Does Chess Still Matter?

[Dazz]

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/09/23/chess-sinquefield-cup-st-louis

Does Chess Still Matter?

A young grandmaster just did the impossible at a top chess tournament. No one paid attention. Does chess still matter?

Once upon a time, chess – the game of kings – was huge in America. Bobby Fischer was world champ, and the chess champ of the world was on the cover of Time, Sports Illustrated. Then the Cold War ended, video games moved in, and chess went off the radar. Maybe we should bring it back. There is incredible stuff going on in the world of chess, and around it. Aliens, oligarchs, Norwegians, Las Vegas, Vladimir Putin and an Italian superstar named Fabiano. This hour On Point: Checkmate. The wild, wonderful — and these days, much-ignored — world of chess.

– Tom Ashbrook

[oca]

Whow, following your Link, on the picture, he looks very concentrated...

[DrStraw]

Well, first of all, he did not do the impossible. If it were impossible then he would not have done it. But you don't say what impossible thing he is supposed to have done, so it is a moot point anyway.

To answer your question I would have to ask if it ever mattered.

[gowan]

Well, could this be related to a general shortening of attention span? You posted this on a go message board which means you are, or someone on your staff is, familiar with the game of go. It seems to me that the increasing "electronicization" of the world is leading to a general expectation of rapid response and in the process things that require long concentration, like championship chess, will become more and more niche activities not appreciated by the general public. On Facebook I "liked" the US Postal Service which posts messages encouraging people to write more letters. Letter writing has been replaced with text messages and tweets, and the depth of thought and feeling necessary to write a reasonably long letter is lost.

People who post on these boards are involved in the game of go which is quite similar to chess in level of concentration needed to play well. We see a trend toward faster time limits for games, possibly due to pressure from sponsors who want more public exposure. I wonder whether other "mind games" are experiencing this sort of thing. Is there a decline, for example, in interest in bridge? Are fewer people reading books? Listening to pieces of music that last more than a minute or two?

[Mike Novack]

Maybe the result of an ultra short view of history?

1) When I was growing up before the most modern part of the electronic age chess was not particularly popular among the general population. OK, some subcultures where it was and people there might be able to tell you who was current world champion, etc. Sorry, but chess was perceived of as being "slow" even in the days when we did our calculations with slide rules.

2) There have been other spectacular tournament results in the history of chess.

3) Has this young grandmaster played any matches and how did he fare in those? Those who know all the grandmasters for "2" will know why I am asking this. One of the top grandmasters of all time never did well in matches.

[Bantari]

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/09/23/chess-sinquefield-cup-st-louis

Does Chess Still Matter?

A young grandmaster just did the impossible at a top chess tournament. No one paid attention. Does chess still matter?

Once upon a time, chess – the game of kings – was huge in America. Bobby Fischer was world champ, and the chess champ of the world was on the cover of Time, Sports Illustrated. Then the Cold War ended, video games moved in, and chess went off the radar. Maybe we should bring it back. There is incredible stuff going on in the world of chess, and around it. Aliens, oligarchs, Norwegians, Las Vegas, Vladimir Putin and an Italian superstar named Fabiano. This hour On Point: Checkmate. The wild, wonderful — and these days, much-ignored — world of chess.

– Tom Ashbrook

Did chess ever mattered? Did Go? Did any other board game? Or any other game, period?
I guess to those who cared, it did. To everybody else, it did not. Just like everything else. Not sure what all the fuss is.

For all we know, there might be something equally "impossible" to be happening in, for example, curling right now. Or renju, if we are to stay with board games. Do you care? Does anybody?

I tell you - the only time chess "mattered" was for political reasons, not for chess reasons. It was in the old USSR and during the brief Fisher-episode in the US. That's it!

[Joaz Banbeck]

Chess only matters as a stepping stone to teaching people to play go.

EDIT: Someone ought to teach this Caruana guy how to play go. He might be good at it.

[gowan]

Before the Bobby Fischer era chess did not "matter" very much in the USA. It became important because of the Cold War between the USA and USSR. The USSR had the best players in the world and gave a lot of government support to chess, providing chess programs in schools and out-of school youth activities, sponsoring teachers, etc. They claimed the USSR chess superiority was a symbol of the superiority of the USSR Communist ideology. When Fischer came along, and it was clear that he could compete on even terms with the Soviet grandmasters, the USA started its own propaganda campaign and encouraging US youths to play and "beat the Communists". As the Soviet Union neared political collapse, the Soviet domination of the chess world also ended. I think chess was so strong in the USSR (and other Eastern European Communist countries) because playing chess offered a way to escape the crushing atmosphere of repression under the Communist system. The best players could even leave the country to play in tournaments. Once the system lightened up chess became less important in the Soviet Union.

[Mike Novack]

Before the Bobby Fischer era chess did not "matter" very much in the USA. It became important because of the Cold War between the USA and USSR. The USSR had the best players in the world and gave a lot of government support to chess, providing chess programs in schools and out-of school youth activities, sponsoring teachers, etc. They claimed the USSR chess superiority was a symbol of the superiority of the USSR Communist ideology. When Fischer came along and it was clear that he could compete on even terms with the Soviet grandmasters the USA started its own propaganda campaign and encouraging US youths to play and "beat the Communists". As the Soviet Union neared political collapse, the Soviet domination of the chess world also ended. I think chess was so strong in the USSR (and other Eastern European Communist countries) because playing chess offered a way to escape the crushing atmosphere of repression under the Communist system. The best players could even leave the country to play in tournaments. Once the system lightened up chess became less important in the Soviet Union.

Boy, you're as bad as them. Again, HISTORY (chess history) and cultural differences.

You are acting as if there was no chess prior to WW II. Look at where the contestants in the AVRO (1938) came from. Now I was born in '45 and wasn't that old when Fisher took the title so the Soviet "domination" wasn't of all that long duration. Just the post WW II period till Fisher. What I suggest is that you take a look at the list of world champions from 1917 (start of the Soviet Union) to the breakup, considering how long each individual held the title. Still look like the Soviet Union was all that dominant all that long?

And sorry, but Eastern Europeans, Russians, Georgians, etc. didn't take up chess to escape the oppression. They had always played chess. That is why so many good players turn up. Over here, only some kids ever learned the game. There, not knowing how to play chess would be unusual.

[gowan]

Before the Bobby Fischer era chess did not "matter" very much in the USA. It became important because of the Cold War between the USA and USSR. The USSR had the best players in the world and gave a lot of government support to chess, providing chess programs in schools and out-of school youth activities, sponsoring teachers, etc. They claimed the USSR chess superiority was a symbol of the superiority of the USSR Communist ideology. When Fischer came along and it was clear that he could compete on even terms with the Soviet grandmasters the USA started its own propaganda campaign and encouraging US youths to play and "beat the Communists". As the Soviet Union neared political collapse, the Soviet domination of the chess world also ended. I think chess was so strong in the USSR (and other Eastern European Communist countries) because playing chess offered a way to escape the crushing atmosphere of repression under the Communist system. The best players could even leave the country to play in tournaments. Once the system lightened up chess became less important in the Soviet Union.

Boy, you're as bad as them. Again, HISTORY (chess history) and cultural differences.

You are acting as if there was no chess prior to WW II. Look at where the contestants in the AVRO (1938) came from. Now I was born in '45 and wasn't that old when Fisher took the title so the Soviet "domination" wasn't of all that long duration. Just the post WW II period till Fisher. What I suggest is that you take a look at the list of world champions from 1917 (start of the Soviet Union) to the breakup, considering how long each individual held the title. Still look like the Soviet Union was all that dominant all that long?

And sorry, but Eastern Europeans, Russians, Georgians, etc. didn't take up chess to escape the oppression. They had always played chess. That is why so many good players turn up. Over here, only some kids ever learned the game. There, not knowing how to play chess would be unusual.

Of course chess existed in the USSR and the world prior to WW II. That was not my point. My point referred to the political struggle between the two countries and how the USSR used chess as a propaganda tool, bringing on a desire in the USA to "beat the Communists". See the article exerpt: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=s ... stein.html

[Dazz]

Well, first of all, he did not do the impossible. If it were impossible then he would not have done it. But you don't say what impossible thing he is supposed to have done, so it is a moot point anyway.

To answer your question I would have to ask if it ever mattered.

I did not write the promotional blurb for the radio program. I simply shared the link for those that may be interested in a significant achievement in Chess. I think that there are many analogues between Chess and Go and therefore discussions about one or the other will often be of interest to players of either game.

It is hyperbole when he uses the word impossible. It is not meant to be taken as a purely logical statement. Language is used in many ways and it should be intuitively obvious how the writer is using the word impossible.

[DrStraw]

Well, first of all, he did not do the impossible. If it were impossible then he would not have done it. But you don't say what impossible thing he is supposed to have done, so it is a moot point anyway.

To answer your question I would have to ask if it ever mattered.

I did not write the promotional blurb for the radio program. I simply shared the link for those that may be interested in a significant achievement in Chess. I think that there are many analogues between Chess and Go and therefore discussions about one or the other will often be of interest to players of either game.

It is hyperbole when he uses the word impossible. It is not meant to be taken as a purely logical statement. Language is used in many ways and it should be intuitively obvious how the writer is using the word impossible.

Ah! I took the words to be your own because you did not put them in a quote block. When you are attributing words to another it is normal to do so.

[Jonasd]

I tried to get into chess briefly, mostly because it seems everyone knows how to play and it is difficult to find people in the real world to play Go with (here in the US, anyway). Also there is a glut of books on chess available in every bookstore, and it is rare to find a single one on Go (I enjoy reading about games almost as much as playing them) but, my interest was short-lived.

Chess seems so arbitrary. I don't know why this should make it any less interesting to me, but it does. I feel like 'why should I spend so much time and effort learning and studying this game that someone just... made up'. I know, of course, Go is made up too. But it somehow feels almost axiomatic, compared to chess. I feel that if human history were to be erased, and start again from scratch, chess would have almost zero chance of being invented again, and Go would have almost 100% chance of being invented again. Chess feels like a product of man, Go feels like a product of the universe.

[Uberdude]

You are not the only one to think that. Edward Lasker, chess player and co-founder of the American Go Association (not to be confused with Emmanuel Lasker world chess champion who was a distant relative) said something like:

"The rules of go are so elegant, organic and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe they almost certainly play go."

[Bantari]

You are not the only one to think that. Edward Lasker, chess player and co-founder of the American Go Association (not to be confused with Emmanuel Lasker world chess champion who was a distant relative) said something like:

"The rules of go are so elegant, organic and rigorously logical that if intelligent life forms exist elsewhere in the universe they almost certainly play go."

Clearly a proof that he never met RJ.