Despite Anand having just won the title again. I'm willing to bet that if you go out tonight and ask who the world champion is, you'll get a blank stare. Go ahead and bring up the subject as often as you like. (And not in India.)
I think the big divide is between people who see chess as a game or personal pastime vs. those who see it as a sport. I always see it as a kind of personal competition, not a big-time sport.
Why does India not count? WTF?
I call trolling.
There are millions of chess players who are working on the game with the hope of promoting their positions relative to one another. Millions of chess players around the world spend hours on a regular basis, studying in private and participating in tournaments.
The talented among them devote resources in money and in time to constantly improving, and the very best among them are supported by their national chess organizations and help contribute towards the very best work done in the game, as they pit themselves against players from other nations.
Chess has its unique rating system, and one could always state that the person at the top of this, every January 1, was the world champion. But human beings enjoy the spectacle of selection and ultimate joust involved in sport - and chess has developed its own cycle for determining who is best.
It helps engender wider interest, it attracts sponsorship money, it motivates many chess players and it brings honor, pride and a financial reward to those two players good enough to belong in the final. They are not the only beneficiaries - all chess players worth the name get to follow the match, get to discuss and speculate during its run-up and execution. And many of the chess players who fought for a place in the final can claim they were candidates and can through that secure a little better income for themselves, while keeping alive the hope that they'll make it to the final in the next cycle.
It's a good thing.
Despite Anand having just won the title again. I'm willing to bet that if you go out tonight and ask who the world champion is, you'll get a blank stare. Go ahead and bring up the subject as often as you like. (And not in India.)
Well Dorothy, we're not all from Kansas. I'm on a holiday in the UEA, where the chess-tradition is even worse than in Finland which usually accommodates me, and already I've walked into pubs where people talk about chess-champions. Now there have been a congregation of people reaching from indians to caucasians without evident USSR background doing this, and while it is possible that they all have enthusiastic indian collegues spreading the news, it doesn't change the fact that people aren't as ignorant as we would perhaps like them to be..?
The conversations that I've so far heard during the two weeks of battle, have duly followed the same pattern, which goes as follows:
-They're playing the chess world-championships now.
-Really? Who are playing?
-The current Indian champion Anand, and some bulgarian fellow.
-I see. Whatever happened to Kasparov/Fischer?
etc...
It's mostly not detailed information that they hold, but then again not all people who follow football, know the names of the players or which team is leading the stats.
I have no idea who the superbowl champ is, or even who played in it.
It is unimportant.
Why have the Super bowl? Why have the world cup? Why have the world series? I will tell you why! To know who is the champion!!
But why do we need to know who the champion is? That is Spudnik's point. I don't know why we seek to order ourselves into champions/places (1st, 2nd, etc.) We've been doing it for a long time though (Olympics, etc.) I don't have the answer. Perhaps a psychologist could elaborate.
Why have the Super bowl? Why have the world cup? Why have the world series? I will tell you why! To know who is the champion!!
But why do we need to know who the champion is? That is Spudnik's point. I don't know why we seek to order ourselves into champions/places (1st, 2nd, etc.) We've been doing it for a long time though (Olympics, etc.) I don't have the answer. Perhaps a psychologist could elaborate.
What is the point of competition if not to crown an ultimate competitor? Sports like football (any flavor of it), baseball, basketball, etc. draw fans because the fans want to see the team that they root for be crowned the ultimate champion. That desire to win brings out the best in the competitors. If you aren't playing to be the best, what motivation does a team have to play with their whole hearts night in and night out?
For chess, it's similar, people (most chess fans anyway) want to see chess played as good as it can be, that's why these chess fans watch the WCC. Having the pressure and motivation of being crowed "World Champion" pushes these guys to play harder/better. You might say, "well, winning should be it's own motivation", but, people have egos (no, I'm not calling either Anand or Topalov an ego-maniac or anything like that), and those egos drive us do be the best. How do you know who is best without a champion?
What is my point after all this rambling? Having a champion inspires better chess. This brings in more fans, more fans means more money. Yep, just like most things, it's all about the money.
I have no idea who the superbowl champ is, or even who played in it.
It is unimportant.
Exactly.... its unimportant.... to...... you.
But for the millions... yes millions of american football fans... it was very important.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask just why there needs to be a World Championship for chess? For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would bother with it. It's not even remotely interesting to watch two GMs play long, robotic games with endless teeny-tiny manouvers that are based mainly on computer analysis and massive overpreparation. One person may leave the table feeling like a genius with a bag of money, but no one outside of a few thousand chessplayers will ever know who this person is.
Is there any proof that the World Championship cycle actually "helps" promote chess...or anything? Or is it just a big waste of time and money?
You have a point, we don't need a world champion in chess. We also don't need electricity and running water (people lived without them for thousands of years)
While I would much definitely chose electricity and running water if forced to chose between the two, I believe the World Chess Championship is just a natural human phenomenon. Human nature is to compete, it is what drives us to excel. The natural continuation of competition is a championship. Humans are also naturally interested in knowing who's best. Why is there a Forbes 500 richest list? Humans are always interested in the superlative.
We don't "need" a World Chess Championship.
Why do we have one?
It's just human nature.
If there were no chess championship matches, there would still be guys claiming (on one basis or another) to be world champion. That's how world championship matches got started in the first place. The rival claimants would arrange a match with each other. Back to having world championship matches.
In other words: for every Steinitz there is a Zukertort.
Why have a World Series or a Super Bowl? A lot more money is spent on those frivolous pursuits than on chess!
From chessbase today:
Naturally Anand's victory was celebrated most of all in India, where he has around one billion fans.
OK, that's in India, but "one billion fans" still makes my jaw drop.
Congratulations Anand and India!
But India doesn't count because Spudnik said so.
Now the internet psychiatrists are giving diagnoses. I give up.
I stopped playing chess for a few months, and then watched the world championship and was absolutely riveted. Every game was insane drama to the end. Incredibly inspiring! It made me want to play again. I think all chess championships should follow Topalov's lead, and play each game to the end- "I will not accept draws"-HOT!! The psychology and intensity throughout makes me suprised at your question. My question is: Why can't there be a world championship every year, or even twice a year! I can't wait for the next one!
Now the internet psychiatrists are giving diagnoses. I give up.
/chuckle
That'll teach you to whack the beehive of trolls, psychiatrists, and idiots.
Lesson learned.
Because it's fun for people who are extremely competitive like me to watch and play for.
Has anyone ever bothered to ask just why there needs to be a World Championship for chess? For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would bother with it. It's not even remotely interesting to watch two GMs play long, robotic games with endless teeny-tiny manouvers that are based mainly on computer analysis and massive overpreparation. One person may leave the table feeling like a genius with a bag of money, but no one outside of a few thousand chessplayers will ever know who this person is.
Is there any proof that the World Championship cycle actually "helps" promote chess...or anything? Or is it just a big waste of time and money?
First, let me say, it's interesting to know who is best. How many sports do you know of that don't crown a champion? I can't think of any.
But, secondly, let me say, have you WATCHED any of these games? This years WCC has had a number of really interesting, hard fought, well contested games. If none of these games have been interesting to you, I suggest that maybe the game of chess is not for you, because this is about as good as it gets.
This has been raised up before on some article or post (or whatever) before and I find it personally interesting on the topic.
Reason for this is that I am interested in watching the games, but I personally can't really get excited about a match. If someone told me that the game was intense and I saw the move list, I wouldn't understand why. Maybe a lack of appreciation or lack of feeling in it, but I seem to lack the interest that some players seem to find.
Even when I play I can't really tell. I still just love playing it though. Saying chess might not be for you based on that reason seems a bit off, but there looks to be some appreciation for it that I am personally lacking.
If there were no world champion, would you give up chess? Would it affect your ability or interest in the game? Does it all just fall apart?
And something has to motivate players to play. I got interested when I learned how vast the world of chess is. So something always has to do with how someone like Brett Favre got started. (Though personally I don't like Brett Favre because I'm from WI.)