The previous world champions in chess were from India. according to my coach, chess was invented in India... also were some of the superb players come from.
India is 2nd, or tied for 1st with Russia.
No India is 5th .
Russia
Azerbaijan
US
China
India
Thats how the list is.
The previous world champions in chess were from India. according to my coach, chess was invented in India... also were some of the superb players come from.
India is 2nd, or tied for 1st with Russia.
No India is 5th .
Russia
Azerbaijan
US
China
India
Thats how the list is.
Oh, good to know, thx.
wc
The previous world champions in chess were from India. according to my coach, chess was invented in India... also were some of the superb players come from.
India is 2nd, or tied for 1st with Russia.
No India is 5th .
Russia
Azerbaijan
US
China
India
Thats how the list is.
Oh, good to know, thx.
wc
Excuse me?
I said welcome
theyre very good. one made GK's eyes pop out once.
Most countries where the economy sucks are good at chess. India, the Philippines and Russia are prime examples. There is nothing better to do there for people that are reasonably intelligent than play chess. We are busy making money here in the U.S. and Europe because we can.
Were this true we would expect to see more GMs from Haiti, Laos, Central African Republic, and the like. The reason some nations supply a disproportionately large share of the world's top players is that chess is well respected there. The government of the Soviet Union decided in its early days to make chess instruction and play easily available to everyone, as it was a popular game in Russia before the revolution and was less expensive than other activities. Becoming an official chess master (Master of Sport) meant you could get a job teaching, playing or writing about chess.
Other countries--most notably China--have done the same thing. Former Soviet republics, such as Russia, continue to do so to a more limited extent, but longstanding popularity there results in a lot of private support. In some prosperous countries there is simply enough interest in chess that some people can manage to make a living off of chess. The fact that it takes years of study and continuing hours of work to achieve GM status and stay on top of the game means that most players must be able to make $$$ from tournament prizes, book and video sales, simuls and exhibitions, chess.com contributions, etc to live solely off chess.
Incidentally, Russia has the 12th largest economy in the world, so I'm not sure what makes you think it sucks. We Americans were misinformed about economic conditions in the "evil empire" for a long time and that idea seems to keep hanging on.
Most countries where the economy sucks are good at chess. India, the Philippines and Russia are prime examples. There is nothing better to do there for people that are reasonably intelligent than play chess. We are busy making money here in the U.S. and Europe because we can.
Were this true we would expect to see more GMs from Haiti, Laos, Central African Republic, and the like. The reason some nations supply a disproportionately large share of the world's top players is that chess is well respected there. The government of the Soviet Union decided in its early days to make chess instruction and play easily available to everyone, as it was a popular game in Russia before the revolution and was less expensive than other activities. Becoming an official chess master (Master of Sport) meant you could get a job teaching, playing or writing about chess.
Other countries--most notably China--have done the same thing. Former Soviet republics, such as Russia, continue to do so to a more limited extent, but longstanding popularity there results in a lot of private support. In some prosperous countries there is simply enough interest in chess that some people can manage to make a living off of chess. The fact that it takes years of study and continuing hours of work to achieve GM status and stay on top of the game means that most players must be able to make $$$ from tournament prizes, book and video sales, simuls and exhibitions, chess.com contributions, etc to live solely off chess.
Incidentally, Russia has the 12th largest economy in the world, so I'm not sure what makes you think it sucks. We Americans were misinformed about economic conditions in the "evil empire" for a long time and that idea seems to keep hanging on.
That's true, it's all relative though. Was not necessarily talking about just GMs, as it takes a lot more effort and chess infrastructure, coaches, tradition, etc...to reach that goal. Just on average. In any case it was not meant as a racist comment, just an observation with a possible explanation. Per capita income is the most commonly used measure of a nation's economic condition. I can't imagine trying to get by on about $11,000 per year like in Russia though. The Philippines is also poor with lots of good players. There are lots of countries that are worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Well, the Navajo and Cherokee are pretty good strategists, but the Sioux and the Apache tend to be too aggressive and prone to unsound sacrifices.
Let me guess... it comes from Turkey?
According to a very reliable source (@infestationpit) lord Magnus invented chess!
Another reason for those who base chess on Iran is a source written around 600 AD. In this source, it is written that Ardashir I, who founded the Sasanian Empire in AD 226, was a master chess player. This means 300 - 400 years before documents said to be found in India.
The first known chess set was found in Samarkand, in Uzbekistan. That region was under the Sassanid rule, which was dominant in Iran at that time.
http://history.chess.free.fr/afrasiab.htm
Most countries where the economy sucks are good at chess. India, the Philippines and Russia are prime examples. There is nothing better to do there for people that are reasonably intelligent than play chess. We are busy making money here in the U.S. and Europe because we can.
Were this true we would expect to see more GMs from Haiti, Laos, Central African Republic, and the like. The reason some nations supply a disproportionately large share of the world's top players is that chess is well respected there. The government of the Soviet Union decided in its early days to make chess instruction and play easily available to everyone, as it was a popular game in Russia before the revolution and was less expensive than other activities. Becoming an official chess master (Master of Sport) meant you could get a job teaching, playing or writing about chess.
Other countries--most notably China--have done the same thing. Former Soviet republics, such as Russia, continue to do so to a more limited extent, but longstanding popularity there results in a lot of private support. In some prosperous countries there is simply enough interest in chess that some people can manage to make a living off of chess. The fact that it takes years of study and continuing hours of work to achieve GM status and stay on top of the game means that most players must be able to make $$$ from tournament prizes, book and video sales, simuls and exhibitions, chess.com contributions, etc to live solely off chess.
Incidentally, Russia has the 12th largest economy in the world, so I'm not sure what makes you think it sucks. We Americans were misinformed about economic conditions in the "evil empire" for a long time and that idea seems to keep hanging on.
That's true, it's all relative though. Was not necessarily talking about just GMs, as it takes a lot more effort and chess infrastructure, coaches, tradition, etc...to reach that goal. Just on average. In any case it was not meant as a racist comment, just an observation with a possible explanation. Per capita income is the most commonly used measure of a nation's economic condition. I can't imagine trying to get by on about $11,000 per year like in Russia though. The Philippines is also poor with lots of good players. There are lots of countries that are worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Russia has probably the world's best chess infrastructure, inherited from Soviet days, accounting for their players' continued prominence. Of course chess enjoys widespread popularity there.
There are some reasons why the per capita income figure paints an incomplete picture of many nations' economy. In Russia, the Soviet system has left the population with many expectations of government "largesse" that Putin continues to fill. They are the world's greatest energy exporter, enabling the government to send natural gas and petroleum to western Europe at high prices, using the profit to supply heat to everyone for a few kopeks. Public transportation is also highly subsidized and dirt cheap. The skyrocketing death rate (especially among the elderly) immediately after the introduction of a free market created a backlash that led to a "Medicare for all" system that has kept health care cost at a minimum. Also, the USSR promised everyone a job, but didn't have enough jobs, so a much higher % of the population was kept on the land where most have stayed, meaning food costs for 1/3 of the population doesn't show up in economic statistics. Factor in that the post-Crimea sanctions make rubles worth very little outside of Russia affects the exchange rate to such an extent that converting the average Russian's income into US dollars greatly distorts its real value.
I don't want to start an economics argument but I hope you find this information worthwhile. Sorry to have wandered so far from any discussion about chess.
why is this not locked
I would say, given India's tradition and many current good players.
Most countries where the economy sucks are good at chess. India, the Philippines and Russia are prime examples. There is nothing better to do there for people that are reasonably intelligent than play chess. We are busy making money here in the U.S. and Europe because we can.
Were this true we would expect to see more GMs from Haiti, Laos, Central African Republic, and the like. The reason some nations supply a disproportionately large share of the world's top players is that chess is well respected there. The government of the Soviet Union decided in its early days to make chess instruction and play easily available to everyone, as it was a popular game in Russia before the revolution and was less expensive than other activities. Becoming an official chess master (Master of Sport) meant you could get a job teaching, playing or writing about chess.
Other countries--most notably China--have done the same thing. Former Soviet republics, such as Russia, continue to do so to a more limited extent, but longstanding popularity there results in a lot of private support. In some prosperous countries there is simply enough interest in chess that some people can manage to make a living off of chess. The fact that it takes years of study and continuing hours of work to achieve GM status and stay on top of the game means that most players must be able to make $$$ from tournament prizes, book and video sales, simuls and exhibitions, chess.com contributions, etc to live solely off chess.
Incidentally, Russia has the 12th largest economy in the world, so I'm not sure what makes you think it sucks. We Americans were misinformed about economic conditions in the "evil empire" for a long time and that idea seems to keep hanging on.
That's true, it's all relative though. Was not necessarily talking about just GMs, as it takes a lot more effort and chess infrastructure, coaches, tradition, etc...to reach that goal. Just on average. In any case it was not meant as a racist comment, just an observation with a possible explanation. Per capita income is the most commonly used measure of a nation's economic condition. I can't imagine trying to get by on about $11,000 per year like in Russia though. The Philippines is also poor with lots of good players. There are lots of countries that are worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Russia has probably the world's best chess infrastructure, inherited from Soviet days, accounting for their players' continued prominence. Of course chess enjoys widespread popularity there.
There are some reasons why the per capita income figure paints an incomplete picture of many nations' economy. In Russia, the Soviet system has left the population with many expectations of government "largesse" that Putin continues to fill. They are the world's greatest energy exporter, enabling the government to send natural gas and petroleum to western Europe at high prices, using the profit to supply heat to everyone for a few kopeks. Public transportation is also highly subsidized and dirt cheap. The skyrocketing death rate (especially among the elderly) immediately after the introduction of a free market created a backlash that led to a "Medicare for all" system that has kept health care cost at a minimum. Also, the USSR promised everyone a job, but didn't have enough jobs, so a much higher % of the population was kept on the land where most have stayed, meaning food costs for 1/3 of the population doesn't show up in economic statistics. Factor in that the post-Crimea sanctions make rubles worth very little outside of Russia affects the exchange rate to such an extent that converting the average Russian's income into US dollars greatly distorts its real value.
I don't want to start an economics argument but I hope you find this information worthwhile. Sorry to have wandered so far from any discussion about chess.
boi india is smart. literally the average 5th grader there is smarter than the average 7th or maybe even 8th grader in the US. India prioritizes smarts over sports. US is the opposite.
Most countries where the economy sucks are good at chess. India, the Philippines and Russia are prime examples. There is nothing better to do there for people that are reasonably intelligent than play chess. We are busy making money here in the U.S. and Europe because we can.