What do we owe Pros?

Speaking of ball games and chess, what happens when you market chess using the NBA Finals or the NHL?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2J2tMsVtn0&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7orVIVroXrU&feature=player_embedded

I know, I know... it was meant to market the NBA and NHL using chess, but it sounds cooler the other way around.

In the NBA video, the "piercing glare" of the player in frame 0:22 reminds me of Tal's.

I got these from a chessbase.com highlight of a huffington Post article on making chess cool. Read it here:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6728

Re: Broadcasting chess games

If someone can recreate the Washington Square Park experience online, I'd be happy to fork over some coin for a chess broadcast.  I love to watch the hustlers and the dope fiends play blitz surrounded by smart-ass kibitzers.  That's the only chess I'm interested in watching.  Everything else just makes me want to play...

Professional chess just isn't a spectator sport.  Watching people think really hard and take the occasional sip from a water bottle isn't exactly my idea of a good time.  +100 if they're playing a Catalan or anything remotely Slavish.  Plus, there's that whole charisma issue...

But a blitz or bullet cash game in a room filled with characters in first class entertainment.

So you suggest to play for money on online chess?

Don't be silly.  WHat makes the Washington Square Park (and other places where cash games are played) games interesting is that everyone is together in a small area watching the game unfold and commenting in real-time.  Plus, blitz or bullet is more entertaining to watch, period.

Is it really the camaraderie that makes the game exciting in such places? I thought that it was the idea of losing your money amidst trash-talking kibitzers and patzers!

I'm not going to even bother replying to everything you said. You seem to have a defeatist attitude. You've written a book and have misinterpreted a lot of what I've said. Chess won't gain in popularity with the attitudes I've seen here.

I will leave you with this: most parents that I have encountered would love their kids to get involved with something like chess, but they have no idea how to go about it. None of them know about the local clubs, tournaments, etc... They don't know about the ICC or Chess.com. People can't get involved with something that they don't know about.

Little league, Pop Warner, Biddy Basketball, ... every parent knows about these things. Change that and you've made progress. Those leagues publicize heavily through elementary, middle, and high schools....does your club?

*sigh* That's too bad.

Not even a little?

You know that I would go off on this, but I won't since you are not willing to debate your suggestions and simply dismiss mine as misunderstandings.

Unless you want me to.

Here's a wild idea: publicize the upcoming "Battle VS Chess" console and PC game to a level that S.Koreans have done with "StarCraft."

Yes, this is the latest re-incarnation of "Battle Chess."

Official website: http://www.battlevschess.com/en/
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-MIf1Dz4rw&feature=player_embedded

FYI, GOMTV is a resource on the SC leagues in S.Korea: http://www.gomtv.net/

on our radar, chessroboto ;-)

I owe chess pros the same as they owe me. Nothing.

Gonosuke - The business model you propose works well for someone who already has a platform/brand. It would work for Trent Reznor or Joe Gallagher but I am not so sure it would work for anonymous IM X. I do agree however that chess pro's do not address the interests and issues of the lowest common denominator of chess enthusiast.

The example of Frank Herbert is great, but how many people would pay 20 dollars to ask question of a 2nd tier sci fi writer that they never heard of. Not many.

On the subject of getting local sponsors- I think local sponsorship is possible, but it is a time consuming process for relatively small amounts of capital. Most small sponsorship come from personal connections of the organizer.

 The problem with the notion that the chess fans "owe" something back to the Pro's is that ultimately the fans are the customer. Questions of "should the fans pay for x" - is an economic question more than a philosophical one.

1. I find it almost disturbing and down right depressing that the Germans would rather watch soccer than basketball.   Soccer is much like GM level chess - draw - draw - draw...

2. In some ways I miss the cold war. The super powers built tons of nukes (the arms race), but no one got blown up. Now, we have people getting blown up every day by stupid suicide bombers.

Chess does need to become more popular in the U.S. if only for purely selfish reasons, as there are no chess clubs within reasonable reach unless I owned a private helicopter.

How strong is scholastic chess in the U.S.? This is where the future fans will emerge and with that, the future sponsors .

Both you and RobKing brought up scholastic chess, and I agree. The problem is that there are too many options for children to choose from. Aside from outdoor adventures or endless advances in video gaming, the junior teams for varsity/ball sports, choire clubs and musical bands in schools capture the attention of most of the kids and/or the parents.

How many parents and their children would choose chess over all these options? I would not be surprised to learn if the number was quite low. Why? One reason is that there is a history of established favorites already. Another reason is that there are numerous college scholarship opportunities in varsity or ball sports. Until chess becomes as favorable as baseball, football or basketball or has as many college scholarships as football or basketball, things will remain the same in schools.

In my opinion, it will take both state backing and large company sponsorships to make the changes in schools. Because there is no large fanbase yet, it will be more like a gamble rather than a secure return of investment to whoever will foot the bill.

As far as publicity and presence in schools are involved, part of the solution will involve the parents, the same way that parents are involved for preparing ball sports events. As long as chess clubs are on the campus map the same way that choir rooms, band rooms and playing areas are clearly defined, the choice is there to make. Information pamphlets (websites, local chess clubs, camps and tournaments) and posters are standard methodologies. If a chess club has funding for a room, it should have funding for such materials and parents can help use them.

Other than that, it's up to the parents on how far they will support their kids with their chess growth.

Can an argument be made for academic performance gains when children participate in scholastic chess? Is there a correlation between chess and test scores in math and language arts? If a connection could be drawn between the two, school districts would not only support, but fund scholastic chess clubs - paying teachers extra for working over contract hours in an after school program.

We already are paying teachers for before and after school programs, but sadly, it is only in the area of remediation of the core academic subjects.

One of the more interesting threads to appear in awhile.My thoughts :

Slightly off-topic but along the same thoughts has to do with the free downloading of copyright material. Everybody  believes that they should get something for free. How many posts on this site are there about illegal download of copyrighted book material? One of the funnier posts was by GM Magesh ( or Arun) how he used to copy material for free but now that he is a GM and wants to sell items he realizes it is wrong.  This is one small sample of the problems of compensating chess professionals--everyone wants material for free. Thus hurting pros from making money on either book or software sales.

PGN and bare game scores as of now are not copyrighted and are in public domain--there actually was one tournament where they tried to sell the game scores to newspapers ( London 1883 rings a bell but I am probably wrong on the event) but that did not work--one proposal floated years ago was having chess lessons as prizes in tournaments so basically the player and the pro both "win." This was well before the $200+ entry fees etc.

Major sponsorship for chess has hardly worked int he long run ( Intel GP for instance)--getting something suitable for ESPN akin to Poker (fast blitz chess) may be the only chance at commercial success but the model of the majority contributing to support the pros is a bad business model.

It doesn't matter if you make the parents like it at the high school level. the kids have to like it. It has to be part of their curriculum most likely. A lot of schools have chess built into their math curriculum to help pattern recognition and spatial skills (this is more for young kids).

Honestly, parents don't even know chess as an option. If it is an option, it is usually not publicized well and not really up to par. There is no real instruction or nice sets or clocks. It's usually a few crummy boards, possibly missing pieces, and a teacher who isn't good enough to instruct kids on basic strategies. It's a shame really. Here in MA, there are only a few schools with decent scholastic programs. If I had time, I would volunteer and coach a team, but unfortunately I'm not rich and must work.

Here is a list compiled by Bill Wall about studies correlating chess and improvements in cognitive skills and academics. Note that some of the findings/claims sounded bogus.

http://www.mathandchess.com/articles/article/1302222/60347.htm

If chess were that good, why wouldn't it be taught alongside Math? Because it is a game just like Monopoly, Life, Scrabble, Boggle, etc. The Board of Education probably decided to make any game an extra-curricular activity, alongside other activities such as martial arts and golf.

Where is scholastic chess now? A quick research into uschess.org and wikipedia.org shows that scholastic chess tournaments have reached the same popularity as choir and band competitions. In the last supernational tournament that is held every three years, 5,300 players participated.

http://main.uschess.org/content/blogsection/27/131/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastic_chess_in_the_United_States

Here is a list of scholastic scholarships through chess:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8164/131/

What else will it take to propel scholastic chess to the same level as football and basketball? It probably will never happen as chess is not the same type of spectator sport..

I realize the truth in that statement, so I take back my earlier suggestion for sponsors to invest into scholastic programs. Why? Because chess, like skiing and martial arts, is such an individualistic sport/game. By the time the children become pro chess players, they will go on their own ways, not needing to be part of any team to win championships like ball sports. The only other time that chess teams will be needed will be for the olympiad.

I realize that the best way to boost the popularity of chess is to have major tournaments that are as lucrative as golf, the closest spectator sport that chess can strive to become.

Imagine when chess tournaments offer hundreds of thousands of dollars in earnings for top placers in several tournaments throughout the year, as well as sponsorships by companies that make casual wear, custom suits, luxury wrist watches to energy drinks for starters. Within a decade the USCF could be overwhelmed with ultra competitive chess players who are hungry to win the top prizes and all the fringe benefits. Finally, there would be a dedicated "chess channel" with all the full coverage, lessons, announcements, tips, interviews, highlights and specials that one could find in the golf channel.

Bobby Fischer could have been the Tiger Woods of chess as early as 1972, and chess could have become bigger than golf today.

I did some research about what you said about chess in Math classes, and I found the AF4C, America's Foundation for Chess.

http://www.af4c.org/pages/about-us

From there I learned that they developed the program, First Move, which uses chess as a learning tool to teach higher level critical thinking skills, advance math and reading skills, behavioral and social skills, and build self-esteem in students.  Our First Move program was professionally designed, maps to State Standards for 2nd and 3rd graders, and is fun and easy to teach.

Note: [First Move's] focus is not on competition or tournament play, but rather in the thinking skills that are an inherent part of chess.

http://www.af4c.org/pages/first-move

Based on this chessbase.com article, the program started in Januay of 2004.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1448

Here is a topographical map of where the First Move program is already being implemented in the US: