Financial reasons behind the growth in chess strength of some countries?

Sort:
TheSonics

A friend of mine who is a GM argued that the reason nations like India, Uzbekistan, Azerbijan, and others which have produced a higher amount of world class talents than in the past is connected to the economic fabric of those countires. He argued that chess is percieved as a financial gateway to the so called 1st world.

Another friend argued that Pragg, for example, was actually born to a wealthy family and his dad manages a bank which would be considered upper middle class or even wealthy in a Western country, so his motivation to succeed and become elite would not have been driven by financial reasons, or something of that nature, as seen for example in South America or Africa with football (soccer), players striving to make it big in Europe to support their families.

I then stated that even though Pragg's family may have been upper middle class in India, on a global scale that's still not rich. So in general, chess as a profession is still seen as lucrative, in oppose to how it is perceived in the West which is basically - "you will never make a decent living from chess unless you are top 50 in the world, and even then..."... which is kindof what people always say.

Now I know like in all art if your kid is a prodigy it's not really about the money but about passion... But still, I think with prodigies the parents support play a big role and their incentives may include financial interests. Not in the sense that "this kid will make me rich", but just in the sense that "if he's gonna put in 10h a day of work in to something I hope he will actually be able to make a living out of that, cuz I love this kid.." etc

So please tell me your opinion on this subject, preferably people who are actually from India and can provide context. Excuse my lack of knowledge and maybe wrong statemants I am actually trying to learn and of course it's not so easy with google to bridge these gaps of understanding.

Thanks 

justbefair
TheSonics wrote:

A friend of mine who is a GM argued that the reason nations like India, Uzbekistan, Azerbijan, and others which have produced a higher amount of world class talents than in the past is connected to the economic fabric of those countires. He argued that chess is percieved as a financial gateway to the so called 1st world.

Another friend argued that Pragg, for example, was actually born to a wealthy family and his dad manages a bank which would be considered upper middle class or even wealthy in a Western country, so his motivation to succeed and become elite would not have been driven by financial reasons, or something of that nature, as seen for example in South America or Africa with football (soccer), players striving to make it big in Europe to support their families.

I then stated that even though Pragg's family may have been upper middle class in India, on a global scale that's still not rich. So in general, chess as a profession is still seen as lucrative, in oppose to how it is perceived in the West which is basically - "you will never make a decent living from chess unless you are top 50 in the world, and even then..."... which is kindof what people always say.

Now I know like in all art if your kid is a prodigy it's not really about the money but about passion... But still, I think with prodigies the parents support play a big role and their incentives may include financial interests. Not in the sense that "this kid will make me rich", but just in the sense that "if he's gonna put in 10h a day of work in to something I hope he will actually be able to make a living out of that, cuz I love this kid.." etc

So please tell me your opinion on this subject, preferably people who are actually from India and can provide context. Excuse my lack of knowledge and maybe wrong statemants I am actually trying to learn and of course it's not so easy with google to bridge these gaps of understanding.

Thanks

An interesting question.

I believe that the sudden availability of all the world's chess knowledge on a relatively inexpensive handheld device has been a factor.

Another factor was the strength , fame and accomplishments of Viswanathan Anand.

You neglected to mention China, which claimed the men's and women's world chess championships this year.

Chuck639

I find it hard that there is money in chess?

TheSonics
Chuck639 wrote:

I find it hard that there is money in chess?

it's all relative... I am just curious about the correlation between low average gdp per capita (Uzbekistan, India, Armenia, Azerbijan) and very talented players. (atleast the coolest players in my eyes)

Chuck639
TheSonics wrote:
Chuck639 wrote:

I find it hard that there is money in chess?

it's all relative... I am just curious about the correlation between low average gdp per capita (Uzbekistan, India, Armenia, Azerbijan) and very talented players. (atleast the coolest players in my eyes)

I am surprised by the strong players out of Armenia and Azerbaijan; the one GM I do like.

For small countries and odd geographical locations, it’s interesting.

I do feel players in the core of Europe have an advantage because the FIDE circuit is more active and readily available.

TheSonics
long_quach wrote:

@TheSonics

1. You missed the elephant in the room, Russia.

2. Russia is a poor country compared to the United States.

3. Why do they produce the most champions?

I actually don't know how to judge the stats I see on google because I feel the social-economic story is more complicated than the numbers reveal... but for arguments sake China and Russia have a similarly medium-low average gdp per capita. (but not as low as the countries I mentioned) Also Russia has the most rich history in terms of chess and the reason why is also related to economics with Soviet era etc...

TheSonics

1st off what is yapping? happy.png I am making complete sense... I might not see the full picture or have a great understanding of social-economics that's why I would like to learn...

It might have to do with capitalism socialism etc and the importance given to money in the social structure with regard to career choices... For example where are the Japanese or Korean super GMs? I don't know alot about Japan but I know that it is very capitalistic and parents often choose careers for their kids and stuff like that (atleast that is more mainstream there than in the west)

2nd you clearly didn't read any of what has been discussed because the argument is exactly that the lower the gdp per capita the more world class talents it is producing... Russia included, even though it is medium-low and not super low... (12k along with China, compared to Uzbekistan, Azerbijan and India which are around 2-5k which is low)... In comparison Norway has 80k average so it's very wealthy nation... and yes, Magnus is from there but he's kindof a one in a generation anomaly...

Or maybe it's just a population size thing?...

TheSonics
long_quach wrote:

In a America, per capita income is great, in Russia it sucks.

OK, but still you understand now that this strengthens the argument rather than contradicts it?

When I said Russia is rich I meant it has a rich chess history that is clearly stated.

TheSonics

at the end of the day I am basically asking for more knowledgeable input on an argument that was raised by a friend of mine who is GM so who knows a thing or two about chess... That being said he peaked at 2560 and is no longer competitive so it could be he has his own theories to self justify why he didn't have drive or ability to become elite ...

TheSonics
long_quach wrote:

Answer 1, get 1 free!

Percentage of black in US population.

14%

Percentage of black in the NBA.

72%

White income to black

65 : 35

Why are there more blacks in the NBA?

We are going down a slippery slope of non PC but I guess with Sports it's kindof the same explanation as why are Brazilians Argentinians, and now African players so great at football... Also French and English players of African descent are sons of immigrants and work ethic is always culturally very important with 2nd generation to immigrants (strict/pushy parents and/or early independence expected from kid typically)... Along with the notion that if kids excell at sports they will be "off the streets"... so in the case of Brazil and Argentina there's a lot of poverty but also a great culture of football, a super high average level pushes everyone higher, that meets great financial opportunity. Same can be said for Basketball in the US I guess?...

Martin_Stahl
long_quach wrote:
long_quach wrote:

What's the per capita income in Russia vs America (the richest country in the world)?

I'll answer it for you.

In a America, per capita income is great, in Russia it sucks.

So why do Russia dominate chess for 50 years?

There were governmental programs designed to cultivate interest and promote youth to compete in multiple things, including chess. Citizens that were strong enough basically got paid to play and study, could travel, etc.

PromisingPawns

I think it's common sense. When you are good in something and it's a sport, you know you will be making a lot of money ( pardon me if I am missing the point of this post)

nik1111

Rich per capita basicaly means that you have 1% of The super-rich in the US and the rest in debt. They have no right on information (and NEVER had), just what find on internet, have one car and one white medium house on mortgage, eat some chips or pop-corn and that's it. Now take Russia... is there just 1% of ultra-rich as previouses? Then, who plays better chess - a typical "redneck" or common citizen from smaller Russian town, or is it just the game and not something even more behind it? Then, we have shiny but shallow commercials, movies, comic-books, toys, music, all of that which serves just as, again, shallow distraction from the game. I must admit that I envy more to Dutches, they have weed - good pairing with play. Bevare of biases and generalisations which represent an error in logical thinking, Russia is already ahead of Germany in terms of economy, wake up.