11112 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
For all the brilliant minds that plays chess, it fails to find the path towards popular demand. Soccer football creates such a crazy shouting, cheering, crying fanatics. basketball is making fast inroad, boxing and MMA is electrifying, tennis and golf players makes million dollars (Tiger Woods worth is in .5 billion dollars, how much is Kasparov?), even the once lowly billiards could now be seen on every one's bedroom.
One simple difference with all these popular sports is the ease in following the game. It is entertaining because it is exciting and easy to follow. The goal is a goal, the team the makes the most goal wins the game. I am excited when my football team makes a goal, everytime Manny Pacquiao hits his opponent, filipinos shouts, because their heroes makes them proud.
Chess is watcher/viewer unfriendly. I play chess, but it is so excrutiating for me to watch a grandmaster game. It is such a boring spectacle. Because I don't understand the plans of these geniuses. Perhaps a computer annotation or explanation is enough for me to understand the deeper nuances of their moves. Maybe a computer advance play will make me glue to the tv or the playing hall. I would be excited to know, that as per Rybkas' assesment my player is leading, or that the result of the latest move shows a mate in 10. These little things could be made possible with the help of computer.
For so long we have been engrossed in making a superior playing computer. This might be the time for our computer geniuse/chess afficionados to make this game come to the consciousness of ordinary mortals. Please help us to understand, to follow , and also to enjoy your game. Let all the people from all walks of life partake of the joy called chess.
I personally disagree that chess is "excruciating ... viewer unfriendly ... [and] boring." For me, watching grandmasters play chess is a lot like watching tennis. When I was young, I had always figured that I would find tennis boring. Two people hitting a ball back and forth. Whee.
But for many years I have found tennis riveting! Watching the players strive to hit the ball consistently, resisting momentum that often sends them flying off in the wrong direction, struggling to keep their footing--watching a volley is incredibly exciting. It's also often humorous, as the players try to outsmart each other.
Chess games are similar, for me. As the players move the pieces, the tension builds. Threats arise. Some threats are parried, some are carried out, some are held back until just the right moment. Especially with grandmasters, I very often don't even understand the deeper meanings behind the looming threats. "Why doesn't he just take the Knight with his Pawn? What am I missing?" And so on. A chess game, especially between very strong players, sucks you in.
I don't think we need an engine to spoon-feed us the evaluation of a game as it unfolds. Each spectator can take something from a game and enjoy it on any given level.
There are less popular physical sports as well. I think chess is more popular than
and many others. These games have what you described above (an easy way of measuring score, etc.), yet popularity eludes them, perhaps because there's only so much of it to go around.
However, the question is, do we want to popularise chess to the masses? What advantages would it bring? Money? Perhaps, but as in all sports (even the football, basketball superpopulars you mentioned above) that goes to the professionals while playing at an amateur level is still very expensive. The masses might be no great thing for chess, as the masses are, by definition: mediocre. Chess is currently a way for many nerds to maintain social contact, and that purpose it serves well.
I want my chess club to stay more or less the way it is, with few girls (no competition), and lots of cute shy boys, or older guys: people you can talk with about things other than last night's game, or who's wearing what. I don't want "the masses": stupid blondes and hip hoppers. I don't want hooligans at chess events.
I like the exclusivity of chess, and want it to stay what it is. An open door to those who want to participate, but no recruitment of those who won't find the way themselves.
There should be a return of thoughtful, entertaining TV series like "The Master Game", in which the competitors appear to give their thoughts as the game progresses (obviously edited afterwards).
Yes ... Imagine to itself the big football stadium on which there are 100.000 spectators . On the field playing not only in soccer or volleyball , played by two teams of chess players . And under the roof above the football field is not hanging one large monitor , and a lot of large monitors , for each pair of players . Is it not wonderful ?
5,000 Signs You Don't Know Enough About Chess
by chessgm8 a few minutes ago
Loss by Mate vs. Loss by Resignation
by capaz2 a few minutes ago
Staunton Chess Set - Wellington
by Wel5 a few minutes ago
Yereslov attack, Valek variation
by Master_Valek a few minutes ago
Is blitz really bad if u want to improve
by landwehr 2 minutes ago
Very Early Queen exchange
by vill0236 2 minutes ago
What is the proper response to "gg"?
by FelixPlatypus 3 minutes ago
English Opening ... what do i play next
by ForeverHoldYourPiece 6 minutes ago
Is Chess a 'Creative' Activity?
by BhomasTrown 7 minutes ago
Why (I think) castling early is a definite mistake
by Qollow 7 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com