by marvellosity
You're missing the point. The question isn't whether they are able to represent their country (of course they are), the question is whether the country is producing the players. Clearly if they're only naturalised then the country has not produced them, which is the debate at hand.
You're missing the point. The question isn't whether they are able to represent their country (of course they are), the question is whether the country is producing the players. Clearly if they're only naturalised then the country has not produced them, which is the debate at hand.
The only country I know of that actually "produces" chess players is Russia, in which authorities directly aid and assist promising players.But that still doesn't mean that Russians per se are better than non-Russians. I could equally put forth the ludicrous claim that Jews make better chess players since nearly 50% of all the World Champion (and all-time strongest players are of Jewish decent. There is simply no scientific connection.
The relevant question is not where they were born but where their chess skills were formed...
As I mentioned above, this would be correct only for Russia. All other geographical locations have no relevance whatsoever concerning how good/poor a player is.
About the American example, I don't view Reshevsky as being representative of the American chess either.
Of course he isn't, because there is no such thing as "American chess", "Israeli chess", "Russian chess", or whatever. Even national teams representing their countries in the Olympiad are composed of players possessing a variety of styles and preferences and do not represent any national "school of chess."
They probably thought it was too Western of a game. Fellow Iranians on chess.com, what was it?
I'm fairly sure chess originated in the east, wikipedia says it is commonly believed it started in north-east India which probably means in the east somewhere