Used to be that a match between the top players of Britain versus the best the Netherlands had to offer would portend a battle of the highest caliber. The 7th Howard Staunton Memorial that begins tomorrow in London is such a match, but the caliber is distinctly lower bore these days. The wolves have aged and the pups' teeth aren't so sharp. Long-time top tenner Michael Adams has fallen under 2700 and out of the top 30. (FIDE's snazzy new rating interface seems to have dropped the handy chart that showed the player's ranking on each list going back to 2000.) Former world championship challenger Nigel Short is the happy-go-lucky terror of B groups everywhere. The man Short beat for the right to face Kasparov in 1993, Dutch legend Jan Timman, isn't doing much terrorizing at the board, though I'm sure he can still strike fear into the heart of more than a few sommeliers. The top seed for the Netherlands in the Staunton Memorial, Ivan Sokolov, represents Bosnia according to FIDE.
The much-heralded next generation of players from both countries has yet to have an impact at the top level. Sadler retired and McShane has gone amateur. van Wely may yet bounce back from his horrible 2008, but at 36 he may yet find higher heights as a travel writer. Dutch hopes Stellwagen, Smeets, Werle, and L'Ami, now all in their twenties, risk settling into lives of well-balanced home-cooked privilege. There's still David Howell, 18, whose website might like to know he just won his first British championship today. (At least it's more up-to-date than his blog.) And the Dutch may soon embrace 14-year-old Anish Giri, the Nepalese/Russian lad now playing with NED after his name. He was RUS at his tremendous Corus C this year. (He isn't playing in London.) I think Giri is the only player between the two countries born after 1990 and currently rated over 2400. The US, typically considered a backwater for chess prodigies beyond once in a generation, has four.
Most of the aforementioned players are in action over the next few weeks in London. The team event is missing Stellwagen for the Dutch, tipping the Elo balance a bit toward the Brits. There's also a Challenge event with Timman and Korchnoi signing autographs, I mean scoresheets, with eight others.
I don't suppose anyone paid to watch the live games and can give us a running commentary?
"Long-time top tenner Michael Adams has fallen under 2700 and out of the top 30."
"The top seed for the Netherlands in the Staunton Memorial, Ivan Sokolov, represents Bosnia according to FIDE."
"I think Giri is the only player between the two countries born after 1990 and currently rated over 2400. The US, typically considered a backwater for chess prodigies beyond once in a generation, has four."
US Chess is on the rise. #17 Nakamura 2730 is better than Michael Adams or Ivan Sokolov for example. I'm surprised Sergei Tiviakov 2674 isn't mentioned in this article. Is he playing in the Staunton Memorial? If not, why not?
I don't think Mig did this on purpose, but if we instead compare players born after 1988 the Netherlands fare much better: seven rated above 2400, also seven US-Americans. But in England, James Howell might still feel a bit lonely - next by rating in this age group are WGM Corke (2289) and James Hanley (2277).
BTW: Yes, Anish Giri's parents decided to settle permanently in the Netherlands, hence he switched federations (of course he was welcome ...).
Also note that the United States population = +/- 306 million.
Netherlands population = +/- 16.4 million
Also note that the United States population = +/- 306 million.
Netherlands population = +/- 16.4 million.
While any date is going to be fairly arbitrary, I took 1991 because generally if you aren't at a strong GM level by 18 years of age you are never going to be. And having a peak of 2630 at 22 is pretty much saying you'll never be in the top 50 without divine intervention. It's depressing but pretty much the way it's been for a decade now. There are the rare exceptions, usually brief (Movsesian impressed lately), but 20-year-olds barely in the top 100 are over the hill!
The population disparity is obvious. Indonesia and Brazil also have large populations. The matter at hand is chess culture. If you look back over the last 30 years, the UK and Netherlands have produced nearly as many elite players as the US. That seems to be changing in all three places.
I left out Tiviakov because it never seems clear who's shunning whom between him and the Dutch federation. He's been representing them for years and yet there are regular squabbles. More personal than about national loyalties from what I know.
I see your point, but in any case England seems to do much worse than the Netherlands. And all is arbitrary, e.g. what would you consider "strong GM level"? Does GM Spoelman pass the test (born 1990, ELO 2546)? Does GM Hess (born 1991, ELO 2560)?
You, or others, might say "who is Spoelman?" - but I can assure you that many Europeans haven't heard of Hess either, unless they also follow American chess websites ,:).
About Tiviakov: Well, he claims that he is discriminated because he is not a native Dutch. On the other hand, he also seems to be a difficult person (I don't know him personally, actually I never even met him). As discussed here a while ago, he also accused an opponent of cheating (but got less media attention than Mamdyarov). He also once dropped out of a blitz tournament at short notice because one of the organizers made a fairly innocent Internet joke about him and his girl-friend.
He claimed to have been abducted by a flying saucer, right? Also claimed to have seen and photographed a ghost inside a pyramid.
Four US prodigies right now...who could those be? Nakamura, Hess, Shankland, Robson? Or do we add younger guys like Naroditsky (pushing 2400 at age 13) and Tommy He (2100 at age 10)?
I think my current four by the criteria I gave were Hess, Shankland, Robson, and Arnold.
I see. Lenderman and Nakamura are too old. Caruana is gone. Bryant and Heimann are 2400+ USCF but just shy of 2400 FIDE, and Naroditsky is just shy of 2400 in both--all still have a few years to add the few points to qualify as "prodigies"!
China & India have larger populations than the US & Russia. So what. This doesn't diminish the accomplishments of individual chess players like Anand and Wang Yue. Stop the US hating and grow up.
Bangladesh and Nigeria have many more people than Russia.
Quick...name a GM from Bangladesh or Nigeria.
Oh, they are poor, third-world countries you say? Ok, quick, name a GM from Japan.
Nakamura :)
Good. This site is not entirely infested with morons.
"This site is not entirely infested with morons."
Indeed. This site is entirely infested with a moron. (singular)
I stand corrected. You're quite right. Didn't mean to ignore you.
Nice points. :)
Pointing out the population difference between US and Netherlands or UK when discussing relative chess achievement doesn't amount to "US hating."
It is important to recognize chess culture makes a big difference. And as the word "culture" implies, can be very hard to change. By which I mean the chess authorities in any particular country shouldn't be automatically blamed for having a disproportionately low output of "prodigies," GMs, IMs, Top-20 players or whatever metric you prefer.
In another thread an analogy was made between taking the US Chess Federation membership as a benchmark for the rest of the world, and using the per-capita beer consumption in Islamist theocracies (where alcohol is illegal) or the per-capita beef consumption in largely Hindu India (where cows aren't food) as worldwide benchmarks for those particular activities.
The point is, chess simply has never been a major pastime in the US. Neither has soccer - the only professional soccer league in the US in fact went bankrupt a decade or so ago. Does that mean there is no world market for soccer ("football" to you non-Americans)?
It isn't anti-American to point that out...though it could be if used for complaint or ridicule.
Actually, yes I'm one of the morons who has paid his subscription of *gasp-shock-horror* 5 quid (approx. 6 Euros or 8 US dollars) to watch the 50 games live at the Staunton Memorial. That's the equivalent of a pack of ciggies and a 1/2 pint of beer in Germany where I live. For this princely sum I have the opportunity to follow a Category 16 rated tournament daily, featuring England's top two players and some promising youngsters (a rare ocurrence) from both countries. As I can't afford to go on holiday, this seems a ludicrously inexpensive way (10 pence a game) of indulging my passion for chess and relaxing each afternoon over the next 10 days. I may be lining Mr Keene's pockets, but if this miniscule investment helps to persuade potential sponsors or the chess authorities in Britain to promote the game, then why not. Chess sponsorship in the Britain ranges from the lamentable to the non-existent. Yes, a commentary would have been a bonus, but at 5 quid I just don't feel I'm getting ripped off.
And, by the way, the chess has been enthralling, in contrast to the recent bore-draw Dortmunder Sparkasse Meeting.
P.S.: Mig, Do you have a problem with Brits... yaaawwnnn....?
P.P.S.: So what is your brilliant solution to boosting chess sponsorship in times of economic downturn?
"I may be lining Mr Keene's pockets, but if this miniscule investment helps to persuade potential sponsors or the chess authorities in Britain to promote the game, then why not."
That's just the point, though, isn't it? Does drastically reducing the traffic to the website and cutting the publicity given to the tournament persuade potential sponsors to promote the game? Is the cash you can earn from subscribers more than the potential advertising revenue lost?
Simple questions which Giddins, Keene and co. might try to actually answer (I don't know, so I'd genuinely be interested in the response). Or they can keep navel gazing, polluting their website and alienating potential customers with more idiotic rhetoric: http://howardstaunton.com/hsmt2009/Reports_-_Rd_3.html
@mishanp
Well is it any longer the point? Given my precarious financial situation, I'm the last person who would advocate the introduction of charges for Internet-based services/entertainment/information (including newspapers etc..) as I rely on them greatly, but the UK's record in the commercial sponsoring and promotion of chess over the past 20 years has been abominable - despite the subscription-free Internet access to tournaments during this time. Hence this "publicity-generating" business model you refer to has clearly failed - or, at least, has wielded no tangible impact upon the risible commercial interest in what is a very popular sport/game in the UK. In fact, measured by the number of ranking tournaments staged in the UK the situation has clearly deteriorated in recent years.
P.S.: I'm no fans of Keene either, by the way. I've always regarded him as a somewhat Svengali-like figure within British chess, and the almost belligerently self-righteous tone adopted in some of their press releases only reinforces this view.
"alienating potential customers with more idiotic rhetoric"
What rhetoric is that? Is this fragment? "and the comments which follow are therefore based solely on my impressions from following the excellent live coverage (surely the best £5 I have ever spent!)"
Come on, that's hardly that bad, and may even be viewed as an ironic self deprecating comment!
On it's own it might be self-deprecating, perhaps, but note the "termite allergy" and read Giddins' other reports (e.g. from "termitic tantrums" onwards, http://howardstaunton.com/hsmt2009/Reports_-_Rd_1.html). Or follow the termite comments to their source as pointed out by Acirce: http://www.chess.com/article/view/staunton-memorial-behind-the-scenes It all smacks of some cliquey Oxbridge society rather than a serious tournament.
The funny thing is I'd very much like to see the tournament succeed. I remember being a bit bemused last year that you generally only discovered the results the next day. If people did comment on the absence of a live broadcast then that's surely absolutely natural - as is debating the wisdom of Bob Wade playing when in his 80s and clearly no match for any of the participants. They should simply have pointed out the technical difficulties with their internet connection rather than taking any discussion of it as a personal insult and Schiller attacking people who'd bothered to take an interest in their tournament (there was no need to respond to the Wade issue, I think, as the discussion was fairly balanced anyway).
Similarly this year - it was only natural that people would question the model of charging for the bare moves. A professional organisation would either not respond or better explain their position. Keene's crew again went on the offensive. Imagine if Murdoch does go ahead with his plans - can you see The Times calling critics of the move termites and accusing people of being cheapskates for not being willing to cough up £0.00005 a word, or something!? It beggars belief. I suppose they're relying on all publicity being good publicity, but I wonder what the Dutch sponsor makes of their conduct.
Ah ok, I didn't know about that termite nonsense.
Termites are very beneficial. At least the real termites are, not these chess termites.
" Bangladesh and Nigeria have many more people than Russia.
Quick...name a GM from Bangladesh or Nigeria.
Oh, they are poor, third-world countries you say? Ok, quick, name a GM from Japan."
What you need to compare is the " chess population " between countries , not only the resources available to them or their absolute population ...
Very astute observation, Manu.
Chess is primarily played by educated people and the vast majority of the populations in countries like Nigeria and Bangladesh have never even heard of chess.
When yo study dogs , you discover that any chiguagua is esencially the same dog as a Rottweiler , genetically speaking they are almost identical.
With humans something similar can be said , but we tend to believe that one sample of the specie can actually be better than another.
Manu, it seems you got offended about Hardy's comment because you confuse education with intelligence - where only pseudo-scientists will infer genetic differences between countries or 'tribes'. However, I think education is [still a bit simplistic] the sum or product of intelligence and opportunity. There can be little doubt about differences in opportunity between countries (regarding average values) as well as within any given country, and these differences are rather stable on timescales up to decades.
Many people in Bangladesh and Nigeria would have no time for a luxury such as chess, even if they knew the game. They have other things to worry about: how to get enough food on their plates, how to survive the next tropical storm or the urban jungle of Lagos ... .
Yet if this was the only explanation, Japan would be a third-world country not only chess-wise. So here "chess culture" comes in. In that respect, Russia and other ex-Soviet countries have a structural advantage. India caught up after the rise of Anand - he is still the strongst, but no longer the only strong chess player (male or female) from this subcontinent. China caught up through a dedicated concerted government(?) effort. But IMO it is neither feasible nor desirable for western countries to copy the Chinese model (regarding chess or other sports).
"Chess is primarily played by educated people and the vast majority of the populations in countries like Nigeria and Bangladesh have never even heard of chess"
Counting in numbers there are probably more educated Nigerians and Bengalis than Norwegians...
I know from experiance that chess and bridge and even go is not good for education. At least not good for getting a degree.
''Counting in numbers there are probably more educated Nigerians and Bengalis than Norwegians...''
Good chess players are a fraction of the 'chess population' of a country, drawn from, in places like Nigeria, an educated, middle-class elite.
You just said the exact same thing I did in nice long politically correct words. There has been more than one American pro soccer league, there is one now - Major League Soccer, and David Beckham plays in it. lol http://web.mlsnet.com/index.jsp
Thomas , you didn't understand what i wrote , i was not offended by Hardy , on the contrary i believe we think alike in this subject.
People who like to claim that his or her countrie is better at chess often forgets that there are no big differences between people from here or there , just different oportunities/interest/cultures etc.
The comparison i made between humans and dogs was aimed to reinforce this point of view , of course you understand it backwards , that's what you do .
Indeed I may have misunderstood something, or read something between the lines ... in Hardy Berger's post. It _could_ be interpreted as "What do you expect from primitive, uneducated Bengalis and Nigerians?" (blunt exaggeration for the sake of argument).
Whether or not _this_ was meant, I agree with your reply. Still anyone has the right to (proudly) claim that his or her country is better at chess - but there may be various reasons why this is the case.
Of course this aplies to everything except soccer , where everybody knows there are very few nations pointed by god to be awesome.
:)