Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Canal Park
    Joined
    13 Sep '20
    Moves
    8644
    22 Nov '20 03:23
    @duchess64 said
    Chess is already more popular in some societies that don't have NetFlix.
    But American chess players tend to seem desperate about chess getting any
    attention in American pop culture.
    Following along the conversation as we have been watching the series too. This statement is a bit confusing.

    There are plenty of American chess players in our social circles and of course lots of card playing and talking between rounds at OTB tournaments (Sheepshead anyone?). There is zero conversation about chess in pop culture. It never comes up.

    Not sure which American players "seem to be desperate". Desperate is kind of a provocative term - not sure what you are going for there. Seem to be interested? That would not be overly surprising and certainly would not imply any negative connotation.
  2. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Nov '20 03:311 edit
    @they said
    Following along the conversation as we have been watching the series too. This statement is a bit confusing.

    There are plenty of American chess players in our social circles and of course lots of card playing and talking between rounds at OTB tournaments (Sheepshead anyone?). There is zero conversation about chess in pop culture. It never comes up.

    Not sure which America ...[text shortened]... erested? That would not be overly surprising and certainly would not imply any negative connotation.
    American chess players tend to have a 'knee-jerk' reflex of praising any American
    film or television miniseries on chess as long as it does not absolutely rubbish chess.
    Because these films are so scarce, American chess players may feel that their creators
    must be encouraged by uncritical praise and admiration.
    My point is that they don't apply the same critical standards to films on chess that
    they would to films on other subjects.

    I have not watched the television miniseries. From what I have read of reviews,
    it seems to be a generally faithful adaptation of the novel. I have a low opinion of
    the novel (which I read long ago). Walter Tevis did not understand the world of
    high level chess or the gender dynamics of chess in late 1950s-early 1960s.
  3. Canal Park
    Joined
    13 Sep '20
    Moves
    8644
    22 Nov '20 03:47
    @duchess64 said
    American chess players tend to have a 'knee-jerk' reflex of praising any American
    film or television miniseries on chess as long as it does not absolutely rubbish chess.
    Because these films are so scarce, American chess players may feel that their creators
    must be encouraged by uncritical praise and admiration.
    My point is that they don't apply the same critical standar ...[text shortened]... understand the world of
    high level chess or the gender dynamics of chess in late 1950s-early 1960s.
    There are millions of Americans who play chess - men, women, children, grandparents, orphans, twins, triplets, only children, middle children, single, married, divorced.

    American chess players tend to? They may feel? These statements are offensive and completely unnecessary.

    We can discuss pop culture without lumping millions of people as having a knee-jerk reflex. It is simply not true. Maybe we should stick to what we actually know instead of mocking and criticizing complete strangers.
  4. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Nov '20 04:352 edits
    @they said
    There are millions of Americans who play chess - men, women, children, grandparents, orphans, twins, triplets, only children, middle children, single, married, divorced.

    American chess players tend to? They may feel? These statements are offensive and completely unnecessary.

    We can discuss pop culture without lumping millions of people as having a knee-jerk reflex. It is ...[text shortened]... aybe we should stick to what we actually know instead of mocking and criticizing complete strangers.
    What I mean by 'American chess players' are players serious enough to join
    and regularly participate in chess clubs or to enter officially rated tournaments.
    Many more Americans may have tried to play a casual game of chess, often being
    ignorant of the rules and thus making illegal moves. (I have observed this.)

    (I don't consider myself a tennis player. I have, however, occasionally whacked a
    tennis ball across a net when my friends needed another person to play doubles.)

    It's no secret that chess culture is less developed in the USA than in some other societies.
    Someone who's less defensive and insecure than 'they' might accept that reality.
  5. Joined
    22 Sep '20
    Moves
    1984
    22 Nov '20 04:44
    North America is too distracted with a faster pace of life to care about chess.

    Yes we do get overly excited when we see chess in movies or on TV.
  6. SubscriberEarl of Trumps
    Pawn Whisperer
    My Kingdom fora Pawn
    Joined
    09 Jan '19
    Moves
    6397
    22 Nov '20 06:42
    @Cheesemaster

    If we slow down for baseball, chess is a piece o' cake
  7. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Nov '20 06:501 edit
    @cheesemaster said
    North America is too distracted with a faster pace of life to care about chess.

    Yes we do get overly excited when we see chess in movies or on TV.
    A rapid game of chess is finished within one hour.
    The pace of play has not deterred corporations from sponsoring televised golf.
    Baseball, basketball, football, and hockey games usually last 2-3 hours, sometimes longer.
  8. Joined
    22 Sep '20
    Moves
    1984
    22 Nov '20 17:521 edit
    @duchess64 said
    A rapid game of chess is finished within one hour.
    The pace of play has not deterred corporations from sponsoring televised golf.
    Baseball, basketball, football, and hockey games usually last 2-3 hours, sometimes longer.
    Those sports you mentioned have the ability to generate revenue.

    You need to buy equipment and clothing to play those sports and you need a course or a field.
    That means regular people have to pay to play.
    So sponsors or companies compete for your cash.
    Golf clubs and clothing is expensive and you have to pay to use the course.
    Pay a pro golfer an endorsement contract while he wears our clothing and uses our golf clubs and people will go out and buy that equipment.

    The same parameters apply to the other sports as well.

    Anybody can buy a decent tournament chess set for 10 bucks and play anywhere so why would big money sponsors spend money on chess?
    There is no financial return other than a potential revenue from advertising.
    (Like when chess players wear those dumb jackets with multiple sponsors on it)

    Also, people that suck at sports can still get enjoyment by watching the event.
    Even dumb people can understand sports.

    Do you think people who suck at chess want to watch a 6 hour game of chess that they couldn't possibly understand?
    Even worse is the fast games where it is too fast for them to even realize what is going on.

    Chess was never a big deal in North America.
    Fischer vs Spassky was big because of the cold war and not the chess.
  9. SubscriberEarl of Trumps
    Pawn Whisperer
    My Kingdom fora Pawn
    Joined
    09 Jan '19
    Moves
    6397
    22 Nov '20 18:55
    @Cheesemaster

    ain't buying it.

    the US was a world power in chess because a lot of enlightened people played.
    the US turned out a world champion (by acclaim) in Paul Morphy, and that does not really happen in a society that has no care for the game.
  10. Joined
    22 Sep '20
    Moves
    1984
    22 Nov '20 19:071 edit
    @Earl-of-Trumps

    Paul Morphy was against money being involved in chess 😉
    And that was almost 200 years ago!

    If you had said Fischer 1972 it would have been more convincing.
  11. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Nov '20 19:13
    @cheesemaster said
    Those sports you mentioned have the ability to generate revenue.

    You need to buy equipment and clothing to play those sports and you need a course or a field.
    That means regular people have to pay to play.
    So sponsors or companies compete for your cash.
    Golf clubs and clothing is expensive and you have to pay to use the course.
    Pay a pro golfer an endorsement cont ...[text shortened]... a big deal in North America.
    Fischer vs Spassky was big because of the cold war and not the chess.
    The claim that corporations sponsor only sports that require expensive equipment is wrong.

    Football (soccer) is the world's most popular sport and requires only a ball and an area to play.
    Basketball requires only a ball and a hoop (or two) to play.

    Why do corporations use chess (with the pieces often set up incorrectly) as background in print advertisements?
    Because many people associate chess with intelligence, sophistication, and 'class'.
  12. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Nov '20 19:181 edit
    @earl-of-trumps said
    @Cheesemaster

    ain't buying it.

    the US was a world power in chess because a lot of enlightened people played.
    the US turned out a world champion (by acclaim) in Paul Morphy, and that does not really happen in a society that has no care for the game.
    Paul Morphy felt that the USA of his time did not respect his ability to play chess.
    He preferred not to speak of it, feeling it was better to say that he had inherited money.
    There's a rumor (many rumors about Morphy) that he proposed marriage and a
    young lady rejected him because she would not wed a 'mere chess player'.

    It's wrong to say that the USA has no chess culture. But chess never has become a
    part of mass culture like it did in the USSR. The closest that it did was in the 'Fischer boom'.

    My impression is that Americans tend to stereotype chess champions as 'weird' (at best).
    The most famous American chess champion was Bobby Fischer.
  13. Joined
    22 Sep '20
    Moves
    1984
    22 Nov '20 19:20
    @Duchess64

    Soccer and basketball are easy for dumb people to follow.

    Chess isn't.

    The myth that chess ability means intelligence is a misconception that will probably always exist.

    Chess will never see the day where it matches the sponsorship like other sports.
    At least not in North America.
  14. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    22 Nov '20 19:25
    @cheesemaster said
    @Duchess64

    Soccer and basketball are easy for dumb people to follow.

    Chess isn't.

    The myth that chess ability means intelligence is a misconception that will probably always exist.

    Chess will never see the day where it matches the sponsorship like other sports.
    At least not in North America.
    "The myth that chess ability means intelligence is a misconception that will probably always exist."
    --Cheesemaster

    A drawback is that many people assume that chess is too difficult for them to learn.
    Some people say something like 'This situation is like chess (complex), not checkers (simple)."

    I knew a woman mathematician (Ph.D. from a famous university) who lacked the
    confidence to try learning chess. She assumed that it would be too hard for her.
Back to Top