A rant about WHY chess isn't more mainstream (at least in the U.S.) & possible solutions

For years I've heard the discussions, ideas, etc. about trying to make chess events more attractive to the masses. I've watched experiment's like Maurice Ashley's attempts with his 4 major big money tournaments & trying to make those successful. Lost money on all 4, that's NOT a good selling point to potential advertisers & investors. Making investors & advertisers want to use chess event's to make money is really what it's about. It HAS to be attractive from a business standpoint. People putting money in a venture like chess tournament's don't care about ur or my love & commitment to the game of chess. They just want to know that if they invest in a tournament will it be profitable?

I'm creating this topic because I've seen the same mistake for years & it's exactly what I noticed again tonight. A big tournament started tonight here in Houston. It's the U.S. Class Championships. I looked online to see if I could watch the games since I didn't feel like going over to the tournament. I didn't see a way to watch the games or the pairings. I called the tournament director to see if maybe I was just looking in the wrong spot, he might have a link. He told me he'd hired a person to make sure all was gonna work for the first round and things didn't go as well as hoped for. He's hoping to have live games, pairings, results ready for tomorrow which is day 2 of the event. I've noticed over the years TD's like to get other chess players to handle stuff like this since they're in chess & they would know just what's needed. Stop hiring chess people just because it's a chess event. Hire the best possible person for the job even if they don't play chess.

Example: In Norway this year I was pleasantly surprised to see a non chess player commentating along with 2 strong chess players. I liked that even though everyone could tell she wasn't a master she had a professionalism that made the show much less boring, more attractive to the masses. You could tell she was a tv personality, not a full time chess player. That's what's needed. If organizers want to make chess more popular with the broader viewership then that's a great start. I thought it was way more entertaining.

Another example: I'm in Houston to start a construction company. At some point I'll hire a full time person to do just office & financial related stuff. Things like handle payroll, bills, collections, be the friendly & kind voice on the phone, etc. That's it, nothing else. I don't care if the person knows anything about construction, they don't need to. I just want them to be professional & make my business better in areas where I can't focus on. Chess tournament directors/organizers should think the same way. Stop feeling a need to choose a chess player for everything. Hire a person that's a wiz with any & all technical aspects of putting a modern chess event together. It shouldn't matter if they even play chess. If necessary, have a chess person sit with them (as needed). Spend a bit of money to make ur tournaments run smoothly & look good. That will attract more investors/advertisers. 

The rant was supposed to be brief
Chess is inherently less appealing to the masses. Two men sit accross each other and once in a while one moves a piece, pushes the clock and writes something. The layman does not understand what is going on, he does not understand why one player resigns or why players agree on a draw. In golf, darts, snooker at least there is more action and it is more understandable what is going on.

It was a bit long.  But wait... there's more!

I agree that chess seems boring to non chess people. I've felt for a long time that would be it's anchor weighing it down. But there have been examples of chess becoming super popular to the broader population. One is the Fischer era. So many non chess people were watching what was unfolding, chess participation boomed as a result. I've heard that Aronian was treated like a superstar in Armenia. Anand is very well known in India. In Norway chess has become more mainstream because of Carlsen, I think it's even on tv. So it may be possible to grow the interest in a big way. 

One thing is to bring in more non chess people that specialize in getting viewers to pay attention. This year during the world title match NBC will televise daily an hour of coverage of the event. For those who don't know, NBC is a broadcasting company in the U.S. A major one. Maurice Ashley will do commentating. I think Maurice does a good job commentating chess events. He has a lively & likable personality (well, except for that one interview that pissed Magnus off briefly. It wasn't too smooth. Haha). BUT... a non chess player should also be involved in the on screen commentary, much like the last big Norway event did. A full time tv personality. That's precisely what's needed.

Chess is probably more popular now than it has ever been.

I'm very interested in how the viewership numbers look after NBC televises coverage of the Carlsen - Nepomniatchi match.

By the way, I didn't bother going over to the tournament to check it out (U.S. Class Championship). I found out nobody can go in to see the games, even with a mask on. And there's still no way to watch online, the problems haven't been solved yet. This is the kind of thing that makes potential advertisers (the very ones needed to make chess grow) look at chess events and say "these people are a bunch of amateurs, this is just a hobby for them."

To verbose there is an easy answer. Chess is hard and Americans are lazy hence the popularity of checkers, go fish, jinga.......

Not a "problem", so it doesn't need a solution.

I'm perplexed by how many people think that checkers is popular. Even in America, most people don't know how to play checkers. I think the chess community in general just feels threatened by any kind of competition and gets defensive whenever checkers is mentioned.

 There's a lot of truth to that.

"I'm perplexed by how many people think that checkers is popular. Even in America, most people don't know how to play checkers. I think the chess community in general just feels threatened by any kind of competition and gets defensive whenever checkers is mentioned."

Perhaps it is because I travel a lot and see chess boards in public, hotels, restaurants etc with both checkers and chess pieces available and people are playing checkers. So when I sit down to one of them or set up my own chess board I often here: Ya got any checkas, ahhh kaint play chess, eets to hard.

I read somewhere long ago that chess is the 2nd most widely played game in the world behind football (some call it soccer). That's amazing if true because all that's needed is a ball & something to use as goals. There isn't really much to know as far as rules to play it. Chess on the other hand requires a good bit of knowledge & a board & pieces. I also read something about the number of chess books exceeding those of any religion. 

     The problem is that chess is not that interesting to the great majority of the population that do not already play. It takes a good bit of knowledge to understand what's going on in a game--often even the players miss a lot of subtleties during a game. I doubt that any improvements in publicity or availability will make an appreciable difference.

     The chess booms in nations where a native son is having great success on the world chess stage are due to the media coverage. People are momentarily interested, but most find chess too difficult to continue for long. The same holds true for larger phenomena like Fischer-Spassky during the cold war or the popularity of "The Queen's Gambit" on TV. It takes work to become competent enough at chess to really enjoy it-more work than most people are willing or able to put into it.

     Take another example. Opera has been around for centuries, and has a devoted following. It is far more available and approachable than chess, but the % of the population interested in it remains steady (at a low level).

Pavarotti became famous outside the circle of opera fans, and "The Three Tenors" was a big deal for awhile, but fads pass and once again the latest "thing" completely overshadows it. Like chess it takes a little knowledge to appreciate--the plots and character-motivation of the old classics can seem ridiculous to many in our modern society, it's mostly in a foreign language for most of us, the musical styles are unfamiliar.

     Face it, some things that we find to be among the most interesting and enjoyable facets of life are mysterious gar-whar to the vast majority. Don't fret about it. Some of your tastes are esoteric (most of mine seem to be), so enjoy what you will, introduce those of your friends and acquaintances that you think may have an affinity to your pleasures, and realize that the rest of the world will be unimpressed.

Avidly reading this feed, cos I'm also interested in seeing chess more widely played. Somehow I believe it will make society generally more thoughtful and somewhat less disorderly. As to how I think chess can be made more mainstream, televising generally will do less good to get people interested than to get already avid followers updated on what's going on.....realtime online updates will do just as well, and cost way less. To get people interested, create a hype about it,....get popular figures speaking about it and encouraging more people to learn, make the game a compulsory uncredited part of academic work, portray it as the thing to do for social acceptance in the most exclusive circles, and reward participation in as many ways as possible. If people don't see "benefit"....real or illusory, they generally do not make effort towards anything. Gain is the most potent of motivations.

As if chess players weren't conceited enough, imagine them saying "I was already playing chess long before it became mainstream".

Visit any dog or cat show.  You'll witness the same "eccentric people" you might see at a chess tourney.  No surprise there.  At best, Chess can be an enjoyable, life-long, addition.  Just don't expect adulation, and attention, from the masses.  They simply AIN'T interested. 

The costs to do a lot of "at the event" publicity, game availability, streaming, etc, is going to keep most organizations from doing it here. Well funded organizations may post live pairings and maybe games from the top boards, but that's about it. Those organizations probably make up less than 1% of chess in the US.

I run local events and I'm lucky to break even. If I tried doing all the other stuff and pay people to do some of it, I would lose a lot of money, even if I charged much larger fees.

Very few people are also interested in watching anything but the top players either.

mpaetz,  a very good point about opera.

retemi,  those are good ideas about introducing it as something beneficial through education. Many schools are doing that. Charlotte, NC has a chess in schools program & chess is booming there. Peter Giannatos with his Charlotte Chess Center does a superb job with chess camps, GM & IM events streamed, etc.

Pulpofeira,  yep, I can see a future with people wearing shirts that say "I was a chess nerd before it was cool."

zborg,  that may be how it all goes, similar to the opera comparison. 

Martin,  the rising entry fees will create lower attendance which is like shooting urself in the foot. I'm guessing only higher level events are worth putting effort into as far as publicity & other steps. I was thinking the U.S. Class Championship would be significant enough to stream the games though & at least be able to replay the moves from the top games. Last I checked it wasn't possible. At least the results are up.