|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > January 2005 > Braunlich's article, "Scholastics and the Soul of Chess"
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Braunlich's article, "Scholastics and the Soul of Chess"
|
|
| Petrel 2005-01-13, 12:45 am |
| This article came up in the "Potential Issues in the EB Election" thread,
but I am taking the liberty of starting a new thread and copying my reply
from the other thread into this one. I had thought that this article,
written in June, MUST have been thoroughly discussed here months ago.
Apparently that's not true. Unless Google is badly misleading me, this
article has not been so much as mentioned in any rgc* USENET group AT ALL
until now. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it deserves some
exposure.
p>
"Parrthenon" <parrthenon@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20050112221050.11408.00000075@mb-m10.news.cs.com...
quote:
>
> For another look at this looming issue, see THE SCHOLASTIC BOOM on 1/10/05
> at
> worldchessnetwork.com
>
> http://www.tentonhammer.com/gamezon...hod=LoadPage&Re
> sourceCode=WCNNewsStory&NewsItemCode=EvansOnChess_050110&NewsCategoryCode=
> EvansOnChess&SessionToken=
Thanks, Larry... for those who cut and paste this gigantic URL and find
Evans' column, it mentions the arguments of an article by Tom Braunlich
titled "Scholastics and the Soul of Chess: Is Scholastic Chess Killing
Tournament Chess, or Saving It?". Evans doesn't seem to think this is a big
issue if I read him right. At any right, unfortunately Evans does not give
any link to the Braunlich article itself. Maybe everyone read it back in
July though. It seems to be missing from some of the places it was
originally linked from, but I found it in a .pdf file here, for the benefit
of others who may have missed it::
http://members.fullnet.net/smwharry...ul_of_Chess.pdf
I found Braunlich's article quite insightful, and though I don't agree with
him on every philosophical point I think his organizational points are very
well made. Actually I remember coming up with some similar thoughts
independently here a while back, mainly along the lines of the difference in
socialization between what Braunlich calls the old-style junior, who made
his or her own way to "adult" chess clubs and events and learned to manage
his/her chess life independently, and today's "scholastic" who is basically
involved in "school activities" and is no more likely to go on with it than
the average high school baseball player is.
Sorry if this is bringing up a topic which got done to death by everyone
back in the summer.
p>
| |
| Paul Rubin 2005-01-13, 12:45 am |
| "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> writes:
quote:
>
> Thanks, Larry... for those who cut and paste this gigantic URL
You can instead use
http://tinyurl.com/5h5mo
to save yourself some pasting.
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-13, 6:45 am |
| "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote ...
quote:
> This article came up in the "Potential Issues in the EB Election" thread,
> but I am taking the liberty of starting a new thread and copying my reply
> from the other thread into this one. I had thought that this article,
> written in June, MUST have been thoroughly discussed here months ago.
> Apparently that's not true. Unless Google is badly misleading me, this
> article has not been so much as mentioned in any rgc* USENET group AT ALL
> until now. Whether you agree with it or not, I think it deserves some
> exposure.
Braunlich's article was extensively discussed by the Scholastic Council and
guests (including me) at the 2004 Annual Meeting in Florida.
The members of the Scholastic Council, of course, didn't like the article,
because they found it critical of scholastic chess.
I found the article interesting, well-researched, and thought-provoking, but
I didn't think it proved any major points, and I did think it had some
important flaws.
For example, the author seems to lump together scholastic chess with soccer,
baseball, etc. as examples of youth activities that kids drop as they get
older. This is part of his argument that scholastic chess is essentially
unlike adult chess and has no impact on adult chess.
The author fails to point out, kids involved in scholastic chess do have the
realistic option of continuing (or returning to) the activity as adults,
which is not the case with many other youth activities. Therefore it can't
be bad to expose a large number of kids to the game, even if we know in
advance that the vast majority will never play rated chess as adults.
Even if most scholastic chessplayers don't play the game seriously as
adults, they could if they wanted to, and no doubt some do. Meanwhile, they
have been exposed to the game, which means when they are adults they will be
able to play casual games with other adults in social settings, and they
will be in a position to pass on the game to their own kids, and to their
nephews/nieces/grandchildren/neighbor kids/what-have-you. They will also be
more interested when chess is featured in the news. All this activity and
interest helps to keep chess alive in our culture, even if not all chess is
played with the high seriousness the author seems to demand.
However, it stands to reason, to me anyway, the more chess we have in our
culture, the more serious rated adult chess we are likely to have. This
seems to be what the author thinks is important, so in my opinion he ought
to be happy about the existence of large scholastic chess programs, even if
the core values of those programs differ greatly from what he believes the
core values of "real chessplayers" ought to be: he cites Fischer and
Nakamura with approval for their uncompromising competitive play.
Personally, I think the old Indian saying, "Chess is an ocean in which an
elephant can bathe and a gnat can swim," suggests the right way for us to
think. Braunlich even cites this saying, but thinks there are too many
gnats, and apparently wants everyone to be an elephant, or at least to
strive to be an elephant.
I think his article is a value judgment masquerading as a logical argument.
Other people's values may differ from his, and therefore they may fail to
see a problem even if they agree with many of the facts (or anecdotal
evidence) he presents.
One area where I think the author makes a reasonable anecdotal case that a
problem exists is in dues. I have believed for years that scholastic dues
were too low and were hurting the USCF. A longtime poster to this newsgroup,
Bruce Draney, went so far as to predict USCF's demise if membership ever
reached 100,000, because of his belief that USCF was losing money on
scholastic members. However, it turns out to be not so easy to prove this.
Many scholastic chess advocates point to the offsetting profits generated by
national scholastic events. They also argue that book & equipment sales to
kids (and their parents) generate large offsetting profits. I have yet to
see any cogent set of numbers proving either side of this argument. Because
the argument is so complicated and convincing data are lacking, I would
rather keep things simple by making sure scholastic dues are profitable, AND
national scholastic events are profitable, AND sales of books & equipment
are profitable. Then we are sure to end up with profits overall, rather than
complicated arguments involving possible losses in one area offset by
possible profits in other areas. But even my keep-it-simple attitude towards
finances, I must admit, is a value judgment. It works for me but other
people may prefer more sophisticated financial models.
There is also another important--I may even say very important--way of
looking at USCF finances that almost renders the issue of scholastic dues
moot. USCF's large financial losses in the last decade can often be linked
to specific bad business decisions unrelated to dues (though some were
related to dues). If USCF Executive Directors and USCF Executive Boards had
not squandered so much money through simple mismanagement year after year,
we would probably not all be so concerned about dues levels today. But a
hundred thousand dollars wasted here, and a hunderd thousand dollars wasted
there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money, in our little
world.
Tim Hanke
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-13, 6:45 am |
|
"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NOedndp0zbV2iXvcRVn-1g@comcast.com...
quote:
> I found the article interesting, well-researched, and thought-provoking,
> but I didn't think it proved any major points, and I did think it had some
> important flaws.
I am taking the liberty of moving a couple of Tim's sentences around for the
sake of logical structure.
I commend Tim for his even-handed and thoughtful response. And I agree with
him that at least SOME of the article is about differences in values between
him and (some) educators/scholastic organizers about the importance of
competition and so on. However, I think he is rather missing Braunlich's
actual point. Tim writes as if Braunlich thinks scholastic chess is a "bad
thing" pure and simple:
quote:
> Therefore it can't be bad to expose a large number of kids to the game,
> even if we know in advance that the vast majority will never play rated
> chess as adults. [and]
quote:
> in my opinion he ought to be happy about the existence of large scholastic
> chess programs, even if the core values of those programs differ greatly
> from what he believes the core values of "real chessplayers" ought to be.
But I don't think that he is saying at all that scholastic chess is "bad" or
that he is unhappy about its "existence". What he more or less explicitly
says is that scholastic chess is OK, but that its interests are not the same
as that of OTB players/organizers, and that it's problematic for the leading
OTB tournament organizers/players and the scholastic organizers to be trying
to accomplish their divergent ends using the same organization (the USCF).
I read him as favoring the establishment of a national scholastic
organization which would certainly keep scholastic chess in existence, but
under management separate from the USCF. That is how I read his baseball
analogy where he says that the USCF's scholastic chess operations are as if
Major League Baseball were also trying to run the Little League. Obviously
there is a lot of room for saying that the USCF is different from Major
League Baseball, etc., but I think you can see the point. Is there any
other organization which is trying to involve itself in all the affairs of a
competitive activity both at the level of adult professional players and
also at the level of schoolchildren?
I will even extend his point a little farther. Braunlich raises the issue
of how scholastic ratings would be handled if scholastic chess were broken
away from the USCF, and he suggests that the scholastic organizers could
either rate games themselves or outsource them. My observation is that, IF
we were to get away from the idea that the USCF can only rate games of its
own members, THEN there is no reason that the USCF could not rate them after
all, WITHOUT the requirement that all children involved in scholastic chess
have to be USCF members.
Earlier in his response, Tim writes,
quote:
> For example, the author seems to lump together scholastic chess with
> soccer, baseball, etc. as examples of youth activities that kids drop as
> they get older. [...] The author fails to point out, kids involved in
> scholastic chess do have the realistic option of continuing (or returning
> to) the activity as adults, which is not the case with many other youth
> activities.
Let's stop and think about that for a second. Why, after all, don't adult
amateurs in the US play soccer, North American football, baseball, etc.?
They play soccer in Europe. Let's not forget that ALL of these sports
originated as adult pastimes, and were introduced into the schools. You
might argue that it is because these are all team sports and it requires the
work of an organizer to manage the team and schedule league games. Well,
there are individual competitive sports too - wrestling for example. Why
don't all the people who were on wrestling teams in high school and college
go on and found wrestling clubs and go and wrestle with each other after
work? Yes, it sounds silly, but why? In Abraham Lincoln's time you had
adults wrestling with each other all the time for sport.
I think there are at least two parts to the answer, but I can't prove their
relative contribution. The first part is that our social organization has
changed from what it was in Abraham Lincoln's time. We don't live in
village society any more - most of us. We do different kinds of work, we
commute, we have schedules, and so on. (This sort of social shift is also
threatening the chess club scene, even independently of the Internet.) The
second part, however, is that if a pastime comes to be socially identified
with one sort of people, then the other sorts of people won't do it. If a
game is a "girls' game", boys won't play it. If a game is a "children's
game" or a "high school sport", adults won't play it.
My point is, trying to be brief, that there is the "realistic option" of
returning to organized chess as an adult only for so long as we actively
work to keep it realistic. It might well be that forty years from now there
will be no such options, and someone will be writing about chess the same
way that Tim is now writing about baseball. Therefore, when Tim writes:
quote:
> [I]t stands to reason, to me anyway, the more chess we have in our
> culture, the more serious rated adult chess we are likely to have.
I respond: yes, it does sound reasonable at the first pass, but does this
mean that if a whole lot of elementary schools and high schools put more
resources into their wrestling programs, it would bring a lot of serious
competitive adult wrestling into existence? It's not quite that simple.
petrel
| |
| Chess One 2005-01-13, 6:45 am |
| Good post Tim.
At least it seriously engages the subject.
Tom wrote me a thank you note for previously mentioning the article, and I
think it can still be found [at least a link to its 25+ pages] at
www.chessville.com
I will only make one point at this time: that one strong aspect of the
report was in considering youth chess as a separate subject from scholastic
chess - and not to put too fine a point on it - honest reporting on this
subject is skewed by the monetary factors associated with the scholastic
p.o.v.
Tom Braunlich's article deserves serious consideration, and I thank you once
again for initiating discussion.
Cordially, Phil Innes
"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NOedndp0zbV2iXvcRVn-1g@comcast.com...
quote:
> "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote ...
>
> Braunlich's article was extensively discussed by the Scholastic Council
> and guests (including me) at the 2004 Annual Meeting in Florida.
>
> The members of the Scholastic Council, of course, didn't like the article,
> because they found it critical of scholastic chess.
>
> I found the article interesting, well-researched, and thought-provoking,
> but I didn't think it proved any major points, and I did think it had some
> important flaws.
>
> For example, the author seems to lump together scholastic chess with
> soccer, baseball, etc. as examples of youth activities that kids drop as
> they get older. This is part of his argument that scholastic chess is
> essentially unlike adult chess and has no impact on adult chess.
>
> The author fails to point out, kids involved in scholastic chess do have
> the realistic option of continuing (or returning to) the activity as
> adults, which is not the case with many other youth activities. Therefore
> it can't be bad to expose a large number of kids to the game, even if we
> know in advance that the vast majority will never play rated chess as
> adults.
>
> Even if most scholastic chessplayers don't play the game seriously as
> adults, they could if they wanted to, and no doubt some do. Meanwhile,
> they have been exposed to the game, which means when they are adults they
> will be able to play casual games with other adults in social settings,
> and they will be in a position to pass on the game to their own kids, and
> to their nephews/nieces/grandchildren/neighbor kids/what-have-you. They
> will also be more interested when chess is featured in the news. All this
> activity and interest helps to keep chess alive in our culture, even if
> not all chess is played with the high seriousness the author seems to
> demand.
>
> However, it stands to reason, to me anyway, the more chess we have in our
> culture, the more serious rated adult chess we are likely to have. This
> seems to be what the author thinks is important, so in my opinion he ought
> to be happy about the existence of large scholastic chess programs, even
> if the core values of those programs differ greatly from what he believes
> the core values of "real chessplayers" ought to be: he cites Fischer and
> Nakamura with approval for their uncompromising competitive play.
>
> Personally, I think the old Indian saying, "Chess is an ocean in which an
> elephant can bathe and a gnat can swim," suggests the right way for us to
> think. Braunlich even cites this saying, but thinks there are too many
> gnats, and apparently wants everyone to be an elephant, or at least to
> strive to be an elephant.
>
> I think his article is a value judgment masquerading as a logical
> argument. Other people's values may differ from his, and therefore they
> may fail to see a problem even if they agree with many of the facts (or
> anecdotal evidence) he presents.
>
> One area where I think the author makes a reasonable anecdotal case that a
> problem exists is in dues. I have believed for years that scholastic dues
> were too low and were hurting the USCF. A longtime poster to this
> newsgroup, Bruce Draney, went so far as to predict USCF's demise if
> membership ever reached 100,000, because of his belief that USCF was
> losing money on scholastic members. However, it turns out to be not so
> easy to prove this. Many scholastic chess advocates point to the
> offsetting profits generated by national scholastic events. They also
> argue that book & equipment sales to kids (and their parents) generate
> large offsetting profits. I have yet to see any cogent set of numbers
> proving either side of this argument. Because the argument is so
> complicated and convincing data are lacking, I would rather keep things
> simple by making sure scholastic dues are profitable, AND national
> scholastic events are profitable, AND sales of books & equipment are
> profitable. Then we are sure to end up with profits overall, rather than
> complicated arguments involving possible losses in one area offset by
> possible profits in other areas. But even my keep-it-simple attitude
> towards finances, I must admit, is a value judgment. It works for me but
> other people may prefer more sophisticated financial models.
>
> There is also another important--I may even say very important--way of
> looking at USCF finances that almost renders the issue of scholastic dues
> moot. USCF's large financial losses in the last decade can often be linked
> to specific bad business decisions unrelated to dues (though some were
> related to dues). If USCF Executive Directors and USCF Executive Boards
> had not squandered so much money through simple mismanagement year after
> year, we would probably not all be so concerned about dues levels today.
> But a hundred thousand dollars wasted here, and a hunderd thousand dollars
> wasted there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money, in our
> little world.
>
> Tim Hanke
>
| |
| The Masked Bishop 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
| The article is dead-on in its contention that that scholastic and adult
should be separate organizations. That doesn't mean they can't work
together, but clearly the USCF, for adults, is now pretty much a meaningless
and expensive way to preserve an OTB rating. There's very little else one
"gets" for the membership, since Chess Life has too much lead time to be
relevant and is too poorly edited to be a worthwhile read. The members'
money is getting sucked away for the scholastic side, and frankly, that just
ain't fair.
And scholastic chess IS just like scholastic soccer...99% of the
participants will stop once they get into college, and not return. Ditto
Little League...how many Little Leaguers play baseball as adults? Uh, almost
zero. So few that they can't be counted.
The same goes for chess...adult players are not former scholastic players. I
was never a scholastic player, and I strongly doubt anyone who posts
regularly in this newsgroup was either. My brother joined because of me, and
he was never a scholastic player. I'm a geek, and that's the USCF adult
market...geeks. Not former members of elementary chess clubs.
TMB
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:I5tFd.11621$eb.3260@trndny01...
quote:
> Good post Tim.
>
> At least it seriously engages the subject.
>
> Tom wrote me a thank you note for previously mentioning the article, and I
> think it can still be found [at least a link to its 25+ pages] at
> www.chessville.com
>
> I will only make one point at this time: that one strong aspect of the
> report was in considering youth chess as a separate subject from
scholastic
quote:
> chess - and not to put too fine a point on it - honest reporting on this
> subject is skewed by the monetary factors associated with the scholastic
> p.o.v.
>
> Tom Braunlich's article deserves serious consideration, and I thank you
once
quote:
> again for initiating discussion.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes
>
> "Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:NOedndp0zbV2iXvcRVn-1g@comcast.com...
thread,[vbcol=seagreen]
reply[vbcol=seagreen]
ALL[vbcol=seagreen]
article,[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
Therefore[vbcol=seagreen]
they[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
ought[vbcol=seagreen]
believes[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
dues[vbcol=seagreen]
dues[vbcol=seagreen]
linked[vbcol=seagreen]
dollars[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
| "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote ...
quote:
>
> <snip>
>
> I read him as favoring the establishment of a national scholastic
> organization which would certainly keep scholastic chess in existence, but
> under management separate from the USCF.
Petrel,
I have previously advocated this idea myself, in my 2003 campaign for the
Executive Board:
http://www.timothyhanke.net/campaig...astic_chess.htm
quote:
> <snip>
>
> Let's stop and think about that for a second. Why, after all, don't adult
> amateurs in the US play soccer, North American football, baseball, etc.?
> They play soccer in Europe. Let's not forget that ALL of these sports
> originated as adult pastimes, and were introduced into the schools. You
> might argue that it is because these are all team sports and it requires
> the work of an organizer to manage the team and schedule league games.
> Well, there are individual competitive sports too - wrestling for example.
> Why don't all the people who were on wrestling teams in high school and
> college go on and found wrestling clubs and go and wrestle with each other
> after work? Yes, it sounds silly, but why? In Abraham Lincoln's time you
> had adults wrestling with each other all the time for sport.
How many people in Abraham Lincoln's time actually were "wrestling with each
other all the time for sport"? I'm just asking. In New England in Abraham
Lincoln's time, the popular thing to do was to attend public lectures or
religious sermons or public speeches. I'm sure some people wrestled for fun,
but I've never read a word about it.
quote:
> I think there are at least two parts to the answer, but I can't prove
> their relative contribution. The first part is that our social
> organization has changed from what it was in Abraham Lincoln's time. We
> don't live in village society any more - most of us. We do different
> kinds of work, we commute, we have schedules, and so on. (This sort of
> social shift is also threatening the chess club scene, even independently
> of the Internet.) The second part, however, is that if a pastime comes to
> be socially identified with one sort of people, then the other sorts of
> people won't do it. If a game is a "girls' game", boys won't play it. If
> a game is a "children's game" or a "high school sport", adults won't play
> it.
My own answer as to why most adults don't wrestle nowadays, or play baseball
or soccer or football, is perhaps so obvious that Petrel is missing it: all
these sports make physical demands that many adults--many of today's adults,
anyway--find too extreme. Also, most physical sports require a good deal of
infrastructure, and often expensive equipment, and can only be played at
certain times in certain locations. Whereas chess is a sedentary board game
that octogenarians can play, with little equipment or prior planning or
infrastructure. I think this is all obvious.
quote:
> My point is, trying to be brief, that there is the "realistic option" of
> returning to organized chess as an adult only for so long as we actively
> work to keep it realistic. It might well be that forty years from now
> there will be no such options, and someone will be writing about chess the
> same way that Tim is now writing about baseball.
I think it's important to distinguish between "organized chess" and casual
chess. Casual chess will always be physically easier for people to play, at
all ages, than casual baseball or casual soccer or casual wrestling. Casual
chess will also be more convenient to play than most casual sports, because
sports require space, lots of players, and usually specific equipment. So
casual chess should be expected to increase in popularity among older age
groups, relative to physical sports.
Organized chess, too, will be physically easier than organized sports for
all people at all ages. Therefore, especially as people age, organized
chess--other things being equal--will increasingly become a more *natural
and convenient* option than organized physical sports. However, Petrel quite
rightly points out that other things never are equal, and the activities
people choose to engage in are always somewhat dependent on social issues,
such as how the activities are viewed (e.g., boys don't want to play a
"girls' game" and adults don't want to play a "kids' game"). Personally, I
don't fear that chess will soon be relegated to the ghetto of "kids' games,"
simply because chess is too difficult, requires too much concentration, and
mastery requires so much experience and acquisition of specific knowledge
(openings, endings, etc.).
My own fear is rather different: I fear that chess as a respected adult
activity has suffered a mortal blow by the development of chessplaying
computers that can beat practically all human players. Now that anyone can
buy a handheld computer and potentially take a bathroom break during a
tournament game to check key analysis, over-the-board competitive chess may
be approaching a crisis similar to the one that has (to my mind) all but
wiped out postal chess as a viable form of competition. And the idea of
adults devoting their lives to honing their chess skills and researching
chess theory becomes at least slightly ridiculous when everyone knows cheap
and easily available chess software can beat people, no matter how diligent
and sincere and even talented they are. In former times a very good
chessplayer had a certain cultural stature, because people knew he was among
the best at what he did. Nowadays people can buy software for a few dollars
that can beat 99.99% of all human chessplayers, or something on that order,
which I feel can only diminish the status of human chessplayers in the
general culture.
quote:
>
> I respond: yes, it does sound reasonable at the first pass, but does this
> mean that if a whole lot of elementary schools and high schools put more
> resources into their wrestling programs, it would bring a lot of serious
> competitive adult wrestling into existence? It's not quite that simple.
And the reason it's not that simple, as I've suggested above, is that most
adults are not physically suited to engage in competitive wrestling or other
strenuous sports. Chess is obviously different in its physical demands,
which is why I and many other people advocate chess as a wonderful
*lifetime* activity--unlike most physical sports, which few people will want
or be able to play seriously beyond a certain age. All the time I tell kids
and their parents, "Chess is great because you can start now and play it
*all your life,* and you can use it to meet people and make friends *all
over the world.*"
Not to mention, chess is a wonderful leveler. Could I go out and play
football with NFL players? No, I would be killed. Could I play basketball
with NBA players? Ditto. Wrestle with Hulk Hogan? Ditto. But I can play
chess in an open tournament, and maybe face a grandmaster, and if I'm having
a very very good day and he's having a very very bad day, I might win. Even
if I lose, and lose badly--for example, my loss to Alexander Shabalov in the
National Open three years ago was featured in GM Ron Henley's lecture the
next day--I won't suffer physical injury. Even more to the point, it's fun!
Having fun is the upside, and there is no serious downside. This is why
chess is a popular adult activity, and will always be a popular adult
activity.
Tim Hanke
| |
| Tim Hanke 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
| "The Masked Bishop" <tmb@c4.com> wrote ...
quote:
>
> The same goes for chess...adult players are not former scholastic players.
> I
> was never a scholastic player, and I strongly doubt anyone who posts
> regularly in this newsgroup was either.
I was a scholastic player, and I'm sure some other posters here were
scholastic players, because they have told me anecdotes about playing in
scholastic events.
Having said that, I would agree that scholastic chess per se is not the
ideal introduction to chess. I learned much more by playing in a local chess
club against players of all ages. I have said many times, chess clubs should
be the basic engines of chess learning and growth. In a chess club, young
players see with their own eyes that chess is a game for all ages. They get
a chance to face players with a range of abilities and experience. They
learn that a good junior player can beat a weaker adult player. They get a
sense of the life cycle of chessplayers. All of these valuable lessons can
only be learned in chess clubs. Not in scholastic chess.
Tim Hanke
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
| On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:21:22 -0500, "Tim Hanke"
<timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote:
....
quote:
>My own answer as to why most adults don't wrestle nowadays, or play baseball
>or soccer or football, is perhaps so obvious that Petrel is missing it: all
>these sports make physical demands that many adults--many of today's adults,
>anyway--find too extreme.
Consider the number of adults participating in 5K, 10K, half-marathon,
marathon, bicycle touring, iron-man, etc. Some of the big events have
over 20,000 participants! Look at the people pumping iron in the
clubs, out power-walking, etc. Not to mention skiing.
Now, how many play tournament chess ?
quote:
>...Casual
>chess will also be more convenient to play than most casual sports, because
>sports require space, lots of players, and usually specific equipment. So
>casual chess should be expected to increase in popularity among older age
>groups, relative to physical sports.
Activities that require equipment also attract manufacturers who
advertise. And advertising drives participation.
quote:
>My own fear is rather different: I fear that chess as a respected adult
>activity has suffered a mortal blow by the development of chessplaying
>computers that can beat practically all human players. Now that anyone can
>buy a handheld computer and potentially take a bathroom break during a
>tournament game to check key analysis, over-the-board competitive chess may
>be approaching a crisis similar to the one that has (to my mind) all but
>wiped out postal chess as a viable form of competition. And the idea of
>adults devoting their lives to honing their chess skills and researching
>chess theory becomes at least slightly ridiculous when everyone knows cheap
>and easily available chess software can beat people, no matter how diligent
>and sincere and even talented they are. In former times a very good
>chessplayer had a certain cultural stature, because people knew he was among
>the best at what he did. Nowadays people can buy software for a few dollars
>that can beat 99.99% of all human chessplayers, or something on that order,
>which I feel can only diminish the status of human chessplayers in the
>general culture.
Sometime around 1960, Horowitz wrote a rather sad editorial in Chess
Review, questioning whether we were doing Bobby Fischer any favor by
encouraging him to become a chess professional. In light of what
you've written (and Evans has written similar), this might be even
more applicable today.
People still run, even though cars and motorcycles go faster. *But*,
people believe running makes them healthier, makes them live longer,
makes them more attractive.
If we could sell the idea that "Tournament chess prevents dementia",
we'd be on a roll.
| |
| David Kane 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9npFd.14078$_X7.13602@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> But I don't think that he is saying at all that scholastic chess is "bad"
or
quote:
> that he is unhappy about its "existence". What he more or less explicitly
> says is that scholastic chess is OK, but that its interests are not the
same
quote:
> as that of OTB players/organizers, and that it's problematic for the
leading
quote:
> OTB tournament organizers/players and the scholastic organizers to be
trying
quote:
> to accomplish their divergent ends using the same organization (the USCF).
> I read him as favoring the establishment of a national scholastic
> organization which would certainly keep scholastic chess in existence, but
> under management separate from the USCF. That is how I read his baseball
> analogy where he says that the USCF's scholastic chess operations are as
if
quote:
> Major League Baseball were also trying to run the Little League.
Obviously
quote:
> there is a lot of room for saying that the USCF is different from Major
> League Baseball, etc., but I think you can see the point.
The more important difference in this analogy is that there is
NO chess version of Little League. Chess opportunities for
kids are sporadic - often depending on an interested teacher
or parent. This is not surprising given the history of the USCF
as an adult organization. Scholastic membership fees
are collected, of course, but the USCF offers no
useful LL-type functions.
Things like the Nationals just cash in on interest that is
already there. National tournaments will exist with
or without the USCF, for the simple reason that they
are profitable.
Little League and the USCF are competitors for kid's
attention. It's a completely lopsided competition because
LL has existed for decades to be an organizing force for
youth baseball. It's efficient, well-known, growth-oriented,
respected, welcoming and focussed. The USCF
isn't.
quote:
> Earlier in his response, Tim writes,
>
returning[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Let's stop and think about that for a second. Why, after all, don't adult
> amateurs in the US play soccer, North American football, baseball, etc.?
> They play soccer in Europe. Let's not forget that ALL of these sports
> originated as adult pastimes, and were introduced into the schools. You
> might argue that it is because these are all team sports and it requires
the
quote:
> work of an organizer to manage the team and schedule league games. Well,
> there are individual competitive sports too - wrestling for example. Why
> don't all the people who were on wrestling teams in high school and
college
quote:
> go on and found wrestling clubs and go and wrestle with each other after
> work? Yes, it sounds silly, but why? In Abraham Lincoln's time you had
> adults wrestling with each other all the time for sport.
>
> I think there are at least two parts to the answer, but I can't prove
their
quote:
> relative contribution. The first part is that our social organization has
> changed from what it was in Abraham Lincoln's time. We don't live in
> village society any more - most of us. We do different kinds of work, we
> commute, we have schedules, and so on. (This sort of social shift is also
> threatening the chess club scene, even independently of the Internet.)
The
quote:
> second part, however, is that if a pastime comes to be socially identified
> with one sort of people, then the other sorts of people won't do it. If a
> game is a "girls' game", boys won't play it. If a game is a "children's
> game" or a "high school sport", adults won't play it.
>
> My point is, trying to be brief, that there is the "realistic option" of
> returning to organized chess as an adult only for so long as we actively
> work to keep it realistic. It might well be that forty years from now
there
quote:
> will be no such options, and someone will be writing about chess the same
> way that Tim is now writing about baseball. Therefore, when Tim writes:
Adult participation in baseball (softball) and soccer is
in the millions, hardly something chessplayers should
be sneezing at.
The suggestion that widespread participation of kids
and widespread participation of adults are in conflict
is unsupported by any evidence. A far more plausible
hypothesis is that both scholastic and adult chess activity
are suppressed by USCF stupidity.
| |
| Chess One 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
|
"The Masked Bishop" <tmb@c4.com> wrote in message
news:qqwFd.14118$_X7.11731@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> The article is dead-on in its contention that that scholastic and adult
> should be separate organizations. That doesn't mean they can't work
> together, but clearly the USCF, for adults, is now pretty much a
> meaningless
> and expensive way to preserve an OTB rating. There's very little else one
> "gets" for the membership, since Chess Life has too much lead time to be
> relevant and is too poorly edited to be a worthwhile read. The members'
> money is getting sucked away for the scholastic side, and frankly, that
> just
> ain't fair.
>
> And scholastic chess IS just like scholastic soccer...99% of the
> participants will stop once they get into college, and not return.
USCF has no college program; no bridge nor stimulus to keep playing until
more settled adult years.
I see you write else where that adult memberships are in decline, and for
the same reason, USCF has given up on its primary reason to exist, to expand
chess into the general culture. Development activity now takes place outside
USCF.
Trying to engage a prospective new board member on these two subjects will
reveal their own orientation to chess in the USA and USCF's mission.
Phil Innes
quote:
> Ditto
> Little League...how many Little Leaguers play baseball as adults? Uh,
> almost
> zero. So few that they can't be counted.
>
> The same goes for chess...adult players are not former scholastic players.
> I
> was never a scholastic player, and I strongly doubt anyone who posts
> regularly in this newsgroup was either. My brother joined because of me,
> and
> he was never a scholastic player. I'm a geek, and that's the USCF adult
> market...geeks. Not former members of elementary chess clubs.
>
> TMB
>
>
>
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:I5tFd.11621$eb.3260@trndny01...
> scholastic
> once
> thread,
> reply
> ALL
> article,
> some
> Therefore
> they
> and
> this
> our
> ought
> believes
> an
> to
> a
> dues
> dues
> linked
> dollars
>
>
| |
| David Kane 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
|
"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bpudndNfza3tPHvcRVn-vw@comcast.com...
quote:
> "The Masked Bishop" <tmb@c4.com> wrote ...
players.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I was a scholastic player, and I'm sure some other posters here were
> scholastic players, because they have told me anecdotes about playing in
> scholastic events.
>
> Having said that, I would agree that scholastic chess per se is not the
> ideal introduction to chess. I learned much more by playing in a local
chess
quote:
> club against players of all ages. I have said many times, chess clubs
should
quote:
> be the basic engines of chess learning and growth. In a chess club, young
> players see with their own eyes that chess is a game for all ages. They
get
quote:
> a chance to face players with a range of abilities and experience. They
> learn that a good junior player can beat a weaker adult player. They get a
> sense of the life cycle of chessplayers. All of these valuable lessons can
> only be learned in chess clubs. Not in scholastic chess.
>
You have this completely backwards. What happens is that as
scholastic players age they see the chess world becoming less
and less attractive. Participation plummets and the chess world
becomes populated by freaks.
Instead, adults should go to scholastic tournaments and see an
example of chess in the mainstream. They'd learn something
if they wanted to.
| |
| Bruce Leverett 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
| Thanks to Petrel for posting a pointer to this article. I, too, am
amazed that it did not make it to RGCP until now. A lot of the
arguments in it have appeared in RGCP, however.
I generally agree with Tim Hanke's evaluation (quoted below); in fact,
I was impressed by how far Hanke has come on the subject of scholastic
chess. The part about "... a value judgment masquerading as a logical
argument" is on target. Braunlich has an axe to grind. But to give
credit where credit is due, Braunlich tried (not always successfully)
to go beyond grinding his axe and to research the subject.
I'll try to post some more comments later.
Bruce Leverett
Tim Hanke wrote:
quote:
> "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote ...
thread,[vbcol=seagreen]
reply[vbcol=seagreen]
article,[vbcol=seagreen]
ago.[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
AT ALL[vbcol=seagreen]
some[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Braunlich's article was extensively discussed by the Scholastic
Council and
quote:
> guests (including me) at the 2004 Annual Meeting in Florida.
>
> The members of the Scholastic Council, of course, didn't like the
article,
quote:
> because they found it critical of scholastic chess.
>
> I found the article interesting, well-researched, and
thought-provoking, but
quote:
> I didn't think it proved any major points, and I did think it had
some
quote:
> important flaws.
>
> For example, the author seems to lump together scholastic chess with
soccer,
quote:
> baseball, etc. as examples of youth activities that kids drop as they
get
quote:
> older. This is part of his argument that scholastic chess is
essentially
quote:
> unlike adult chess and has no impact on adult chess.
>
> The author fails to point out, kids involved in scholastic chess do
have the
quote:
> realistic option of continuing (or returning to) the activity as
adults,
quote:
> which is not the case with many other youth activities. Therefore it
can't
quote:
> be bad to expose a large number of kids to the game, even if we know
in
quote:
> advance that the vast majority will never play rated chess as adults.
>
> Even if most scholastic chessplayers don't play the game seriously as
quote:
> adults, they could if they wanted to, and no doubt some do.
Meanwhile, they
quote:
> have been exposed to the game, which means when they are adults they
will be
quote:
> able to play casual games with other adults in social settings, and
they
quote:
> will be in a position to pass on the game to their own kids, and to
their
quote:
> nephews/nieces/grandchildren/neighbor kids/what-have-you. They will
also be
quote:
> more interested when chess is featured in the news. All this activity
and
quote:
> interest helps to keep chess alive in our culture, even if not all
chess is
quote:
> played with the high seriousness the author seems to demand.
>
> However, it stands to reason, to me anyway, the more chess we have in
our
quote:
> culture, the more serious rated adult chess we are likely to have.
This
quote:
> seems to be what the author thinks is important, so in my opinion he
ought
quote:
> to be happy about the existence of large scholastic chess programs,
even if
quote:
> the core values of those programs differ greatly from what he
believes the
quote:
> core values of "real chessplayers" ought to be: he cites Fischer and
> Nakamura with approval for their uncompromising competitive play.
>
> Personally, I think the old Indian saying, "Chess is an ocean in
which an
quote:
> elephant can bathe and a gnat can swim," suggests the right way for
us to
quote:
> think. Braunlich even cites this saying, but thinks there are too
many
quote:
> gnats, and apparently wants everyone to be an elephant, or at least
to
quote:
> strive to be an elephant.
>
> I think his article is a value judgment masquerading as a logical
argument.
quote:
> Other people's values may differ from his, and therefore they may
fail to
quote:
> see a problem even if they agree with many of the facts (or anecdotal
quote:
> evidence) he presents.
>
> One area where I think the author makes a reasonable anecdotal case
that a
quote:
> problem exists is in dues. I have believed for years that scholastic
dues
quote:
> were too low and were hurting the USCF. A longtime poster to this
newsgroup,
quote:
> Bruce Draney, went so far as to predict USCF's demise if membership
ever
quote:
> reached 100,000, because of his belief that USCF was losing money on
> scholastic members. However, it turns out to be not so easy to prove
this.
quote:
> Many scholastic chess advocates point to the offsetting profits
generated by
quote:
> national scholastic events. They also argue that book & equipment
sales to
quote:
> kids (and their parents) generate large offsetting profits. I have
yet to
quote:
> see any cogent set of numbers proving either side of this argument.
Because
quote:
> the argument is so complicated and convincing data are lacking, I
would
quote:
> rather keep things simple by making sure scholastic dues are
profitable, AND
quote:
> national scholastic events are profitable, AND sales of books &
equipment
quote:
> are profitable. Then we are sure to end up with profits overall,
rather than
quote:
> complicated arguments involving possible losses in one area offset by
quote:
> possible profits in other areas. But even my keep-it-simple attitude
towards
quote:
> finances, I must admit, is a value judgment. It works for me but
other
quote:
> people may prefer more sophisticated financial models.
>
> There is also another important--I may even say very important--way
of
quote:
> looking at USCF finances that almost renders the issue of scholastic
dues
quote:
> moot. USCF's large financial losses in the last decade can often be
linked
quote:
> to specific bad business decisions unrelated to dues (though some
were
quote:
> related to dues). If USCF Executive Directors and USCF Executive
Boards had
quote:
> not squandered so much money through simple mismanagement year after
year,
quote:
> we would probably not all be so concerned about dues levels today.
But a
quote:
> hundred thousand dollars wasted here, and a hunderd thousand dollars
wasted
quote:
> there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money, in our
little
quote:
> world.
>
> Tim Hanke
| |
| David Kane 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
|
"Tim Hanke" <timothyhanke@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_vudnWzAh8eRS3vcRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
quote:
> I don't think you can argue that I "have this completely backwards,"
because
quote:
> I spoke from my own experience as a boy. My own experience as a boy
includes
quote:
> both scholastic chess and playing at the local chess club in Rochester,
N.Y.
quote:
> with players of all ages.
>
> Today I run a local weeknight chess club in Newburyport, Mass., and I do
not
quote:
> regard my club as "populated by freaks." We get 15-20 adults most nights,
> with the players spanning a wide socioeconomic range: including two
lawyers,
quote:
> at least one man with a Ph.D., one translator, a couple of retirees, a car
> mechanic, a writer, a librarian, two editors, a young man who made a lot
of
quote:
> money with email spam, a couple of unemployed people (including me), etc.
I
quote:
> don't know what everyone there does for a living nor do I ask. It is a
> cross-section of society, composed of people whom I find more interesting
> than most people I meet.
OK, I retract my "freak" characterization. But I do restate my
point which is that chess becomes a less and less attractive
activity as it moves away from the scholastic realm. Your post
(and Braunlich's article) lends support to the theory that USCF
members want chess to be a niche activity with few members.
The dislike of scholastics isn't the ludicrous idea that it hurts
the USCF's finances - but because scholastics put chess in
the mainstream, which makes USCF adults uncomfortable.
| |
| Bruce Leverett 2005-01-13, 5:45 pm |
| Tim Hanke wrote:
[snip]
quote:
> Once in a while, perhaps more often in big-city chess clubs than
elsewhere,
quote:
> you may run into a bizarre and repulsive individual (such as one or
two who
quote:
> post on this newsgroup). When this happens it's unfortunate, but it's
a big
quote:
> world and in the nature of things, a big-city chess club is likely to
have
quote:
> more people who are statistical outliers, so to speak. In sleepy
Rochester,
quote:
> N.Y., we used to have a player who was on disability from the
military with
quote:
> schizophrenia. During games he used to sit in his chair and now and
then
quote:
> babble unintelligibly, occasionally jerking his head spastically,
perhaps
quote:
> due to his medication. As a young man I found him a little alarming.
But
quote:
> everybody tolerated him, more or less, so I did, too. Who knows? The
chess
quote:
> club may have been the only place he could go, where he found a
modicum of
quote:
> acceptance.
About 20 years ago, when I was president of the Pittsburgh Chess Club,
one of the board members called me up to resign. "I just won't be able
to carry out my duties." "Why?" "Because I'm checking myself in to
Western Psych." I sometimes wonder what happened to that guy.
Bruce
| |
|
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "The Masked Bishop" <tmb@c4.com> wrote in message
> news:qqwFd.14118$_X7.11731@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
adult[vbcol=seagreen]
else one[vbcol=seagreen]
to be[vbcol=seagreen]
members'[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> USCF has no college program; no bridge nor stimulus to keep playing
until
quote:
> more settled adult years.
>
> I see you write else where that adult memberships are in decline, and
for
quote:
> the same reason, USCF has given up on its primary reason to exist, to
expand
quote:
> chess into the general culture. Development activity now takes place
outside
quote:
> USCF.
>
> Trying to engage a prospective new board member on these two subjects
will[vbcol=seagreen]
> reveal their own orientation to chess in the USA and USCF's mission.
>
> Phil Innes
>
Uh,[vbcol=seagreen]
players.[vbcol=seagreen]
posts[vbcol=seagreen]
of me,[vbcol=seagreen]
adult[vbcol=seagreen]
article, and[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
on this[vbcol=seagreen]
scholastic[vbcol=seagreen]
thank you[vbcol=seagreen]
Election"[vbcol=seagreen]
copying my[vbcol=seagreen]
article,[vbcol=seagreen]
months ago.[vbcol=seagreen]
me,[vbcol=seagreen]
group AT[vbcol=seagreen]
deserves some[vbcol=seagreen]
Council[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
it had[vbcol=seagreen]
with[vbcol=seagreen]
drop[vbcol=seagreen]
chess is[vbcol=seagreen]
do[vbcol=seagreen]
activity as[vbcol=seagreen]
even if[vbcol=seagreen]
chess as[vbcol=seagreen]
seriously as[vbcol=seagreen]
Meanwhile,[vbcol=seagreen]
adults[vbcol=seagreen]
settings,[vbcol=seagreen]
kids,[vbcol=seagreen]
kids/what-have-you. They[vbcol=seagreen]
All[vbcol=seagreen]
even if[vbcol=seagreen]
seems to[vbcol=seagreen]
have in[vbcol=seagreen]
have. This[vbcol=seagreen]
opinion he[vbcol=seagreen]
programs,[vbcol=seagreen]
Fischer[vbcol=seagreen]
play.[vbcol=seagreen]
which[vbcol=seagreen]
for us[vbcol=seagreen]
too many[vbcol=seagreen]
least to[vbcol=seagreen]
logical[vbcol=seagreen]
therefore they[vbcol=seagreen]
facts (or[vbcol=seagreen]
case[vbcol=seagreen]
scholastic[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
if[vbcol=seagreen]
was[vbcol=seagreen]
not so[vbcol=seagreen]
also[vbcol=seagreen]
generate[vbcol=seagreen]
numbers[vbcol=seagreen]
things[vbcol=seagreen]
national[vbcol=seagreen]
are[vbcol=seagreen]
rather[vbcol=seagreen]
offset by[vbcol=seagreen]
attitude[vbcol=seagreen]
for me[vbcol=seagreen]
important--way of[vbcol=seagreen]
scholastic[vbcol=seagreen]
be[vbcol=seagreen]
some were[vbcol=seagreen]
Boards[vbcol=seagreen]
year[vbcol=seagreen]
levels[vbcol=seagreen]
thousand[vbcol=seagreen]
in our[vbcol=seagreen]
I believe that one of the best potential marketing tools for the USCF
is being underutilized. Chess Life should be the organ that entices the
general public to take a closer look at chess. Much as "Boy's Life"
used to entice boys into going into the Boy Scouts. For those who are
serious players, a quarterly Journal of Chess might be provided that
focuses more on what higher level players would be interested in
reading.
We have to find better ways to excite the minds of adults to want to
play chess. All the USCF really needs is to take a more creative look
at the wonder assetts it already has and come up with a way to make
them all work better together.
That at least would be a good start.
Rob Mitchell
| |
| Chess One 2005-01-14, 6:45 am |
| >
quote:
> I believe that one of the best potential marketing tools for the USCF
> is being underutilized. Chess Life should be the organ that entices the
> general public to take a closer look at chess. Much as "Boy's Life"
> used to entice boys into going into the Boy Scouts. For those who are
> serious players, a quarterly Journal of Chess might be provided that
> focuses more on what higher level players would be interested in
> reading.
This is, in fact, the exact suggestion made for the new mix or web and print
products. Chess Life need not go away if USCF had a 'news' website, but
could be a more considered quarterly, properly INDEXED for greater use to
the reader.
But not a 'news magazine' for which it is too slow in any case, even as a
monthly.
quote:
> We have to find better ways to excite the minds of adults to want to
> play chess. All the USCF really needs is to take a more creative look
> at the wonder assetts it already has and come up with a way to make
> them all work better together.
> That at least would be a good start.
That's a marketing idea. What you have done in your post is propose that
each market segment should have their own communication 'vehicle'.
Phil Innes
quote:
> Rob Mitchell
>
| |
| Kevin L. Bachler 2005-01-14, 9:45 am |
| Tim,
You might recall that on several occasions I have posted two points:
1. Scholastic members participate in tournaments for a different reason than
adults, and therefore get something different from their memberships --
specifically what they get out of it is -- for the most part -- team
participation and representation of their school. I further argued that this
impacts the pricing of these memberships. I recall that this concept was fairly
universally attacked on RGCP. Sounds like some people have come to agree with
it. It is key.
2. The USCF scholastic "program" is not a "program" at all. It is a membership
pricing. The result of item 1 and the lack of a program is that there is
nothing done to mainstream scholastic members into adult chess over time. I
suggested a number of ways to do this. One is to create "family-oriented"
events, where parents would be happy to take their children. Another would be
to develop college programs; this could include college internet leagues, league
sponsors, and the national office working with colleges to encourage them to
interface or have community chess clubs on campuses, improving the resources to
individual players. This is the type of program best done by a national
organization, I think. But again, we can't have scuzzy chess players or the
Nebraska naked guy show up on their doorstep if we want this to be successful.
--
Kevin L. Bachler
| |
| Kevin L. Bachler 2005-01-14, 9:45 am |
| In article <SP2dnTReu9JgAnvcRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, Tim Hanke says...
SNIP
quote:
>
>My own answer as to why most adults don't wrestle nowadays, or play baseball
>or soccer or football, is perhaps so obvious that Petrel is missing it: all
>these sports make physical demands that many adults--many of today's adults,
>anyway--find too extreme.
But don't a fairly large number of adults play softball, or bowl, or judo, tae
kwon do, or jog?
I'm not so sure that a fair number of the "wrestlers" don't exist.
--
Kevin L. Bachler
| |
| Kiddon 2005-01-14, 9:45 am |
| (snip)
Rob wrote:
quote:
> I believe that one of the best potential marketing tools for the USCF
> is being underutilized. Chess Life should be the organ that entices
the
quote:
> general public to take a closer look at chess. Much as "Boy's Life"
> used to entice boys into going into the Boy Scouts. For those who are
> serious players, a quarterly Journal of Chess might be provided that
> focuses more on what higher level players would be interested in
> reading.
>
> We have to find better ways to excite the minds of adults to want to
> play chess. All the USCF really needs is to take a more creative look
> at the wonder assetts it already has and come up with a way to make
> them all work better together.
> That at least would be a good start.
>
> Rob Mitchell
___________________________________
"Boy's Life" is not the best example to use to further your argument
given the fact that Boy Scout membership appears to be generally on the
decline as well.
kiddon
| |
|
|
Kiddon wrote:
quote:
> (snip)
>
> Rob wrote:
USCF[vbcol=seagreen]
> the
are[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
look[vbcol=seagreen]
> ___________________________________
> "Boy's Life" is not the best example to use to further your argument
> given the fact that Boy Scout membership appears to be generally on
the
quote:
> decline as well.
>
> kiddon
I am not familiar with the Boy Scouts per se. I think there are other
issues involved that have little to do with "Boys Life" for their
decline.
Rob
| |
| Mike Murray 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
| On 14 Jan 2005 06:01:01 -0800, "Kiddon" <tampachessdon@aol.com> wrote:
quote:
>"Boy's Life" is not the best example to use to further your argument
>given the fact that Boy Scout membership appears to be generally on the
>decline as well.
Here in Port Townsend, the Scouts recently sold a piece of land,
without a competitive bid, for $440,000 to a developer who has
immediately put it on the market for over $2,000,000. So, there may
be certain similarities.
| |
| The Masked Bishop 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
| >at least one man with a Ph.D., one translator, a couple of retirees, a car
mechanic, a writer, a librarian, two editors, a young man who made a lot of
money with email spam, a couple of unemployed people (including me), etc. I
don't know what everyone there does for a living nor do I ask. It is a
cross-section of society,<
Nah, they are all geeks. Don't kid yourself. Chess players are bizarre and
marginalized. Accept it and live with it.
| |
| The Masked Bishop 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
| Chess Life is a disaster, an awful magazine. There's very little point in
talking about Chess Life, since the USCF will never change it.
TMB
"Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_XNFd.2238$qu2.368@trndny08...
quote:
>
> This is, in fact, the exact suggestion made for the new mix or web and
print
quote:
> products. Chess Life need not go away if USCF had a 'news' website, but
> could be a more considered quarterly, properly INDEXED for greater use to
> the reader.
>
> But not a 'news magazine' for which it is too slow in any case, even as a
> monthly.
>
>
> That's a marketing idea. What you have done in your post is propose that
> each market segment should have their own communication 'vehicle'.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
| |
| Chess One 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
|
"The Masked Bishop" <tmb@c4.com> wrote in message
news:6VSFd.6135$C77.103@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
> Chess Life is a disaster, an awful magazine. There's very little point in
> talking about Chess Life, since the USCF will never change it.
>
> TMB
I cannot be quite so cynical. [emphasis on 'quite']
Its true that as a single medium spanning all levels of membership CL has a
hopeless task. Without utilising the web, and addressing the discrete needs
of beginners 900-1200 ratings, average club players 1300-1800 ratings, and
candidate masters 1900+, CL with its few pages of possible coverage is faced
with a an impossibility.
Therefore it really delivers its chessic material to no particularly defined
group - and editorial comment is equally scattered, confused and without
focus.
Now, if articles were in fact introductions to a topic, and led to a web
site where there was substantial amplification, and to discrete materials
for a range of skills at chess, CL would be able to scan most skill ranges
across the spectrum.
I do not think that USCF have plans to do this, or can have brought much
thought to bear on how to serve the members in the most critical area of
all, to support chess play... Providing information that is actually useful
to chess playing.
I do not think there is any lack of motivation to do something about
ChessLife as as much as there is lack of motivation to do something about
the mission, Chess Development. As above, so below. Thereby CL is a
confusing collection of old codswallop.
Chess development activities are now underway beyond the gates of New
Mordor, and not conducted by Wizards nor Grandmasters, but by genuinely
concerned Hobbits, and, in my experience, it is this genuineness which is
the greatest winning factor of all..
Braunlich's article does not quite broach this subject, although it is
intimated. His article essentially says that where money has entered in, a
certain level of objectivity to the result has gone out, and nothing is much
achieved by those who manage these endeavors except for themsleves.
But this is all very boring isn't it? So cheesed-off sounding.
We are all accustomed to our game being represented to us without any fire -
without any soul or deeper appreciation of what goes on creatively for every
player - and so we all pretend we have become blase, practiced cynics every
one of us, and we say we do not expect anything good to happen...
....but secretly, still wanting very much, and still sensing that it is
possible.
Cordially, The Masked Vermonter
quote:
> "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:_XNFd.2238$qu2.368@trndny08...
> print
>
>
| |
|
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "The Masked Bishop" <tmb@c4.com> wrote in message
> news:6VSFd.6135$C77.103@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
point in[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I cannot be quite so cynical. [emphasis on 'quite']
>
> Its true that as a single medium spanning all levels of membership CL
has a
quote:
> hopeless task. Without utilising the web, and addressing the discrete
needs
quote:
> of beginners 900-1200 ratings, average club players 1300-1800
ratings, and
quote:
> candidate masters 1900+, CL with its few pages of possible coverage
is faced
quote:
> with a an impossibility.
Phil, This is exactly correct in my estimation. We need , I think, an
interesting "read" for scholastics and club players. The canidate level
players should have something just for them. I would think a quarterly
or every two months for the advanced magazine.
quote:
> Therefore it really delivers its chessic material to no particularly
defined
quote:
> group - and editorial comment is equally scattered, confused and
without
quote:
> focus.
>
> Now, if articles were in fact introductions to a topic, and led to a
web
quote:
> site where there was substantial amplification, and to discrete
materials
quote:
> for a range of skills at chess, CL would be able to scan most skill
ranges
quote:
> across the spectrum.
>
> I do not think that USCF have plans to do this, or can have brought
much
quote:
> thought to bear on how to serve the members in the most critical area
of
quote:
> all, to support chess play... Providing information that is actually
useful
quote:
> to chess playing.
True. I would add stimulating as well. When battle field theory is
being studied at the service academies, they also include information
on the background of the combatants. Patton and his battlefield tactics
differed widely from those of Montgomery. Learning is much more fun
when you place a personality behind the moves. It takes a greater
degree of effort to replicate this than what is currently being done. I
think the results would be worth the effort however.
quote:
> I do not think there is any lack of motivation to do something about
> ChessLife as as much as there is lack of motivation to do something
about
quote:
> the mission, Chess Development. As above, so below. Thereby CL is a
> confusing collection of old codswallop.
>
> Chess development activities are now underway beyond the gates of New
quote:
> Mordor, and not conducted by Wizards nor Grandmasters, but by
genuinely
quote:
> concerned Hobbits, and, in my experience, it is this genuineness
which is
quote:
> the greatest winning factor of all..
>
> Braunlich's article does not quite broach this subject, although it
is
quote:
> intimated. His article essentially says that where money has entered
in, a
quote:
> certain level of objectivity to the result has gone out, and nothing
is much
quote:
> achieved by those who manage these endeavors except for themsleves.
>
> But this is all very boring isn't it? So cheesed-off sounding.
>
> We are all accustomed to our game being represented to us without any
fire -
quote:
> without any soul or deeper appreciation of what goes on creatively
for every
quote:
> player - and so we all pretend we have become blase, practiced cynics
every
quote:
> one of us, and we say we do not expect anything good to happen...
>
> ...but secretly, still wanting very much, and still sensing that it
is
quote:
> possible.
>
> Cordially, The Masked Vermonter
>
Yours,
Rob( Sam Wise)
[vbcol=seagreen]
USCF[vbcol=seagreen]
entices the[vbcol=seagreen]
Life"[vbcol=seagreen]
who are[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
website, but[vbcol=seagreen]
use to[vbcol=seagreen]
even as a[vbcol=seagreen]
want to[vbcol=seagreen]
look[vbcol=seagreen]
make[vbcol=seagreen]
propose that[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Chess One 2005-01-14, 5:46 pm |
| > Phil, This is exactly correct in my estimation. We need , I think, an
quote:
> interesting "read" for scholastics and club players. The canidate level
> players should have something just for them. I would think a quarterly
> or every two months for the advanced magazine.
many have thought of such a thing
-----------
quote:
> much
> of
> useful
>
> True. I would add stimulating as well. When battle field theory is
> being studied at the service academies, they also include information
> on the background of the combatants. Patton
born on the same day as dostoyevski!
quote:
> and his battlefield tactics
> differed widely from those of Montgomery.
george patton was an original and very american genius, without a political
thought in his head, and he achieved a rare thing - he beat the invincible
germans, and he beat them again and again and he was only stopped by
politicians who discarded him.
in my own country they discarded churchill too
perhaps as well, even though both were right to want to continue a fight
they saw was not over, and knew the ground ahead, the world was weary of
fighting and needed to rest, like being awake too long...
quote:
> Learning is much more fun
> when you place a personality behind the moves. It takes a greater
> degree of effort to replicate this than what is currently being done. I
> think the results would be worth the effort however.
well, let's see...
-------
quote:
> fire -
> for every
> every
> is
>
>
> Yours,
> Rob( Sam Wise)
Hah!
Phil
| |
|
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
an[vbcol=seagreen]
level[vbcol=seagreen]
quarterly[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> many have thought of such a thing
>
> -----------
>
brought[vbcol=seagreen]
area[vbcol=seagreen]
actually[vbcol=seagreen]
information[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> born on the same day as dostoyevski!
>
>
> george patton was an original and very american genius, without a
political
quote:
> thought in his head, and he achieved a rare thing - he beat the
invincible
quote:
> germans, and he beat them again and again and he was only stopped by
> politicians who discarded him.
>
> in my own country they discarded churchill too
>
> perhaps as well, even though both were right to want to continue a
fight
quote:
> they saw was not over, and knew the ground ahead, the world was weary
of
quote:
> fighting and needed to rest, like being awake too long...
>
done. I[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> well, let's see...
>
> -------
>
any[vbcol=seagreen]
cynics[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Hah!
>
> Phil
LOL
Well since we had a "Lord of the Rings" theme going there, I thought I
would share my favorite character.
Rob
|
| |
|
|