Home > Archive > Chess politics > April 2005 > Re: Supernationals in Nashville





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 Re: Supernationals in Nashville
Spam Scone

2005-04-12, 3:57 am


Bruce Leverett wrote:
quote:

> Spam Scone wrote:
two,[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I'm having so much trouble with this paragraph, I hardly know where

to
quote:

> start.


I have full confidence in you, Bruce. You will find a way.
quote:

> "Most, if not all, of them are going to be gone in a year or two."
> Most of whom? My kids play in Pittsburgh-area scholastics. My
> personal observation is that the percentage of long-timers in these
> tournaments is about the same as the percentage of long-timers in
> "adult" events that I attend.


Your milage may differ.
quote:

> If we're talking about the Nationals, rather than the Pittsburgh-area
> scholastics that I mostly see, it's no contest. 99% of the Nationals
> participants are long-timers. BTW, the Nationals are VERY strong. A
> player at the level of Neil Brennen would be somewhere deep in the
> middle of the pack at the K-6 section of the Elementary, and would

not
quote:

> be assured of winning even the K-1 section.


We can always count on Bruce Leverett to take the high road. Leaving
aside the questionable validity of the suggestion that a B player
couldn't win a K-1 section, I find it interesting that on a number of
occasions Bruce has taken a swipe at my (presumed) chess skill, or lack
of skill, even when there seems to be no reason for it. I wonder what
he hopes to accomplish by doing this?
quote:

> "Chess is an adult activity." Speak for yourself. I learned how to
> play chess by joining the school chess club in 6th grade (this was
> 1962). I then played in scholastic leagues at the junior high and

high
quote:

> school level. I played in many junior/scholastic tournaments, and

the
quote:

> 1968 U.S. Junior Open. At the same time, I think I could count on

one
quote:

> hand the number of "adult" tournaments I played in before I went to
> college.


But you did play in them, and were exposed to a real chess club, as
opposed to a kiddie herd?
quote:

> And that's not counting college, of course. I played hundreds of

rated
quote:

> games in college, including intercollegiate matches and tournaments.
> Does that count as an "adult" activity? Was I an adult at 17? (Am I
> an adult now? Mmm, better to have left some questions unasked.)


I don't recall that we were discussing college chess, Bruce.
quote:

> Is it just me? Well, the truth is, the number of kids playing
> organized chess is already far greater than the number of adults.

The
quote:

> numbers are on my side. Last year's National Elementary turnout,
> roughly 1900, was very disappointing, but it was larger than the
> largest adult Swiss ever (the largest World Open drew about 1800
> people; that was about 19 years ago). Jerry Meyers holds at least 4
> scholastic Swisses EVERY YEAR that are larger than the largest adult
> swiss EVER held in Pittsburgh.


Myers does not hold chess tournaments. He holds kiddie-chess-variant
tournaments where rules such as touch-move are tossed aside to make the
game 'easier' and to raise the headcount. You are welcome to such
'chess', Bruce.
quote:

> I predict that the disparity is only going to grow. Today's

scholastic
quote:

> tournaments draw mostly from private schools, Catholic schools,
> home-school kids. When the public schools catch up, it'll be an
> incredible explosion. OK, that's only a prediction.
>
> I'm sorry, but chess, like every other game and every sport, is

mainly
quote:

> for kids. If you feel left out by that, have some kids.


Copyright 2003 - 2009 gamesreviews.net Software forum  PC Hardware reviews