Popularity of Chess

Sort:
heinzie

Although my mind goes all wild and excited every time I see a checkmate even if it is just a subvariation requiring my opponent to play superbadly, I am not sure if everybody walking around with such feelings in mind would be such a good thing for society in general

trysts
dashkee94 wrote:

trysts

Yes, Shelby Lyman was the host, and Deep Blue-Kasparov was on ESPN.


Really?! That's kind of coolSmile

dashkee94

trysts

What's really cool is that Shelby Lyman now lives in Windsor, NY, just a few miles away from me.  Oh, and I almost forgot--the first Karpov-Kasparov match was also broadcast on PBS, although they only did the games played on Sunday.

trysts
dashkee94 wrote:

trysts

What's really cool is that Shelby Lyman now lives in Windsor, NY, just a few miles away from me.  Oh, and I almost forgot--the first Karpov-Kasparov match was also broadcast on PBS, although they only did the games played on Sunday.


Thanks, dash!

eddiewsox

Chess is not a sport, Monopoly is not a sport, Checkers is not a sport, Backgammon is not a sport, Candyland is not a sport. 

winerkleiner

Maybe if the sports celebrities make playing chess cool that might help the popularity of chess with the general public.  This could spark an interest?

Maybe televise these events throw some cash into the equation and see if this generates an interest.  The sports world is big maybe play off the players stastus to influence chess?

redijedi

Maybe if chess was taught in more schools like in Russia it'd have a bigger fan base.

raul72
trysts wrote:

I thought the Fischer match was televised on PBS?


 Tryst---there have been hundreds of books written on the 72' championship match. Please read one!

Actually, you dont have to read one---just read these forums!

Look at my lips---Fischer did not allow movie cameras or tv cameras to film the match. You and dashkee must be the last people on earth to not know this. Of course tryst you have an excuse---you're a lady.   Dashkee has no excuse--- he's a dummy!

Elona

Raul, that's the difference between chess, and other sports. You will be hard pushed to find someone that simply 'supports' a chess player. Most Chess fans actually play chess.

Many chess fans are not hugely bothered about the lives and goings of 'chess superstars' and I am sure plenty do not watch chess games. 

For almost any other sport, the opposite happens. Everyone supports a player/team and then some may even play the sport they are interested in.

I feel this is the most beautiful difference between the fans of chess compared to other games. 

Firecutting

I don't think that TV coverage (cash prizes and such) is the way to go, that not the sort of market, And honestly that will make chess a commercialized sport, To me chess is about having a sociable game against the opponent it is not something that should be taken over by vasts amounts of money and ad breaks, I am not at all worried about the popularity dwindling. Where did most* of us learn to play? from our parents. If we the chess playing community keep teaching our sons/ daughters or really anyone, the popularity will not diminish. Recently my school put chess board in the library and to my surprise they are full every lunch time with people of all ages including my self.

 

I just don't think we need to worry to much.

Elona

It is not a case of worrying about the popularity dimming. So long as I have a handfull of people I can share the game with, I shall be happy.

The discussion is simply about 'why'?

Conflagration_Planet
trysts wrote:
Elona wrote:

I don't belive that the fact chess is a boardgame effects its popularity in a negative movement. 


It's not like "monopoly". It's a board game that takes years and years of playing and studying, just so you can be called a "patzer".


 That's why it's not popular. It takes years, and years of study.

Charanjit2921

video games are just only fun ........ but chess is not only fun but also science from which we can learn lots of useful things ...... so do play chess...... !!!!!!!!!!

MDWallace

I agree with Fablehaft. You dont have to understand most sports to enjoy watching them. With chess one needs to know the rules and have some basic idea of the game. How many of us have tried to explain a game we had just played with our non chessplaying freinds. yes i do have a few. They look at us as if we were aliens from space.

Elona
MDWallace wrote:

I agree with Fablehaft. You dont have to understand most sports to enjoy watching them. With chess one needs to know the rules and have some basic idea of the game. How many of us have tried to explain a game we had just played with our non chessplaying freinds. yes i do have a few. They look at us as if we were aliens from space.


This is very true. To love the game, you must understand it. And the only simple thing about chess is the concept.

dashkee94

raul72

It takes a man to admit he's wrong, and I noticed you couldn't do that.  I've seen two world championships broadcast on US TV--oh, excuse me, you want video of someone sitting rigidly and staring at the board.  You can get that from any still shot.  I tuned in for the moves, and I got them--two world championships on PBS (you have heard of PBS, right?).  I'm fairly sure that Fischer-Spassky '72 is still the highest rated program ever on PBS.  Plus an exhibition game on ESPN, which DID show Kasparov playing--you have heard of ESPN, right?  You need to comb the feces out of your hair, but that would mean you'll have to pull your head out of your anus, and anybody who's seen your posts knows that that won't happen anytime soon.  But as for dummies--in another post on Fischer (who, emotionally, you seem to resemble) you claim Spassky's pre-Reykjavik score against Fischer was 2-0.  It was 3-0, you moron, but I'll bet you won't be man enough to admit you're wrong yet again.  Everyone else from Oregon that I have met could at least count, but you are exceptional.  So now, go ahead, post whatever rude, abusive, trollish responses you have in your bruised soul--abuse seems to be the only real talent you have.  As a raul of thumb your posts are either abusive or ignorant or both, and as such I have but two words for you, and they aren't merry christmas, happy birthday, or good luck.

Emmott

Interesting point you make about the media. I became seriously interested in chess after hearing about Fischer's death on the news.

Elona
Emmott wrote:

Interesting point you make about the media. I became seriously interested in chess after hearing about Fischer's death on the news.


That's an interesting example of media coverage sparking an interest in chess to an individual. Thanks.

I had an interest in chess thrown at me by family. 

Sos0f
Elona wrote:

It is not a case of worrying about the popularity dimming. So long as I have a handfull of people I can share the game with, I shall be happy.

The discussion is simply about 'why'?


I am not sure the popularity is dimming really.  Clearly there are many more forms of entertainment now than in the late 19th/early 20th Cent but even then I think that chess would have been a fairly elitist game.  Chess clubs were generally situated in expensive townhouses joined by wealthy professionals.  It was never a game appealing to a mass audience as a serious interest.

---------

I think the best way to increase the popularity of the game is to go down to your local park and play a few strangers.  That's 10x more interesting than watching someone else play on TV.

Ricardo_Morro

As an avid chess player, poet, and verse dramatist, I am in a position to tell you that there are many things less popular than chess. Poetry, for example, and verse drama. To me it is all of a piece. It seems all the things I am interested in are not popular and won't make anyone much money. Add in my other interests: reading French literature in French; number theory; mathematical puzzles. I can go on and on. There are some types of minds, it seems, that just flee the popular.