Interesting issue posed by Chess Life even without the question mark on its cover. Accepting that we are a nation of immigrants and that many of the best players in and for the US were/are foreign born bringing, in many instances, their chess culture/heritage with them to our shores, I looked at what our Olympiad team would look like if one had to be a jus soli US citizen to represent the US in an Olympiad.
From the current rating list of FIDE ratings we would have:
Fabio Caruna 2797 (Miami, FL)
Ray Robson 2680 (Guam)
Sam Shankland 2656 (San Francisco, CA)
Daniel Naroditsky 2622 (San Mateo, CA)
If you allowed for citizenship via jus sanguinis, Nakamura would be at the top of our list. I suspect other national teams would be in the same situation.
Thus, how do we best determine how we are in actuality doing as a nation producing top players from our soil, parent(s) and culture? Not as well as it might appear from the rating lists based on flexible national federation affiliations?
If you are just talking about an Olympiad team, then it is an interesting question. If you are talking about some individual US Player dominating, that might be another matter. Will any player ever match the unbeaten streak of Capablanca? Will some US player dominate a series [5-7] of chess tournaments? Are either of these even possible any more?
Just focusing on the Olympiad. Reminds me of the Italian ice hockey team a few years ago recruiting US players of Italian heritage to play in the Olympics for them.
Every now and then someone floats this absurd idea, which would eliminate virtually all of our top players and place us at a disadvantage other nations do not afflict themselves with.
I think it’s the same person the last couple of times.
It would be a huge disadvantage for our team, not only would Nakamura be ineligible despite being a US citizen from birth, but Ray Robson, despite being born in Guam, a US Territory, and being a US citizen since birth would ALSO be ineligible to participate for the US Olympic team, since Guam is recognized as a FIDE ‘country’.
But even it didn’t disadvantage us, it would still be morally wrong. In the past there were top players who defected from the old Soviet Union, and this rule would effectively bar them from playing in the Olympiad. Lev Alburt, Boris Gulko, Viktor Korchnoi and others. Let’s also not forget Alexander Alekhine, Miguel Najdorf, and Gary Kasparov all played for countries in the Olympiad that they were not born in.
So I am eligible to be president of the US (if I were so inclined) but I would not be eligible for the Olympiad (if I ever became strong enough)?
My parents were both born in IL and got married before they went on my dad’s deployment to Germany where I was born.
Not at all. Most all national teams would be in the same relative position. Most nations use jus sanguinis only. We use that and jus soli. Thus, all the players mentioned, Nakamura, Caruna, Robson, Shankland and Naroditsky, would be eligible to play for the US at an Olympiad. So would not unless he became a US citizen using Olympic standards. Not sure what the present FIDE rule is, but it appears one can have a national federation be theirs without citizenship and therefor play in the Olympiad for the nation they are affiliated with. Kirsan wants chess in the Olympics, so I suspect FIDE might have to change to comply with the IOC.
Accelerated citizenship for top athletes coming to the US and wanting to compete for the US in the Olympics is nothing new. Other countries do it as well. The key is being a citizen. Take a look at: nytimes.com/2008/06/15/sport … print&_r=0
I think the title of the article should have been: “A New Golden Age for High-Level American Chess.” Mr Wainscott seems to equate the term “golden age” with “production of grandmasters.” What about the rest of us? What about casual chess players, or players like me who have been absent from chess for 30 years and are trying to return to the game? Or players like Brian DeSousa [page 8, Counterplay] who have been absent from chess for 20 or more years and are considering a return?
The side bar “1972 Wasn’t a Golden Age?” says the Fischer years in the early 1970s fall short of qualifying as a “golden age” because “no other top-level American players developed along with Fischer.” Of the millions of Americans who became interested in chess because of the media’s intense focus on Fischer, at least some of them continued to be interested in the game and undoubtedly continue to play today. They don’t count?
Even in the parts of the article where Mr Wainscott refers to scholastic chess, his focus seems to be on the development of high-level players.
What about people who play chess not to win trophies, but just for the fun of it? What about players who are happy enough with their low rating and quite content to play people similar in skill? It’s as if we don’t exist.
I’m sorry to say that I found the article to be elitist. I don’t object to the focus on high-level chess, but I do object to the idea that the only measure of the game’s health in the United States is the number of grandmasters being produced.
Yes, we need expert-level players to learn from and admire. Because of an interview that I read in Chess Life, I’ve become a big, big fan of Maurice Ashley.
But there is a LOT of chess going on at the levels below GM.
Oh, my…there are EB members that likely will not be pleased with your analysis. I agree with your analysis that the emphasis on the elite is misplaced. There are millions of people in the US who regularly play over the board chess who are not USCF members. Some (a dying off cohort) are former members, likely many who came to chess from the Fischer boom. In a nation of our size, our USCF adult membership numbers are pathetic, IMO, because the USCF leadership has, again IMO, become inbred and fixated on big money a la Rex and the elite they get to rub shoulders with. The organization does virtually nothing to promote and expand adult non-rated, just for enjoyment, over the board play.
Mr. Wainscott’s first paragraph clearly points to the last generally acknowledged “Golden Age” in American chess (a phrase I have heard quite often to describe American prominence in the 1930s). I think the parallel drawn with current American chess is quite reasonable - and one can just as clearly see the positive long-term effects of players like Kamsky, Gurevich, Goldin, Kaidanov, Alburt, Shabalov, Shulman and many others coming to the US.
If one wishes to write an article focusing on chess below the level of the current top American players, I’m sure Mr. Lucas would be happy to at least consider the submission. That wasn’t the point of Mr. Wainscott’s article, and criticizing it along those lines is misguided at best.
If these happy low-rated folks played some interesting games, I’d like to see them - something like the old “Games by USCF Members” column. But unless they happen to be players with whom I regularly compete, I’m not too much interested. Portland, Oregon, chess club members are probably not too interested in the Portland, Maine, club ladder, for example. That’s why club, city, state and regional publications exist. There’s vibrant competition at every level, but the overall interest in such is mostly confined to the respective level.
At a national level, the elites get the interest, and they’re who define any “golden age”, not large numbers of weak players. It’s that way in pretty much any sport or game, I would imagine.
There have been several such “Golden Ages” in American chess. The first was after Paul Morphy stormed Europe and came back to the US as a national hero, feted in Boston by the nation’s elite as a model of the new American that emerged after the Civil War. Chess clubs popped up all over the country as the game became a fashionable pastime. Steinitz moved to America. World Championship matches were contested in the country. Many European masters took up residence in the US.
The second “Golden Age” was during the depths of the Great Depression. America’s teams and individuals were successful in tournament competition during the 1930’s in Europe. The aging champions Lasker, Capablanca, and even Alekhine could be found in New York, the real capital of chess on the planet in that era. The bad economic times, however, caused two rival organizations to merge to become the United States Chess Federation. Chess came to Hollywood. Chess became a game for the everyman, not just the elites, as books for beginners boomed.
The third “Golden Age” was the Fischer boom from the '60’s to the mid-'70’s. Whether you think of him as hero or anti-hero, the emergence of the kid from Brooklyn to become the strongest player in the world was inspiring to many in that era, evidenced by the growth of the USCF from 2700 to almost 70,000 members. While many dropped out, many others stayed to become the leaders of local, state, and national chess organizations. Some present TDs cut their teeth on the Swiss System events of those times when only the Harkness Blue Book and the Official Chess Handbook were the guides. When Fischer left, it was a body blow, but those who stuck it out continued to play and work in chess. Ultimately the talented young American players who left during the Fischer Bust were replaced by new players and emigrants who brought chess to a wider audience.
Is today a “Golden Age?” We’ll see. If it is, it has been going on for over a decade as big tournaments have become a norm, the use of electronic technology has become the new normal, and players have multiple ways to get better. Chess has become big time internationally as emerging superpowers in chess like India and China are producing thousands of strong players and avid amateurs. Chess grows in Europe and in the many former Soviet republics.
I can understand and sympathize with Antonin’s belief that the article focused too much on the top players and spent little time on the little guys who love and play the game online or in their chess clubs. The latter are the guys that most players see and play with in tournaments or over a coffee or a brew. They are the heart of chess that most good chess administrators are concerned with. They did not complain about the immigrants, but welcomed them, maybe even helped them to get settled in. Most amateurs do not aspire to norms or measure their success by rating or cash prizes. They love the game and the players in it. If this is a “Golden Age” it is because so many amateurs are involved in helping kids to play, playing the game themselves, and seeking to spread the game to others, either because of or in spite of the United States Chess Federation.
Excellent post, particularly the final paragraph. The only thing I would add is that other sports such as golf and tennis have found ways to keep their amateurs involved with memberships that provide a level of involvment that acknowledges them and involves them at various levels.
just curious, brian, what are some of your proposals to rectify the situation? you have probably mentioned them in the past but i have just started to become interested in the forums on this site.
you comment: “In a nation of our size, our USCF adult membership numbers are pathetic, IMO, because the USCF leadership has, again IMO, become inbred and fixated on big money a la Rex and the elite they get to rub shoulders with. The organization does virtually nothing to promote and expand adult non-rated, just for enjoyment, over the board play.”
i agree that the adult membership rates are “pathetic”. maybe “big money” is what is needed to show today’s youth there is a future in sticking with the game.
A few years ago, there was some discussion on the member’s forum about having a non-rated player membership at a reduced rate–an associate membership if you will. That might be useful in keeping members within the organizational framework when they no longer want to compete in rated play. I’d also like to see the USCF do more for non-scholastic clubs to support them with materials like sets and boards and promotional material for adult chess to the masses for simple enjoyment.
One specific I can think of is providing free or at cost, flags or banners to promote club playing and special events. For example, our Lyndonville Chess Club here in VT is going to purchase a chess banner/flag to hang outside the cafe where we play on Tuesday evenings to hopefully raise awareness that we’re there and playing chess. Cafe Press has some that we are considering. The USCF might make such a flag/banner available to clubs with the USCF logo in the corner as part of an affiliation deal. Perhaps Rex would be willing to have a thousand such flags made up for club distribution…there are many potential ways for the USCF to market itself to chess players who are truly out there in the millions waiting to be tapped by creative marketing.
yes, would be great if we could establish a club system like europe. and i loved the old chess league. maybe try to get that going again and reserve a couple spots for club players.
Are you suggesting a membership discount for someone who has never played (rated) chess before like the New Hampshire Chess Association does, or a membership which would not allow play?
