David Kane wrote:
"J.D. Walker" wrote in message
...
David Richerby wrote:

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.
Exactly. Explain it to the people who suggest moving into the mass TV market
to bring big bucks into chess.

Define "big"

e.g. NFL, NBA, MLB all have a major media presence. BTW, I detest the
NFL, and the NBA. Such a poor American am I...


99 golfers earned over $1 million dollars on the PGA
tour last year. #1 (Tiger) earned over $10 million. Is that big?


I do not see how this relates...

Wikipedia has an entry on professional Go
tournaments. It lists 7 major international
tournaments, with a winner's purse
totaling $1.6 million. Then it lists 16 Japanese
events with a winner's purse of $1.8 million, as
well as events in Korea, China and Taiwan. That would
seem pretty "big" to most professional chess players.


Do you have a measure of the size of the fan base of Go enthusiasts in
Japan? I suspect that percentage-wise it is far higher than that of
chess in the USA. I once was an amateur san-dan at Go. It is a great
game.

Heh, I once purchased some books on Go from Ishii Press. I knew nothing
of Sam Sloan then.

The world checkers title was recently defended.
The prize fund was $3740.


Goodbye checkers...

It is *not* a conspiracy driving the "checkerization"
of chess. It's good old-fashioned complacency, failure
to think analytically, an unwillingness to engage the
marketplace, etc. Basically, the professional chess
world (or what's left of it) defends its most stupid
and obvious flaws as virtues.


Care to explain your analysis and make suggestions?
--

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