|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
(1) What are young people looking for in the game of chess? Is there any substantive difference in interest between boys and girls? Are there different problems associated with boys and girls adopting chess?
However, the definition of fun is different for each child. It is also very different between boys and girls. For years and even still today, chess federations are run by men who do not have much interest in women’s chess. They approach young girls and women the same way they approach young boys and men. This is precisely the reason why we have so many fewer females playing chess. Most women do not like violence. Most women are not into brut force. Most women approach chess with a more friendly, artistic point of view. They enjoy the social aspect of chess a lot more. I can give you a few glaring examples:
(2) A big problem in the USA has been keeping 'scholastic' players in the game, and I understand that USCF's record is to maintain only 60% of new players from year to year. Is this a problem which can be answered? Well, let’s examine the problem. As we all know, the majority of these participants are boys. As I discussed in my previous answer, boys are a lot more results-oriented. So what does that mean? If they don’t win, they get frustrated. And if they are not given the opportunity to improve, their results won’t get better and they will eventually quit. There are many school sending teams every year to National Scholastic Events. Coaches are under extreme pressure to win. Therefore, instead of training the young players the right way, but with slower results, they have to find short cuts to achieve quick results. What do I mean by this? One example: you cannot even imagine how many coaches are teaching kids the nonsense of 1.e4 2.Qh5 3.Bc4 4.Qxf7 mate! While it may work against the younger inexperienced kids, it will never work against the older players and these kids stop winning. So they are replaced by the next group of young kids. In the meantime, many of these kids never had a chance to learn or understand chess the proper way, and they eventually quit. This process becomes a recruiting mill for titles.
(3) Looking forward to the next 10 years of activity, what role do you think national chess organizations have in developing chess, and what role do leading players have? This is an interesting question. I think the role of the national organization should be to provide the central forum for national chess. The national organization should promote the fun, cool, exciting but tasteful image of chess, the benefits of chess for people of all ages, especially children, and to promote its stars. The leading chess players should be the image of chess to the public, not someone from the office. For example, names like Michael Jordan, Shaq, Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, the Williams sisters, Chris Evert, Andre Agassi, Andy Roddick, Michelle Wie, Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Alex Rodriguez, Pedro Martinez, Roger Clemens, Jeanette Lee, Mia Hamm, etc. are synonymous with their sports. We need that in chess. There are very few names in chess that stand out. That is the big problem with the national federation. No name recognition, no excitement, no fan base, no growth, no potential. The leading players must also do their job by learning the basic PR skills and reaching out to their fans, the media and the general public. The leading players and the national federation must work together to accomplish this. It has to be a strong marriage for the good of chess. Strong numbers equate to strong corporate sponsorships for chess and endorsement opportunities for the leading players! (4) In current news, Turkey has stimulated chess in their country, in schools and beyond, by the government teaming with a corporate sponsor to produce 100,000 players over the past 12 months. Let me propose to you the initial sum of $2.5 million dollars of initial expenditure to boost chess activities in the USA, followed by $1 million dollars per year thereafter. How would you deploy these funds? I’ve met Mr. Ali Nihat Yazici at the 2004 Olympiad in Calvia, Spain. He is a very enthusiastic person and an absolute chess lover. His enthusiasm and hard work will forever change chess in Turkey. I am very impressed with what he has done and I am sure many more good things will come. Similar things can be achieved in the United States. However, it will take more work since we are a much larger nation and we have a different government structure. It will also cost more money. However, with the $2.5 million sum, a lot of things can be done and it would be a great start. Since the question is about ways to boost chess activities in the USA, I will offer a few points about general chess promotion. One of the things that is lacking in the United States is the lack of positive theme and/or slogan for chess in mainstream society. The mainstream public thinks chess is boring. They do not know how big the chess community is. Many don’t even know that there is a national chess federation. If they don’t, the chance of us getting major corporations interested in us is slim. Therefore, there is a need to come up with chess promotional themes, something that is fun, cool, hip and catchy.
Another must-do activity is to create a comprehensive and easy to understand universal/standard chess teaching system to introduce people of all ages to chess. It should be readily available, for free, to download or view on the web. This way, all schools would have access to them to bring chess to their schools, and parents, coaches and teachers can also be involved. Promoting our top stars is another thing that is sorely needed. Young people need heroes / role models and older players need interesting characters to cheer for. Our stars should be household names. This is essential to the success of any sport. Organizing interesting chess events coast to coast that is suitable for the media (TV, Webcast, Internet, etc.) such as:
The smiling winners and First Chessdarts World Champions 2005
Marketing is a number’s game. Without the numbers, no company would be
interested in getting involved. No company is interested in giving
away money for no reason. The same goes with Universities and
Colleges. Universities and Colleges would be more inclined to give out
scholarships if they have incentive to do so. Chess has the numbers
already. We just need to be creative in bringing those numbers into
the mainstream. These are just some basic ideas. I do not think
it would take long to bring chess to the next level of popularity.
Standing still is not an option. What do you think? Chessville invites you to write to The Parrot and let us know your thoughts!!
|
The
|
||||||
|
||||||||
.jpg)
Young
people are looking to have fun with chess. While parents may have
different ideas, let’s not forget why children want to play or stay in
chess. It’s definitely not because that’s what their parents want.
When young people stop having fun, they stop playing chess..jpg)
What
can be done to correct this? It is up to the USCF to educate the
educators, teachers and parents, etc. There should be plenty of basic
help for them available. This is something that can be done with
little or no cost with the power of the internet. The USCF should ask
experienced coaches, people who have proper experience and strength, to
develop a national training system. There should be a national
standardized chess curriculum.
