Cute !
Gilded Ages
Sort:
batgirl wrote:
What happened to "brilliant?"
post #8 
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/vrnjacka-banja-1961
I could go on with "B"s, but decided to move to a "C" .... Maybe i'll be back 
.. Good question ! ; Which required more research, than I was in the mood for.
But consider the following ; In the context of us humans, being composed of mostly 'water'; Plus, if it's on "YouTube".. they Must know what they're talking about ! .. lol
Jul 10, 2017
0
#10
You are correct in that there is a reason that I referred to the current state of chess in the USA as "A" instead of "The."
In fact, I mention the pre Soviet era dominance of our teams at the first few Olympiads.
In fact, I mention the pre Soviet era dominance of our teams at the first few Olympiads.
edit by batgirl: It's probably not a good idea to spam a moderator's thread.
Didn't mods use to write in red? Is green the new red?
Jul 10, 2017
0
#15
ChrisWainscott wrote:
^^^ this always makes me curious, lol
Nothing worth wasting curiosity on. Just crayon scribbles on the wall.
"The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems." -Billy Joel
Another thread (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/the-quotgolden-agequot-of-chess) brought up the subject of the Golden Age of Chess. The more I though about it, the less sure I am of many things.
ChrisWainscott mentioned an article he wrote for "Chess Life," July 2015 called "A New Golden Age for American Chess."
As I mentioned in the other thread, not being a USCF, I have no access to his article, but part of the gist seems to be the emergence of more younger, stronger, promising players than in any previous era.
Alan Rodenstein, a long time member here under the handle abba5718 which he later changed to arconsul, wrote a book in 2015 called "Contemporary Chess Resurgence in America: How Chess Has Gotten Younger, Faster and Digitally Driven" While waiting for its release, Mr. Rodenstein reviewed Mr. Wainscott's "Chess Life" article : HERE.
Curiously, 6 months after the publication of his book, Mr. Rodenstein, who expressed the importance of internet chess as a key element to this chess renaissance, abandoned chess.com and hasn't been here for a year. Also, shortly after the publication of his book, he abandoned his website and his Facebook page.
Anyway, none of that matters in this topic, other than his book sounds pretty interesting.
The consensus, maybe even the driving idea, behind the works of both Alan Rodenstein and Chris Wainscott is that America is now in a Golden Age. While I have no reason to doubt any of their data or conclusions or to take any issue which their reasonings, as little as I know of any of those things, and, while they are both more learned and experienced than myself, I do have my own thoughts on Golden Ages- and expressing some of those tangential thoughts is my reason for this thread.
Some time ago, I wrote an article also called The Golden Age ( https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-golden-age ) which examined the pre-Soviet years of American chess dominance. At the end of the article, I expressed the opinion that "Golden Age" is just a self-styled term.
In 1895 James Mason wrote in his "Art of Chess"
"The golden age of chess really began in the nineteenth century, when the game became very popular. International contests were held at regular intervals, top-notch masters became recognized and the institution of the World Championship got its start."
The point is that the term is arbitrarily applied and even the meaning behind it is fairly subjective.
If today is indeed "The Golden Age" due to the number of players, tournaments, press, the greater talent, the internet, etc, what happens 100 years from now if all these things become surpassed? Is every age where there is some improvement the Golden Age?
Perhaps Mr. Waiscott has it right calling today A Golden Age rather than The Golden Age. One could possibly argue the specifics, but there seems less doubt that every age has something to celebrate, even if in hindsight the ages are more gilded than golden.