J.D. Walker wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
Summarizing: where is the economic legitimacy of professional chess
in a capitalist society?

I don't see why you're singling out chess. Where is the economic
legitimacy of professional sport as a whole in a capitalist society?

But isn't it just that people are prepared to pay for entertainment?

I single out chess because I care about it, and because it is topical
here.

OK but I don't think that chess is in a significantly different
position to other sports/games/whatever-you-want-to-call-them-s.

As for entertainment, my point was that chess makes poor
entertainment for the masses, thus basing a chess economy on the
entertainment dollar is not sensible.

It's poor entertainment for the masses, yes. But fine wine, haute
couture, supercars and luxury yachts are also poor entertainment for
the masses and do just fine. Now, of course, they are all low-volume,
high-value markets, while chess is relatively low volume and low
value. And that indicates why professional chess players aren't rich
unless they started rich.

Fundamentally, though, chess does little more than entertain, just
like any other sport/etc. To its niche market, it's very
entertaining. It would be foolish to base a `chess economy' on
anything other than its entertainment value.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Impossible Bulb (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a light bulb but it can't exist
and it's completely natural!