Seirawan editoral in 4/28/14 WSJ

http://m.us.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303532704579483940841797528-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwODEyNDgyWj

Here’s a clickable version of the OP’s link.

…and here is a link to a Google search for the title of the article.

This will have a better chance of letting non-subscribers read the article. The WSJ shows full articles to people who arrive via Google in many cases where they would only show a preview to people who arrive via a direct link.

Chess hegemony was already fading when the first USSR vs. the World match was played. I remember reading of grumblings in the Soviet Chess Federation about the lackluster performance of its stars. With the coming of the fall of the Soviet Union, the exodus of dozens of talented players, and the economic hardships which cut money for chess, it was inevitable that the there would be not just one power. In the two decades after the dissolution of the Soviet state, there has also arisen two new chess nations, India and China, to challenge the Russians. The Russians also faced rivals in the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Georgia, etc., their previous republics that were part of the USSR. Russia has struggled to win Olympiads. With the aging of the two superstars, Kasparov and Karpov, it was inevitable that new players would vie for the world title. There was no guarantee that the World Champion would forever be from Russia.

As far as the US being a major power with a World Champion of the caliber of Fischer, we are still waiting. The US still follows a patronage model more than a free market business model in the development of chess. In a nation with so many opportunities for entertainment and personal advancement, the little money in chess is not so attractive. Chess is also not as big a part of American culture as it is in Europe, Russia, or the former Soviet satellites. Chess is a very individual pastime, part sport and part enthralling hobby. Money alone cannot guarantee a champion, but it cannot hurt to have more money floating around.

I see that Rex is moving to get St. Louis federal recognition as the national chess capital.
politico.com/politicoinfluen … 13749.html
(Must be the first time chess made Politico.)

Bill B:

You might be able to make your link clickable by eliminating the carriage return at the end of the first line. Either move to the end of the first line and press Del, or move to the beginning of the second line and press backspace.

Let’s try it:

http://m.us.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303532704579483940841797528-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwODEyNDgyWj

EDIT: Yep, it worked.

Bill Smythe

Nice article, thanks for posting the link.

To me, if the U.S., or India, China, or Norway never dominate chess the way the players of the former Soviet Union did, I still applaud whatever success they do achieve. I do not look in some lesser way upon players like Kamsky, Nakamura, Caruana, or others, who may not currently have the achievements of Botvinnik, Petrosian, or Spassky, or even our own Bobby Fischer. I still have great admiration for their own particular success, regardless of what level they achieve.