator of one of my teams was a dean in the junior high school, I sometimes met some of my team members in his office and developed relationships with them from there. Some of my students were honor students, and others were misfits who gave me headaches because of the task of managing them outside of the school building, but I love all of them. I even love the ones who left the chess team to focus their time on playing with the school band. ;-)

Hotep,

Maliq