On Nov 18, 7:09 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:

Since I have returned to the chess world after a 25 year absence (a
chessic Rip van Winkle) I have learned about ratings floors instituted
by the USCF. Apparently the idea is that after players spend a bunch of
money to travel and play in lots of tournaments that they should be
rewarded with a false sense of stability even if their current standard
of play is abysmal. IMHO the ratings and the titles have all been
corrupted under the stewardship of the USCF and FIDE.

The idea behind rating floors is rather different. There are players
who "sandbag," that is they value money over Elo rating, and purposely
lose games they would normally win so that their ratings will dip to a
lower class. Their aim is to enter a lower class section in a big-
money tournament such as the New York Open, and win a hefty cash prize
against players actually well below their real strength. The idea
behind the rating floors was to deter sandbagging. A player with, say,
a 1900 floor, would not be allowed to enter a Class C section
(sub-1600) even if he'd lost 100 games in a row by sandbagging.

I won't get into the self-appointed arbiters of "title purity" at this
point.

3) How about the counter proposal of Russian GMs about the materialistic
influence of the West on chess? It seems it would require a different
approach. I doubt that the FBI has much on chess players with the
exception of Fischer. How could an author tackle this topic?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "the materialistic
influence of the West on chess."

I do not have the quotes ready at hand as to precisely what the Russian
GMs said. Moreover, I do not know what was really on their minds behind
the comments. That could be a subject for interviews.

... Do you mean the larger prizes that
began with the Fischer era?

No, I am trying to get at something more fundamental. I will try to
explain below. I wonder if the Fischer "bubble" was more like the hula
hoop craze amplified by Cold War tensions...

snip of interesting material to make room

So to my mind, the Soviet chess machine had two very negative
impacts on chess: one ethical, the other financial.

warning, tangent with speculation ahead...
Rev, I will pass on your next topics. What expertise I have lies in
chess history, mainly from Morphy down to around 30-50 years ago.

I suspect that to tackle the questions I have in mind would require an
author with expertise in sociology, economics, and chess history. The
most basic question I pose is: Does the professional chess player
produce anything of worthy substance by the harsh standards of American
capitalism?

It is a fundamental question.

Indeed it is. Well, I know a thing or two about chess history, I
work in the banking business, and I have a degree in sociology, but
I'm afraid this is way beyond me. It sounds like you need a
combination of Talcott Parsons, John Kenneth Galbraith, and (take your
pick) H.J.R. Murray, Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Edward Winter, Jeremy
Gaige, D.J. Richards, Andrew Soltis and/or I-don'tknow-who.

We see a number of chess fans asking about sponsorship, asking about
televising chess, comparing chess to poker etc, etc...

To my mind, seeking sponsorship resembles the feudal practice of seeking
patronage from the lords in power. It is not a sign of inherent
economic worth. State support, on the other hand, is likely to be
dismissed as socialism. In todays climate it might be possible to get
funding as a faith based initiative! :^) But these options are all
forms of beggary.

On the television scene, I see no way that chess as it is currently
practiced can become popular entertainment. Television poker on the
other hand is quite watchable. The rules are simple. The practice is
complex. One can see the hole cards in the popular Texas Hold'em
variant, thus knowing more about the circumstances than the players.
Chess cannot compete with poker as general entertainment.

If sponsorship beggary and entertainment are not sufficient then what
else is there? If the product of the work is considered we see that
GM's do not own the game scores. If they did, perhaps some few of them
could generate enough income to survive by selling them. Many others
would fall by the wayside and the field of competition would shrink.

I will leave it there for now. Summarizing: where is the economic
legitimacy of professional chess in a capitalist society?

I suspect that if an author tried to seriously investigate the impact of
American culture on chess they would walk a precarious path through a
mine field between the Left and the Right. To my mind, from a American
perspective, scholastic chess has made great strides in proving its
worth to the mental development of young minds. I also think that chess
makes an excellent hobby.

Disclaimer: I am not an author, sociologist, nor economist. My opinions
are my own, and I make no claim to have a special channel to absolute
truth.

I am making an attempt to kick start a topic for discussion that I am
interested in. If one of our worthy authors decided to take this on, I
would be quite pleased.
--

Cheers,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.