I have received some very positive comments from important people in the chess world concerning my latest post. For example, one “pooh-bah” wrote, “One of your most interesting and best columns.” For any writer it just does not get any better than that, coming as it does from someone for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration. Another “pooh-bah” said he thought I should consider posting the essay on the forum so others could read it, going on to write, “Everyone in the chess world should read this.”
Rather than post the essay here, I will only post the URL.
Interesting article but I don’t know if I agree that the ability of computers to rule the game has destroyed chess’ mystic. Adult membership drops seem to be due to technological, economic, and societal factors. Chess is not expensive in money, but it is expensive in time. In our current society, time is at a premium. It is much easier to hop online, play a game and get on to the other things one needs to do. Plus, a lot of the under 40 crowd is perfectly happy not interacting with people face-to-face. Remote interactions are perfectly fine.
I personally believe that scholastic chess is not only not acting as a pipeline to adult chess but that it is actually a discouragement to adult chess. There are a few of reasons for this. Beyond the standard better things to do situation of people in their 20’s, there is the burn-out factor of people who spent their youth playing competitively and not wanting anything to do with it once they are an adult. The whole thing wasn’t fun but more of a chore. You see it in other activities like swimming, baseball, etc. Next it does kill the prestige of the game some by making it a kids’ game.
This leads into why scholastic chess isn’t feeding adult chess but why it is actively killing it. First, the kids who played competitively at a serious level saw themselves beating most of the adults. Why play as an adult when you will have to face the next batch of wonderkids? But as a current adult, what can be more discouraging than being beat by some kid who can still count his age on his fingers? You the adult are faced with a job, family, and a myriad of other responsibilities. You walk into a tournament after grabbing what little prep you could only to face the latest grinder. The parents are there and the kid spends a ton of spare time (maybe even school time) on chess and lessons from possibly a GM. Why go back to that? You the middling C/D player can’t keep up with the competition. Other than being fatherly, you can’t relate to the kid whose feet don’t touch the floor and leaves the board for snacks and a juice box. It is like going out to play tennis with a teenager who has lessons, is on the school tennis team, and is in prime condition while you get out to play a couple times a week after sitting at your desk all week. You wouldn’t have a league with many adults very long. That is what I think is happening with adult chess.
That being the problem, a couple of recommendations would be to
Keep really young kids from playing in adult tournaments and limit 15-17 year olds in some way.
Get rid of ratings for anyone under 15. If we want to create super chess players, find some other way to keep them out of the casual competitor pool of players and funnel them into the professional realm.
Strive to give tournaments a more adult atmosphere. Make players feel like they are part of something special.
Just my two cents.
Side note, classical music is not really dead or only kept alive via it’s mystic and rich benefactors. It has shifted venues to movies. For recognition, I bet a lot of movie soundtracks rival pop music songs.
I don’t have any strong opinions on why (or even if) the popularity of chess is declining, or why adult participation is down, but I would definitely vote against Chris’s suggestions. I personally enjoy playing against kids as well as adults, and I think it would be harmful to both groups to segregate them. We do have one big tournament every year where we do exactly that, and it’s a refreshing change for some (especially those adults who have ego problems when a kid beats them), but I wouldn’t want every tournament to be like that.
One thing I’ve noticed about kids lately, and maybe this is the influence of Magnus Carlsen, but they really seem to play the endgame well. I’ve had several games where, after a mutually sloppy middlegame, we reach a more-or-less equal endgame, and I’m thinking “Now I’ve got him where I want him” – and then the kid totally outplays me in the endgame. My hat’s off to them when they can do that, and I take it as a cheap lesson, exactly as I do when an adult beats me.
The demise of chess has been prophesied for over 150 years. In Morphy’s time, there was a complaint that he could not be beaten because he knew all of the “book” theory of the game, especially the openings. This book knowledge was put forward as a threat and an end to the game. Lasker and then Capablanca said that between equal players it was impossible to win. Capablanca indicated that the number of draws was increasing and that would kill interest in the game. His proposal to increase the size of the board and add two pieces per side did not catch on. After Capablanca’s loss to Alexander Alekhine, Alekhine said the idea of the “draw death” of chess was finished. The ennui of Capablanca’s time as champion was washed away by a new dynamism in the play. The extensive work by the so-called “hypermoderns” and the Russian theorists explored new facets of the game and deepened our understanding.
After the Russians kept winning the world championship, there were complaints that the Russians were killing the game because of their monopoly of the title. Tournament chess in the West, it was posited, would decline and disappear as the Russians would play without appearance fees while dominating the few prizes offered. Fischer’s victory in 1972 put a dent in that idea. Chess in western Europe and the US exploded for a time as dozens of new tournaments appeared and the sale of books on chess skyrocketed.
When Karpov became champion, once again it was put forth that chess would dry up because his static style was unappealing. The rise of Kasparov and other dynamic players put that to rest. Then they said that Kasparov would kill chess because of his computer preparation. Even Kasparov laughs at that idea, stating that his early use of computers was primitive and easily matched by off the shelf products and software if players wanted to put out the effort. At the same time, the rise of strong chess playing programs and higher speed hardware would kill the game. This notion was premature in the `1980’s and while the programs have improved considerably, we do not see the death of chess. The computer research led to more study about how the brain works and the impact of psychological as well as economic elements in the game.
Changing time controls was supposed to kill the game. Has not done it yet and I do not expect it will. Delay and increment have had their detractors, and yet the players adapted. David Bronstein was correct that faster games would become popular once tried. The new line is that the requirement to have a prodigious memory will kill creativity and end the reign of chess as a popular game. The game has always, in every era, required a good memory. The tools change, but the fundamentals remain. The enjoyment has not diminished for avid players.
Some important observations. First, as someone who grew up in a non-scholastic period and area,
there is no question for me, that the demographics of chess are quite different today. When I was
a youth growing up in Fort Worth, Texas, there were about three or so chess clubs which held
generally quarterly or b-monthly (at best) events. All of these were long time control 40 moves,
2 hours, SD1, for example, certainly multi-day events. As such, most of the participants were adults–
very few kids involved.
I do have a hole in my chess history from about 1990-2000 in which I rarely if ever played. But,
it does seem to me that when I really got into playing again that certainly the chess scene had
changed. Dramatically so. G/30 had been introduced, and its popularity was rapidly increasing.
By 2005, scholastic chess was well entrenched.
Today, 2014, kids make up about 70 % of the regular tournament participants. The majority of
adults I know “still involved” are involved at the club level only–although it has been a “mission” of
mine to get them back into USCF rated chess, met with very limited success, I might add.
I know of many adults who will not return to play in what has become the most common time control,
G/30, and refuse to play in far more noisy environments dominated by kids. Thus, I do concur with
Mr. Lutz’s observations.
I also agree that in many areas across our federation, scholastic chess is failing as a feeder into a
pipeline for adult chess. As I have previously expressed, the key reason for this is that all too often
there seems to be “kids chess” organizers and tournament directors, and “adult chess” organizers
and tournament directors, with little or too often little cooperation in terms of chess promotion between the two. In an effort to “preserve” a sense of what they perceive the standards of chess
should be (perfectly within their rights I must add), the “adult” group maintains long time controls, and sections not at all compatible to the young, novice, or intermediate level chess players.
Thus, for vast areas of our federation, the only chess truly available to them is scholastic. Period.
This harms the growth of chess, and in this naturally, USCF in two major ways. One, aspiring players
wishing to emerge from the scholastic ranks, quite often are not really welcome at the basically
“adult” chess arenas. Secondly, novice and intermediate youths do not really get a feel or understanding of the meaning of top quality tournament chess. To grow in chess, one must first,
I believe understand the need to grow. That being the king of the elementary school mountain does
not necessarily mean one is a quality chess player. These are key reasons I believe why so many
kids are dropping out if not after elementary, then middle school.
A third factor, which few seem eager to discuss is that a seeming discouragement to kids wishing
to play in regular events, and in not offering ratings appropriate sections available to them, is that
without these lower rated kids, there is not really a base from which to attract the growing novice
and intermediate adult chess audience. Yes, this is right. I have seen more adults returning to chess, in large measure to the fantastic three month membership plan offered, than at any time in
recent years. But, for the most part, these lower ability level adults do now wish to enter higher
rated sections in which they have truly next to zero chance at competing.
With this backdrop, I will now offer my “two cents” on Mr. Lutz’s recommendations:
A. Keeping really young kids away, limit 15-17 year olds.
Right now, the Dallas Chess club has hundreds of very well established youths playing in 1200+
sections who are very mature player in regard to disposition, composure, and ability. Included
in this group are one U18 GM (or soon to be), and an IM, about a half dozen FMs, and about a
dozen other level masters and experts. Many of these players are certainly far younger than 15.
It is not uncommon to see U10 youths 1900+. Do you truly wish to bar these talented youths
simply based on age?? Now I do agree that if the kids participating cannot show the decorum
desired, then individually remove them, but not as a group due to the misguided prejudices of the
older generation, at an entire group.
B. Longer time control/Multi-day events tend to do a great job of sorting out the younger less talented players. Having a few of these every now and then is a great way to get many of the old
guard to return, and also thin out the undesired immature kids.
C. More"adult" atmosphere–I would use the term “pristine”. As in a quiet, respectful atmosphere.
And certainly kids who can play within this atmosphere should be encouraged to come.
I have encouraged those who wish to build adult only clubs. I do agree there is some need for this.
But for most organizers, from experience seeing clubs fail, that this is for the most part, economic
suicide. Look at it this way: by far the most dependable base in terms of tournament attendance
is the youth chess base. Adults due to increasing obligations tend to come and go. For the most part, not as dependable in terms of tournament revenues needed.
Yes, i too am very interested in rebuilding the USCF adult chess base. But not only a base serving
the more talented players–but one also catered to the novice beginning adults as well. They do need
a voice in our federation, and more than any group, i do feel their wishes are being shut out.
But, I am more interested in the long term future of USCF. Without a doubt such policies as Mr. Lutz
has offered would turn away from chess some of the most talented young players in our nation. Further, the numbers of emerging players, because of a decreased lack of opportunity would drastically decline. Then, 20-30 years from now, what would we have left?? The very old, gray
and next to senile ?? Not the bright future I envision for USCF, esp as I will no
doubt need some of the younger crowd to assisting me with my decreasing physical
and mental condition.
“I also agree that in many areas across our federation, scholastic chess is failing as a feeder into a
pipeline for adult chess. As I have previously expressed, the key reason for this is that all too often
there seems to be “kids chess” organizers and tournament directors, and “adult chess” organizers
and tournament directors, with little or too often little cooperation in terms of chess promotion between the two.”
I would like to refer Mr. Jones, and other readers, to my post of July 25 on the Armchair Warrior blog, “A Chess House Divided Cannot Stand.” xpertchesslessons.wordpress.com/ … not-stand/
While it is true that many in my community, the Anglo community, esp, have little regard for chess, and do regard it in all sorts of ways, generally
substandard–by no means is this belief held by most of the Asian families
I have worked with in chess over the last decade or so. For many of them
chess is the number one sport. A review of the winners of almost any
scholastic national will show most of the winners being Asian. Personally,
I could care less which culture one is from, just that I do wish that chess
had more importance in the minds of more adults in mine.
Dennis, some of it is ego. But some of it is the fact that there is no way for the adults to be competitive in the current environment. Half of the games I played at my last tournament were against kids under 8 years old (record against 1-1). Having a kid appear once a year or so who blows through the section isn’t bad. Having to face it every tournament gets depressing. I’m starting to see a smattering of blog posts by people saying the same thing. The kids are causing adults to give up OTB chess. There is a reason why most sports leagues divide things up by age. And while I appreciate that you enjoy playing against kids, a significant number of adults do not get that same enjoyment.
I’m not trying to be snarky, here, but it sounds like most of it is ego. If someone other than you is “blowing through the section” on a regular basis, that just means he/she is better than you. We all have to come to terms at some point with the reality that there are other chess players who are better than we are. I honestly don’t see why it should make any difference what the ages of those players are. Likewise with race, gender, religion, etc. I have lost to (and beaten) people from just about every demographic group imaginable. And in every case, the common denominator is that they played better chess than I did. None of the other stuff matters. That, in my opininon, is a major part of why chess is the great game it is.
Ah yes, we should play the board and not the opponent.
However, this is my adult hobby and I want my experience to be pleasant and fun.
Others see it this way as well.
There are problems with a number of young opponents. Whether they are good enough to beat me or not is not the issue.
I have had teenagers be wiseacres to me showing no respect. I remember blundering to one young man, about 16 years old and losing a very won position. He was not nice at all in the post mortem and was telling me how my moves were so bad well before the blunder. When I told him the position was actually winning for me he told me that he won the game and knew better than I, seriously. I have seen other kids and their behavior be less than palatable for others and me.
Don’t get me wrong, there are a lot of good and nice kids out there that are a true pleasure to play with and against win or lose. It’s just that there are so many kids that the poor behaving ones are usually there and around.
It is a fact that the adult playing numbers are down and decreasing for a good number of years now. There has to be a reason for this decline.
Sure, there’s the age thing, but as some get too old others come into the age of playability.
I think Chris Lutz has hit the nail on the head as a reason why a lot of people have drifted away from play. And the kids are certainly part of that reason.
Personally, I have experienced two old fogies showing no respect and outright laughing in my face when they beat me, I haven’t had that experience with a child/teenager.
There is a famous local story of a teenager behaving badly. Teenager (T), rated around 2000 is playing Experienced Adult (EA), rated around 1700. At the time, EA was a very active tournament player, playing over 100 rated games a year, and is known as a bitter-ender. About fifteen moves in, EA blunders an exchange for no compensation. After T takes the rook, he nosily rises from his chair and yells “NEXT!” in the tournament hall. EA turns into the Terminator, fights for every inch, and tries every trick in his formidable arsenal. After twenty or so moves, T fell into one of many traps that had been set and eventually lost the game.
Bad behavior is bad behavior, and I’ve experienced it from adults as well as kids. There are several people who I dread playing because of their typical behavior during the game. None of them are kids.
I did have one kid who was a bit rude to me recently. I was playing on a bit longer than I should have in a drawn opposite-color bishop ending. He got exasperated, stood up, and said “It’s a draw” loud enough for the whole room to hear. I was embarrassed and a bit irritated, but you know the main reason I was embarrassed? Because he was right. I won’t hold it against him, and certainly not because he’s a kid. If anything, I’m willing to cut him a bit more slack on that account.
Bottom line: you can’t penalize kids in general because a few of them are ill-behaved. So are some adults. So what?
I’m still playing rated Chess and we have a lot of kids playing as well. They don’t bother me any more than adults.
We do have a serious decline in adult participation and we that are left haven’t been negatively bothered by any of the factors, enough to quit at least, that drove others away.
The rise of scholastic aged kids/people playing is a fact whether we like it or not.
I know that when I was young, there were no big groups of scholastic people playing. Those numbers materialized and grew in the last 25 years.
I remember Kevin Bachler explaining why his son, rated in the 1900’s quit playing tournaments during and after college. He said that it was no fun playing with the poorly behaving and unkempt adults, or something to that effect.
It also has been mentioned that those that played as kids aren’t playing as adults now because Chess was something to them like Soccer, you know a thing they did when they were kids and wouldn’t do as adults.
Early in this thread Chris Lutz wrote a nice bit:
I have talked with a lot of adults over the years that have left playing the game. Not one of them mentions computers and their great ability ruining the game for humans.
It is much easier to hop online these days and play some chess than to drive to a location for a club or even tournament. I know that I am playing a lot more Chess now with the internet availabilities than I did 20 years ago. And I do know some adults that are playing online rather than come to a club or tournament.
Some people might not like what he says here, but it is a fact. I would also like to add that a lot of people played in their youth and lost a lot. Sometimes they did well in scholastics and then came to play with the adults only to be beaten soundly and frequently. They got the idea that they weren’t good and they would be better off spending their adult time at something they were better at. Sure, they should realize that they could learn and get good and enjoy the game, but the numbers of them staying away from the game and giving the above as an excuse for staying away are real and large. It’s darned hard to convince them they could be good and they should play for the fun of it. As Chris said, they don’t see it as fun and play but as torture and work.
You know, we have to give the above argument some credence. I know of one fellow that played a lot with us when he was young and getting good, 1900 strength. He finished school, got married and had a couple of kids. He recently came back to play and was recently beaten by one of the 13 year old wunderkinds as he was at that age. He has missed the last 3 meetings and last 2 games of that tournament since then.
We used to have quite the adult membership 20 years ago in Peoria. I moved here 18 years ago just when the kids started coming to our club more. I watched as the adult numbers dwindled from 20 some to less than 6 on any given night. We really don’t have that adult league contingency anymore, while the percentage of kids is higher than ever.
Many of my “baby boomer” friends and colleagues started dropping out of tournament play over a decade ago. The majority of them retired from playing in tournaments because they felt too old to continue play. It was not the computers or the kids who caused them to leave. Nor was it the faster time controls. Chess is just hard and becomes a grind after a while to many players. The leading edge of the “baby boomers” who came in around Fischer’s run at the World Championship are retiring from work and many of their other activities. In addition, I see more and more obits of old chess warriors.
When the Fischer boom went bust in the late 70’s and 80’s, there wasn’t a surge of juniors at that time to replace the players who left the game. We have a big demographic hole from that era. Today, when I go to a large Grand Prix tournament, I see lots of gray hair and tons of kids below the age of 16. The generation in between did not become USCF members. Instead, they turned to computers, gaming, and pursuit of the quick dollar. We are lucky that a wave of juniors appeared in the late 90’s. And then a second wave in this century. The move of a bunch of emigrants with the fall of the Berlin Wall also led to more players. Without the kids or the emigrants, we would have a federation of about 20,000 members and a mediocre Olympiad team.
Instead of being unwelcoming to kids in chess clubs or tournaments, you should embrace them. Not just because they are the future, but they are fun and keep some of us old fogies young. So what if they are noisy and run around. When we were all young we were obnoxious and pains to the adults around us. Get over it and help teach the kids how to play and how to behave with respect and love for the game.
Ron, I direct a chess club with around 170 members on our membership list. Over half are adults. Our club attracts adults by having a social atmosphere, not a cutthroat USCF tournament setting all of the time. Many of our adults just want to dip in and play a few games, eat some cookies, and shoot the breeze. These guys are avid players but do not have the time or desire to play in tournaments. A lot of them are probably about 1000 USCF in strength or less. They like to have fun and don’t care about ratings, big money tournaments, or chess politics. They could go to a couple of other clubs, but they prefer ours. They also don’t mind the little kids. In fact, they are in awe at how strong some of the wee ones are becoming.
Our club holds 4 rated tournaments per year and has two teams in a chess league. We work with kids going to state scholastic and national championships. That is the extent of our USCF involvement. We hold some unrated events and do some other chess related activities. Mostly, it is casual play and analysis of games. That is what the members want, that is what we provide. The adults like it that way, as well as the kids and parents. I have seen clubs that focused only on USCF play. Social status was based on rating. The membership dwindled. I have also seen clubs that were not kid friendly. These clubs are small and limp along, always complaining about why more adults don’t play in their club. They don’t recognize that they have hurt their club’s future by being so cold. It certainly is quiet in those clubs. Like a morgue.
As far as membership trends, I have been there and seen the best and worst times. IMHO, the USCF has been its own worst enemy in developing membership and spreading chess. Maybe that will change with the new 501(c)(3) status and the potential new directions that have been proffered by our present ED.
I don’t mind losing to kids. It’s the losses to feeble-minded adults that bug me!
Chess is well over 50% tactics, and when I lose to a young player, it’s rarely because they’re deeper thinkers than I am. But I learn from them all the time. (I’ll be blogging some painful summer 2014 losses after I survive the US Open.) And they may occasionally pick up something from me.
Playing young people is an honor and a privilege. It’s a great way to prove to yourself that you’re as good as you think you are. And if you’re not, that’s OK: chess is humbling for all of us.
Then do the legwork and form your own Adults Only affiliate. Many complain about what
others are not doing which would make them happier. I have known of several affilaites
and clubs that basically shooed the kids away through their own arrogant and rude
behavior. They wend defunct. Not enough attendance to pay the rent. Here are the problems with depending on the all adult audience: A. Adults are less likely to be consistent supporters of chess clubs and weekly events due to their own family obligations,
jobs, etc. B. Their currently are too few adults as compared to kids playing, and C. Adult
players generally fall into three groups: Top-- the better, well established players–
generally, simply not interested in playing unless he prize money is substantial. The
Intermediate group-- like to play, and generally form the core of clubs. and C. the novice
adult who hates getting whipped by the other two groups. Without kids for them to play
and have a chance against, they generally despair and quit. the fact is, kids generally
rebound from losing quicker than many adults. See, most of them kind of expect to lose
at least at some point to adults— But, many adults who become aware that being fatter,
older, and balder are not chess attributes, quit.
