|
| Neil and James,
jamesrynd@aol.com wrote:
quote:
> Chess is
> an adult activity; such scholastic tournaments promote chess as a
> child's game, to be set aside when they set aside childish things.
I agree that currently it is an intellectual pursuit that is enjoyed
mostly by adults.
quote:
>
> Well-said and right on the money. Until such events as the
> "Supernationals" are seen as destructive to chess as a life-long
> activity, no progress will ever be made in promoting chess in
America.
I am not sure if the events themselves are destructive or if they way
they are currently being done in practice is destructive. I will have
to think on that one. LOL I can concede that your points have strong
merit.
quote:
> "Emerging nations" is a strange term, but I think I know what Rob is
> talking about. Chess is taught in the schools as a lifelong activity
in
quote:
> such nations, not as a way to get a big trophy.
Exactly! You don't have to get a big trophy to make playing chess fun.
I was more frustrated that an opportunity to introduce more people to
playing chess was lost due to poor execution on a stricty execution
level.
quote:
> The infantilization of chess in the US is well-documented, but little
> can be done about it as scholastic organizers make too much money.
And
quote:
> money is what everything is about in this "non-emerging nation."
It takes money to get things done. I have no problem with making a
profit. But I think I understand what your point is. They make money
for moneys sake without using the profits to really promote the game
for the good of kids and chess as opposed to lining their pockets. Is
that it more or less? That is how I see it . If I missed it, help me.
LOL
I think the discussion is great we are having and I think we all would
like to see less children dropping out of chess due to a poor
experience with it. I think if we look at it like golf we may see
similarities. In order to get better, you must play. Having a good
place to play with partners of quality is hard to find. Golf was the
same years ago. As interest grew in the game, more courses were built
to keep up with the demand. If we can encourage an interest and demand,
then there will be more clubs and public places to play the game. As
the opportunities increase, the quality of the playing should increase
on the whole. It is then, I think , more likely that chess will become
a lifelong pursuit as opposed to a temporary activity played for two
years then disgarded along with the baseball gloves of youth.
What do you think?
quote:
> And yes, my post was not meant as restrictive. Developing chess
> participation at the local level is far more important than the
> so-called "Supernationals," and would result in lifelong players.
YES! :-)
Rob
|
|