Why an American will NEVER be a World Champion

Sort:
RyanMK
KillaBeez wrote:

Amen!  This forum post is probably the best ever made by cheater_1.  I agree with everything he says.  I can get straight A's without even trying.  I've already pretty much aced the ACT as an 8th grader.  And the American government is considering taking out the ACT because it is too hard?  Puhleeze...  Our generation is too fat and lazy to do anything smart.  Heck, all they care about it text messaging their friends and spending 50 hour workweeks on facebook.  American society is going down hill.  And if Obama gets elected, watch out!  An american will never win a WCC unless they are like a supergenius.


 Wow, that completely describes my life. I was 1 question away from acing the science portion of the test. I do agree that Cheater_1 has hit the nail on the head here.

Kingfisher
Duffer1965 wrote:

I don't think that the point about athletes is unique to America. David Beckham being just one example that jumps to mind. The adoration of Brazilians for Ayrton Senna was probably much greater than anything I've seen by Americans for any sports figure in my life. If this phenomenon is a harbinger of doom, then I'd say there are no safe countries.

The other points are well taken, but you have to be careful about assuming that everyone is equally bad.

My complaint about this post is its pettiness. When one imagines the calamities that will befall the world as the United States becomes weaker and weaker is not producing an American world chess champion even in the top 150? When you think about America's dwindling influence in Asia and China's surging power, does Tianmen Square come to mind, or just that a Chinese player no doubt will be world champion before an American. In light of the recent Russian military action against democratic -- and non-corrupt -- Georgia, is the US's inability to constrain Putin's empire really less important than America's inability to field a champion contender the likes of Kramnik?

I'm a pretty pessimistic guy, but I try to keep my pessimism in perspective. If we want to gnash our teeth and wail, and we should, lets do it for things that really matter.


Georgia, non-corrupt and democracy in the same sentence? I guess you have to be an american to say something like that.

The Georgian regime is far more opressive than Putin and in fact has a lower popular support. As far as corruption goes, Georgian president recently moved into a new bilion dollar mansion while Putin is still living in his old daca. The only "democratic" thing about Georgia is it's troops "spreading freedom" in Iraq. Guess that's democratic enough by the Bush standard...

Though I understand, really. The ammount of propaganda that your goverment is using on you is unbelieveable.

bondiggity

yes, you do have to be an American to believe that Georgia is uncorrupt, media is still trying to play Russia off as the offender. 

ozzie_c_cobblepot

Anand is world champion - I guess I don't have a lot of sympathy for "how often he must defend his title"...

Plenty of players would love to defend as often as FIDE would like, no?

josefK

As best as I can recall Bobby Fischer was a self-absorbed, uncommunicative whinger who, brought up by a struggling single-mother, spent much of his teens in self-imposed isolation. He also happened to be an appalling student who dropped out of school as soon as he was allowed. With this and your assessment of american youth in mind, the USA should be churning out world champions Laughing

TheOldReb

I still dont understand why Kramnik was given two bites at the apple? I mean , the winner of Mexico City had to play Kramnik , IF Kramnik doesnt win it ofcourse so why let Kramnik play in Mexico City anyway ?  It just seems to me that fide shows favoritism towards Kramnik ( and even Topalov) to the disadvantage of Anand. I grew up in a time when the WC was only once every 3 years so it seems odd that Anand doesnt seem to be able to enjoy the title even a year before he has to defend it again......what other WC ever had to defend it so soon ?

armchairQB

Here here - good post Cheater_1.  Why do you believe the major financial institutions are getting out of the student loan business?  The answer is quite simple; there is no return on investment.  Our colleges have been cranking out a shiny shirt population of used car salesman who produce nothing of value.  Once again - this is generalizing and there are always exceptions - but IN GENERAL, that is all our universities have produced over the past 25 years. College has been a party on Uncle Sam's and mom and dad's dime with student loans thrown in to make up the shortfall.  When the lights come on at the end of the party - usually five years later - students have expected a high paying job in the service industry, perhaps in the circle jerk of high finance, the ultimate party.  Well, that party is over and where will the requisite high paying jobs be going forward? Unless true wealth and value can be created through popularity contests on myspace, through xbox 360 competitions, or perhaps through a fashion walkoff (think Zoolander), then our students are ill equipped for the real world where bubble economics no longer rule the day. Sorry for the rant, did I get off topic? :)

Baseballfan

I normally as a rule do not post in cheater_1's threads, but I have to ask... Since when is Sports Illustrated considered SCHOLARLY? Seriously, let's get real.

TheOldReb
AnthonyCG wrote:
Reb wrote:

I still dont understand why Kramnik was given two bites at the apple? I mean , the winner of Mexico City had to play Kramnik , IF Kramnik doesnt win it ofcourse so why let Kramnik play in Mexico City anyway ? It just seems to me that fide shows favoritism towards Kramnik ( and even Topalov) to the disadvantage of Anand. I grew up in a time when the WC was only once every 3 years so it seems odd that Anand doesnt seem to be able to enjoy the title even a year before he has to defend it again......what other WC ever had to defend it so soon ?


I think Capablanca had to defend against Lasker after in 1919 or something like that a year after being champ.


 In their time there was a rematch clause for the defending WC if he lost, the next year. However they did away with the rematch when Petrosian defeated Botvinnik and Botvinnik retired. Anand won it in Mexico City earlier this year and then plays Kramnik a few months later so he didnt even get to wait a year. Keep in mind also that Kramnik didnt legitimately qualify to play Kasparov as he lost the match to Shirov to determine Kasparov's challenger so how did Kramnik get to play him ? Did Kaspy hand pick Kramnik?  Did FIDE ?

cheater_1

I'd like to ammend when I said that the US will never see another Bobby Fischer to: There is a 99% chance that we will never see another Bobby Fischer. Never say never. Don't bet on it though.

myuselessid

This is complete BS.  I played Super Dodgeball on the old Nintendo Entertainment System and beat countries from all over the world and therefore became a WORLD CHAMPION!!!  I beat the Chinese, Russians, Indians, British; all of them.

armchairQB
Kingfisher wrote:
Duffer1965 wrote:

I don't think that the point about athletes is unique to America. David Beckham being just one example that jumps to mind. The adoration of Brazilians for Ayrton Senna was probably much greater than anything I've seen by Americans for any sports figure in my life. If this phenomenon is a harbinger of doom, then I'd say there are no safe countries.

The other points are well taken, but you have to be careful about assuming that everyone is equally bad.

My complaint about this post is its pettiness. When one imagines the calamities that will befall the world as the United States becomes weaker and weaker is not producing an American world chess champion even in the top 150? When you think about America's dwindling influence in Asia and China's surging power, does Tianmen Square come to mind, or just that a Chinese player no doubt will be world champion before an American. In light of the recent Russian military action against democratic -- and non-corrupt -- Georgia, is the US's inability to constrain Putin's empire really less important than America's inability to field a champion contender the likes of Kramnik?

I'm a pretty pessimistic guy, but I try to keep my pessimism in perspective. If we want to gnash our teeth and wail, and we should, lets do it for things that really matter.


Georgia, non-corrupt and democracy in the same sentence? I guess you have to be an american to say something like that.

The Georgian regime is far more opressive than Putin and in fact has a lower popular support. As far as corruption goes, Georgian president recently moved into a new bilion dollar mansion while Putin is still living in his old daca. The only "democratic" thing about Georgia is it's troops "spreading freedom" in Iraq. Guess that's democratic enough by the Bush standard...

Though I understand, really. The ammount of propaganda that your goverment is using on you is unbelieveable.


The words democracy and corrupt belong in the same sentence.  The US was never intended to be a democracy.  We were set up as a constitutional republic where the founding fathers detested democracy (and by the way, before anyone gets uber-offended, democracy means more than just the ability to elect, its the mechanics of democracy at question). A democracy allows 50.1% to dictate to the remaining 49.9%.  Our republic was established to allow freedom to all without even 99% able to dictate to 1% as long as the 1% were not harming others or infringing on other's rights.  In fact, the word democracy is never used one time in the constitution or the declaration of independence. 

Benjamin Franklin had no love for democracy, quipping, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." John Adams, second President of the U.S., opined that a democracy would be doomed: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that didn't commit suicide." When the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Benjamin Franklin was asked, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."  It appears we haven't and what's worse is we don't even know it was taken from us.

skeptical_moves
myuselessid wrote:

This is complete BS.  I played Super Dodgeball on the old Nintendo Entertainment System and beat countries from all over the world and therefore became a WORLD CHAMPION!!!  I beat the Chinese, Russians, Indians, British; all of them.


LOL!!! I love that game! hahahaha

goldendog
AnthonyCG wrote:
Reb wrote:

I still dont understand why Kramnik was given two bites at the apple? I mean , the winner of Mexico City had to play Kramnik , IF Kramnik doesnt win it ofcourse so why let Kramnik play in Mexico City anyway ? It just seems to me that fide shows favoritism towards Kramnik ( and even Topalov) to the disadvantage of Anand. I grew up in a time when the WC was only once every 3 years so it seems odd that Anand doesnt seem to be able to enjoy the title even a year before he has to defend it again......what other WC ever had to defend it so soon ?


I think Capablanca had to defend against Lasker after in 1919 or something like that a year after being champ.


 

Naw. Never happened.

WilliamDupree

The world of English Literature only had one William Shakespeare and the world of chess only had one Bobby Fischer.There probably will be another American world champion chess player but he won't match Fischer.Neither did anyone else.

dsalvino

The article is mostly a collection of cliches.  The real reason we are unlikely to have an American chess champion is that there are far more lucrative and rewarding pursuits than a board game available to the highly intelligent and ambitious youngsters in this country.  And there are plenty of those.

TFC

Sorry, but I disagree.  America has a challenge before it with respect to chess, because it's just not a popular game, so the talent pool is smaller.  The other issues you write about, obesity, laziness, entitlement, etc., while perhaps true, are ultimately irrelevant to the question posed.  If this weren't the case, following your logic, Americans wouldn't be good at anything at all.

Escapest_Pawn

Russians can be the laziest status-grubbing entitled obese drunks you will ever meet. Not all, but enough to make a BS generality out of it.

Americans can and often do train hard and become champions in track and field, swimming, all kinds of ball games, figure skating and an endless list of others.

Morphy would have probably been champion if Staunton hadn't ducked him.

I had a friend in High School who went around saying "All generalities are false" so often he got boring.

There are lots of smart athletes.

We seem to forget that this is a cheater post. The only  "truthfulness" worth mentioning is that for him, offensiveness is socializing.

JingoLinx

What a wonderful discussion!

Particularly liked Cheater1's remark Americans 'have a good points'. Classic.

I also agree with Maradonna's point about money.For most Americans I have met over the years money is the most important factor in their lives. They would not take-up chess as a career if the financial benefits were not much greater than they actually are.

It's probably time the U.S. did what they did with football and cricket and replaced them with stupid games that they can win at because firstly, no-one else much wants to play and secondly, if they DO want to play, the Americans won't give them the ball. The Baseball World Series indeed. How we laugh!

ozzie_c_cobblepot

MLB American League > MLB National League > Japanese League

This forum topic has been locked