New York Times Chess Related Editorials

A piece by IM Jennifer Shahade on what she thinks the chess community could learn from the poker scene that was sent to me by a close friend in NYC.

The issue of how to attract more cash into the chess scene in the U.S. that IM Jennifer Shahade raises is definitely an important one since sound finances are critical for hosting comfortable events and maintaining the existence of those chess professionals who make their living off of the game so her piece deserves attention.

"Chess tournaments, which are now closed gatherings of devotees, should include more basic commentary and instruction."

This would be a great way of providing introductory material to those who were intrigued by the goings on of a chess tournament they happened upon but had not previously been exposed to even the most basic rudiments of competitive chess.This provision of more basic instructional material shouldn't detract from the primary emphasis of ensuring a smooth and comfortable tournament for those already participating in the game but it could be possible to make sure that both of these concerns were taken care of.

"Funny, lively announcers can make the moves dramatic - and there's no question that chess is full of eccentric and engaging characters with made-for-TV stories."

This would certainly portray chess in a far more lively manner and wouldn't be a bad idea to implement as long as a desire to dramatize the game didn't lead to a watering down of the complexities that were occurring on the board in favor of flashy flair.

"Make its tournaments more exciting. Poker tournaments, the center of the poker boom, are "knockouts," meaning that players are eliminated one by one until the champion has all the chips. Most chess tournaments are now arranged so that everyone keeps playing till the end, and whoever amasses the most points is champion. "

I can see how this kind of tournament structure would lead to a more exciting atmosphere and a more climatic finish but I wouldn't want it to become the only way in which chess tournaments were organized since I wouldn't always want to play in events where one loss would lead to my expulsion from further play.I propose that any significant increase of cash into U.S. chess should be used to organize a variety of tournaments that cater to the differing tastes among chess enthusiasts from aficionados of blitz play to those with a penchant for longer time controls such as G/60 or G/120 as well as varied tournament structures from knockouts to traditional round robins or swiss systems.It will ultimately be up to individual chess players to decide what kind of events they want to fork their cash over too and this will have an influence on the nature of the events organized.I don't completely share IM Shadade's conviction that knockout events are the way to go but I do share her desire to see more fanfare for the sport of chess and a greater influx of cash to maintain the occupation of chess professional as an economically feasible option.

My father sent me this piece on sex appeal in chess.

It contains a link to a website that hosts a World Chess Beauty Contest but the focus is only on female players.

A suggestion I'd make to those with an interest in constructing rankings of chessplayers based on physical attractiveness would be to have a site that ranked the best looking among male chessplayers for the benefit of female or gay enthusiasts of the game.

I don't view such contests as particularly important in advancing chess but I'd make the above suggestion for those who think otherwise and wish to conduct such affairs.I don't wish to imply that chess players can't be considered good looking or that I am without any kind of sexuality but simply that it's not integral to the value of the game to trump up physical appearances.