Former FIDE presidents Campomanes and Ilyumzhinov had quite a few talks with IOC about inserting chess in the (summer) Olympics, but they could not reach an agreement.
I do not think that the current president Dvorkovich will do any better, mainly for political reasons.
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
I personally wouldn't want to see chess added to the Olympic games, not because it is not a sport, but because it would introduce yet another title no-one really cares about, like FIDE world champion title used to be during 90s - early 2000s.
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
Chess is the most popular one and chess actually is really hard to master, unlike "scrambled eggs"
I don't know how it compares in popularity, but I definitely agree it's very difficult to master. But that's also part of the reason it would not do very well at the Olympics. It's a game that's too difficult. The vast majority of people watching would have zero or almost zero appreciation for it. They would say "that is not a sport, it's two people sitting in a chair for hours staring at a board" Then they would change the channel to something more exciting, like beach volleyball or something.
People can appreciate the difficulty of sports. They can relate to it, they can SEE it. It plays out well on TV. But chess and other board games don't. The average person cannot relate to how difficult chess is because they can't SEE the difficulty. There are no body motions that are particularly impressive.
Watching someone hit a homerun in baseball is impressive. Watching someone move a chess piece 4 inches is not.
I dont agree with the baseball analogy because baseball is terribly boring
Chess is a game as football, as volleyball, where both physical and psychological aspects are important?
Because for the 99+% of the people that dont play chess, it is boring to watch. I enjoy the game, and still cant stand to just watch it for anymore than a few minutes at a time.
Chess is a game as football, as volleyball, where both physical and psychological aspects are important?
Chess isn't a sport. It's a board game -- like Checkers, Scrabble, or Backgammon.
Chess is complex and challenging board game, yes, but it's still a board game.
Chess is a game as football, as volleyball, where both physical and psychological aspects are important?
Because Chess isn't a sport. It's a board game -- like Checkers, Scrabble, or Backgammon.
and curling?
Chess is a game as football, as volleyball, where both physical and psychological aspects are important?
Because Chess isn't a sport. It's a board game -- like Checkers, Scrabble, or Backgammon.
Yeas and No. Obviously it isn't a physical sport like others, but it can be a mentally and physically exhausting game. if i remember correctly Karpov lost something like 40lbs. in his first match with Kasparov.
and curling?
Curling involves a lot of physical skill and effort.
Chess requires no physical skill or effort. I can play an entire chess game inside my mind, without making any bodily movements at all.
Chess was an exhibition in the 2000 Olympics, I believe. People are trying to get it in the Olympics.
Chess has an independent body FIDE. If it enters Olympic games, their committee will be taking over chess tournaments and its management. The role of FIDE will decrease. Also there are other reasons that, it is not a physical sport, etc. But I will love to see chess rising either in Olympics or independently.
Yeas and No. Obviously it isn't a physical sport like others, but it can be a mentally and physically exhausting game. if i remember correctly Karpov lost something like 40lbs. in his first match with Kasparov.
I absolutely agree that chess can be grueling, especially in tough games/matches. It can be both mentally and physically draining, to sit for hours, straining oneself with peak concentration. But I still contend that it's a board game.
It's a complex, beautiful, and extremely challenging board game, for sure. A world-class board game. But still a board game, nonetheless.
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
Chess is the most popular one and chess actually is really hard to master, unlike "scrambled eggs"
I don't know how it compares in popularity, but I definitely agree it's very difficult to master. But that's also part of the reason it would not do very well at the Olympics. It's a game that's too difficult. The vast majority of people watching would have zero or almost zero appreciation for it. They would say "that is not a sport, it's two people sitting in a chair for hours staring at a board" Then they would change the channel to something more exciting, like beach volleyball or something.
People can appreciate the difficulty of sports. They can relate to it, they can SEE it. It plays out well on TV. But chess and other board games don't. The average person cannot relate to how difficult chess is because they can't SEE the difficulty. There are no body motions that are particularly impressive.
Watching someone hit a homerun in baseball is impressive. Watching someone move a chess piece 4 inches is not.
You want popularity? Many people play chess, and watching someone make 1 move out of a million combinations that changes the game sounds exciting to me. Queen's Gambit is your example on how many people actually watch chess.
People watched Queens Gambit because it was fictional. They didn't watch it because it's real. People don't like to watch real chess. It's boring, and when it's been tried, ratings are always very low.
The popularity of Queens Gambit isn't the chess. It's the story. People love stories like that. Jessica Lauser is probably who was the inspiration for the story. She had a troubled childhood, she learned to play chess, eventually becoming a US champion. And also studied Russian. Sound like Beth Harmon?
Except Jessica Lauser is legally blind. She can't identify the pieces on the board with sight. But even she realizes chess is a board game, even though she is able to play without the pieces or board. She can simply visualize the game, and play accordingly. No sport can be done that way.
She also said "it was just a game like Monopoly or Parcheesi". Given how good she is, she probably has an appreciation that elevates the game above those two. But, it's still just a board game.
So no, people don't like to watch chess. They like to watch STORIES about people and chess.
"So no, people don't like to watch chess. They like to watch STORIES about people and chess. " There is always a story behind every Olympic win, sometimes more.
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
Chess is the most popular one and chess actually is really hard to master, unlike "scrambled eggs"
I don't know how it compares in popularity, but I definitely agree it's very difficult to master. But that's also part of the reason it would not do very well at the Olympics. It's a game that's too difficult. The vast majority of people watching would have zero or almost zero appreciation for it. They would say "that is not a sport, it's two people sitting in a chair for hours staring at a board" Then they would change the channel to something more exciting, like beach volleyball or something.
People can appreciate the difficulty of sports. They can relate to it, they can SEE it. It plays out well on TV. But chess and other board games don't. The average person cannot relate to how difficult chess is because they can't SEE the difficulty. There are no body motions that are particularly impressive.
Watching someone hit a homerun in baseball is impressive. Watching someone move a chess piece 4 inches is not.
You want popularity? Many people play chess, and watching someone make 1 move out of a million combinations that changes the game sounds exciting to me. Queen's Gambit is your example on how many people actually watch chess.
People watched Queens Gambit because it was fictional. They didn't watch it because it's real. People don't like to watch real chess. It's boring, and when it's been tried, ratings are always very low.
The popularity of Queens Gambit isn't the chess. It's the story. People love stories like that. Jessica Lauser is probably who was the inspiration for the story. She had a troubled childhood, she learned to play chess, eventually becoming a US champion. And also studied Russian. Sound like Beth Harmon?
Except Jessica Lauser is legally blind. She can't identify the pieces on the board with sight. But even she realizes chess is a board game, even though she is able to play without the pieces or board. She can simply visualize the game, and play accordingly. No sport can be done that way.
She also said "it was just a game like Monopoly or Parcheesi". Given how good she is, she probably has an appreciation that elevates the game above those two. But, it's still just a board game.
So no, people don't like to watch chess. They like to watch STORIES about people and chess.
Seems unlikely that a woman who is 40 now was the inspiration for a 40 year old book.
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
Chess is the most popular one and chess actually is really hard to master, unlike "scrambled eggs"
I don't know how it compares in popularity, but I definitely agree it's very difficult to master. But that's also part of the reason it would not do very well at the Olympics. It's a game that's too difficult. The vast majority of people watching would have zero or almost zero appreciation for it. They would say "that is not a sport, it's two people sitting in a chair for hours staring at a board" Then they would change the channel to something more exciting, like beach volleyball or something.
People can appreciate the difficulty of sports. They can relate to it, they can SEE it. It plays out well on TV. But chess and other board games don't. The average person cannot relate to how difficult chess is because they can't SEE the difficulty. There are no body motions that are particularly impressive.
Watching someone hit a homerun in baseball is impressive. Watching someone move a chess piece 4 inches is not.
You want popularity? Many people play chess, and watching someone make 1 move out of a million combinations that changes the game sounds exciting to me. Queen's Gambit is your example on how many people actually watch chess.
People watched Queens Gambit because it was fictional. They didn't watch it because it's real. People don't like to watch real chess. It's boring, and when it's been tried, ratings are always very low.
The popularity of Queens Gambit isn't the chess. It's the story. People love stories like that. Jessica Lauser is probably who was the inspiration for the story. She had a troubled childhood, she learned to play chess, eventually becoming a US champion. And also studied Russian. Sound like Beth Harmon?
Except Jessica Lauser is legally blind. She can't identify the pieces on the board with sight. But even she realizes chess is a board game, even though she is able to play without the pieces or board. She can simply visualize the game, and play accordingly. No sport can be done that way.
She also said "it was just a game like Monopoly or Parcheesi". Given how good she is, she probably has an appreciation that elevates the game above those two. But, it's still just a board game.
So no, people don't like to watch chess. They like to watch STORIES about people and chess.
The Queen’s Gambit was a book from 1983. When was Jessica Lauser born?
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
Chess is the most popular one and chess actually is really hard to master, unlike "scrambled eggs"
I don't know how it compares in popularity, but I definitely agree it's very difficult to master. But that's also part of the reason it would not do very well at the Olympics. It's a game that's too difficult. The vast majority of people watching would have zero or almost zero appreciation for it. They would say "that is not a sport, it's two people sitting in a chair for hours staring at a board" Then they would change the channel to something more exciting, like beach volleyball or something.
People can appreciate the difficulty of sports. They can relate to it, they can SEE it. It plays out well on TV. But chess and other board games don't. The average person cannot relate to how difficult chess is because they can't SEE the difficulty. There are no body motions that are particularly impressive.
Watching someone hit a homerun in baseball is impressive. Watching someone move a chess piece 4 inches is not.
You want popularity? Many people play chess, and watching someone make 1 move out of a million combinations that changes the game sounds exciting to me. Queen's Gambit is your example on how many people actually watch chess.
People watched Queens Gambit because it was fictional. They didn't watch it because it's real. People don't like to watch real chess. It's boring, and when it's been tried, ratings are always very low.
The popularity of Queens Gambit isn't the chess. It's the story. People love stories like that. Jessica Lauser is probably who was the inspiration for the story. She had a troubled childhood, she learned to play chess, eventually becoming a US champion. And also studied Russian. Sound like Beth Harmon?
Except Jessica Lauser is legally blind. She can't identify the pieces on the board with sight. But even she realizes chess is a board game, even though she is able to play without the pieces or board. She can simply visualize the game, and play accordingly. No sport can be done that way.
She also said "it was just a game like Monopoly or Parcheesi". Given how good she is, she probably has an appreciation that elevates the game above those two. But, it's still just a board game.
So no, people don't like to watch chess. They like to watch STORIES about people and chess.
The Queen’s Gambit was a book from 1983. When was Jessica Lauser born?
I don't know. But I wasn't talking about the book. I was responding to the comment about people watching the movie. Not reading a book. You would have to ask the people who made the movie how much was from a book, and how much was from other sources. But it is interesting the similarities between Jessica Lauser and Beth Harmon. The two main differences are Jessica (the real person) is blind (can play chess using only her mind) and that she has called chess a board game like Monopoly or Parcheesi.
I would say if you can do it using only your mind, it's not a sport. Because if using only your mind is the criteria, thinking about what to make for dinner is a sport.
Because the Olympic Games do not have board games. They have competitions that are exciting and fun to watch.
There are plenty of competitions in the Olympics that are not "fun to watch" (e.g. curling, water polo, and some others that almost nobody watches). Chess, by contrast, has a broad range of viewership and is more complex in terms of strategy than many "sports" at the Olympics.
No.
As boring as curling is, it's still more fun to watch than chess. Curling is a physical activity that requires skill. So it's a sporting event. Chess is not. Chess is a board game. To get chess into the Olympics is going to require a fairly substantial bribe. Not impossible, it could be done. But the viewership will be incredibly low, ratings will suffer, accusations will be made, and excuses will follow.
There is no reason chess couldn't be in the Olympics. It is a game. Scrabble or Clue could be in the Olympics too. It's all about money. And since there isn't much money in chess, chances are the bribes will not be large enough make a difference.
Chess is the most popular one and chess actually is really hard to master, unlike "scrambled eggs"
I don't know how it compares in popularity, but I definitely agree it's very difficult to master. But that's also part of the reason it would not do very well at the Olympics. It's a game that's too difficult. The vast majority of people watching would have zero or almost zero appreciation for it. They would say "that is not a sport, it's two people sitting in a chair for hours staring at a board" Then they would change the channel to something more exciting, like beach volleyball or something.
People can appreciate the difficulty of sports. They can relate to it, they can SEE it. It plays out well on TV. But chess and other board games don't. The average person cannot relate to how difficult chess is because they can't SEE the difficulty. There are no body motions that are particularly impressive.
Watching someone hit a homerun in baseball is impressive. Watching someone move a chess piece 4 inches is not.
You want popularity? Many people play chess, and watching someone make 1 move out of a million combinations that changes the game sounds exciting to me. Queen's Gambit is your example on how many people actually watch chess.
People watched Queens Gambit because it was fictional. They didn't watch it because it's real. People don't like to watch real chess. It's boring, and when it's been tried, ratings are always very low.
The popularity of Queens Gambit isn't the chess. It's the story. People love stories like that. Jessica Lauser is probably who was the inspiration for the story. She had a troubled childhood, she learned to play chess, eventually becoming a US champion. And also studied Russian. Sound like Beth Harmon?
Except Jessica Lauser is legally blind. She can't identify the pieces on the board with sight. But even she realizes chess is a board game, even though she is able to play without the pieces or board. She can simply visualize the game, and play accordingly. No sport can be done that way.
She also said "it was just a game like Monopoly or Parcheesi". Given how good she is, she probably has an appreciation that elevates the game above those two. But, it's still just a board game.
So no, people don't like to watch chess. They like to watch STORIES about people and chess.
The Queen’s Gambit was a book from 1983. When was Jessica Lauser born?
I don't know. But I wasn't talking about the book. I was responding to the comment about people watching the movie. Not reading a book. You would have to ask the people who made the movie how much was from a book, and how much was from other sources. But it is interesting the similarities between Jessica Lauser and Beth Harmon. The two main differences are Jessica (the real person) is blind (can play chess using only her mind) and that she has called chess a board game like Monopoly or Parcheesi.
I would say if you can do it using only your mind, it's not a sport. Because if using only your mind is the criteria, thinking about what to make for dinner is a sport.
The series is based entirely off the book. Say someone plays baseball in his head. Does that not make it a sport?
Those of us who have played a live tournament with 5 games in one day know chess can be very physically exhausting as well as mentally exhausting.
I was a very successful high school chess team coach, but I've also been a head coach in high school recognized sports: cross country, track, and softball and I know the mentality of sports coaches. They do not see muscles being used enough in strength, agility, or control, even if they watch two tied-for-a-trophy players in a 5-min. blitz playoff move like lightning and bang the clock with the same hand as they run short on time.
Consequently, getting chess into the Olympics will be very hard.