(Nick) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message . com...
eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message
...
Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
Actually, FIDE leadership cares MORE about the **votes** of the
167 countries, than they do about the concerns of US chess players.
The USCF should affiliate with FIDE only as long as FIDE serves the
interests of US players. Screw the other 166 countries

Well, this is a pretty stupid (and sadly, typical American) viewpoint.
We should only be part of a world organization that only cares about us?
Give me a break.

Evidently, Isidor Gunsberg translates 'gens una sumus' (FIDE's motto) as
'screw the other 166 countries'.

FIDE's motto has become an empty sentiment. Would that it were
actually manifest in the actions of FIDE.

No, my viewpoint is that we should be part of a World Chess organization
that DOES care about us. I have no problem if FIDE genuinely cares about
the players and the game in the other 166 countries.

What a generous position!


Thx

If FIDE were doing a good job, then it stands to reason that the interests
of players around the world would be well served.
However, even if I accept your dubious premise that FIDE is actually
serving the interests of chess and chessplayers in the other 166 countries,
I still believe that if membership in FIDE is counterproductive to
American chess interests, then we ought to leave.

(Was not "then we ought to leave" said in South Carolina in 1861?)

The problem was that it was the South that was ruled by the
"FIDEcrats" of the day. Given that it is just chess, and given that
FIDE has become worse than useless, I think that it is perfectly
justifiable for the USCF to "secede".

Heck, if the North had wanted to secede from the South in 1861,
THAT would have been justifiable.



Who has the right to represent all 'American chess interests'?

Another boom would occur if the US were to generate a home grown telegenic
chess talent. Somebody who does not have a Russian sounding name.

Has Anna Kournikova's "Russian-sounding name" stopped her from frequent
appearances on American television?

So what? Do you want to compare her endorsement contracts with
Serena Williams'? Are girls drawn to play tennis because she presents
a fine role model? Is there a tennis boom that I don't know about?

It would be even better if that player were MultiCultered (like Tiger Woods),
and/or a Woman.

Are the American television chess commentators, GM Maurice Ashley and
GM Yasser Seirawan supposed to be too 'redneck' to suit Isidor Gunsberg?

No, but evidently Seirawan and Ashley are not talented **enough** If
either of those guys were to become World Champion, THEN a boom might
result.

--Nick

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message . com...
(Nick) wrote in message
. com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message . com...
eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message
...
Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
Actually, FIDE leadership cares MORE about the **votes** of the
167 countries, than they do about the concerns of US chess players.
The USCF should affiliate with FIDE only as long as FIDE serves the
interests of US players. Screw the other 166 countries

Well, this is a pretty stupid (and sadly, typical American) viewpoint.
We should only be part of a world organization that only cares about
us? Give me a break.

Evidently, Isidor Gunsberg translates 'gens una sumus' (FIDE's motto)
as 'screw the other 166 countries'.

FIDE's motto has become an empty sentiment.

FIDE's motto expresses an ideal, not necessarily a reality.

When Americans 'pledge allegiance to the flag...with liberty and justice
for all', do they (apart from some ignorant jingoists) really believe that
'liberty and justice *for all*' must be universally true in the United States?

On the other hand, what sentiment does Isidor Gunsberg's "Screw the other
166 countries" express?

Would that it were actually manifest in the actions of FIDE.

I have no objection to thoughtful criticisms of the 'actions of FIDE'.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote to John Fernandez:
If FIDE were doing a good job, then it stands to reason that the interests
of players around the world would be well served.
However, even if I accept your dubious premise that FIDE is actually
serving the interests of chess and chessplayers in the other
166 countries, I still believe that if membership in FIDE is
counterproductive to American chess interests, then we ought to leave.

(Was not "then we ought to leave" said in South Carolina in 1861?)

The problem was that it was the South that was ruled by the "FIDEcrats"
of the day.

Did the Confederate Congress ever proclaim that Paul Morphy must be the
world champion of chess? :-)

Given that it is just chess, and given that FIDE has become worse than
useless, I think that it is perfectly justifiable for the USCF to "secede".

In my view, the question should be not whether it's 'justifiable' for the
USCF to secede from FIDE, but whether that USCF secession would be better
for the ultimate interests of chess. How would the USCF's proposed post-FIDE
future be better for the ultimate interests of chess?

If the USCF were to secede from FIDE because the USCF's leaders believe that
"membership in FIDE is counterproductive to American chess interests", then
why should not any U.S. state's chess association secede from the USCF if its
leaders were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
its state's chess interests"?

Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she were to
believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to his or her chess
interests"?

Who has the right to represent all 'American chess interests'?

My question was primarily about who has the right to make the decision for
the USCF to secede from FIDE.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
Another boom would occur if the US were to generate a home grown telegenic
chess talent. Somebody who does not have a Russian sounding name.

Has Anna Kournikova's "Russian-sounding name" stopped her from frequent
appearances on American television?

So what?

That seems to be Isidor Gunsberg's characteristic 'response' to adverse
evidence.

Do you want to compare her endorsement contracts with Serena Williams'?
Are girls drawn to play tennis because she presents a fine role model?

For the record, Isidor Gunsberg originally wrote (above) nothing about
'endorsement contracts', 'fine role model', or 'Serena Williams'.

My point was simply that Isidor Gunsberg evidently implied that someone with a
'Russian-sounding name' could not become a famous 'telegenic...talent' in
the United States. I just cited Anna Kournikova as a counter-example.

Of course, Anna Kournikova is a much weaker tennis player than Serena Williams,
which accounts for their disparity in *athletic* 'endorsement contracts', but
Anna Kournikova's comparative weakness at tennis cannot be explained by the
fact that she has a 'Russian-sounding name'.

Is there a tennis boom that I don't know about?

I prefer to avoid discussing the extent of Isidor Gunsberg's ignorance.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
It would be even better if that player were MultiCultered (like Tiger
Woods), and/or a Woman.

Are the American television chess commentators, GM Maurice Ashley and
GM Yasser Seirawan supposed to be too 'redneck' to suit Isidor Gunsberg?

No, but evidently Seirawan and Ashley are not talented **enough**

Again, my point pertained to Isidor Gunsberg's comment about a "home grown
telegenic chess talent"--nothing else. Evidently, GM Ashley and GM Seirawan
*are* telegenic enough and talented enough at chess to have become chess
commentators for American television.

If either of those guys were to become World Champion, THEN a boom might
result.

My point was *not* about predicting that GM Ashley or GM Seirawan will become
the FIDE world champion, which I also doubt will happen (particularly if after
the USCF were to secede from FIDE).

--Nick

Nick wrote:
Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she
were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
his or her chess interests"?

Well obviously any member of any organization should quit if they feel
that it's not in their best interests to be a member. What are you
trying to say?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Crystal Pickled Cheese (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a brick of cheese but it's preserved
in vinegar and completely transparent!

David Richerby wrote in
message ...
Nick wrote:
(context snipped by David Richerby)
Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she
were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
his or her chess interests"?

Well obviously any member of any organization should quit if they feel
that it's not in their best interests to be a member.

If that principle were always true, then most combatants in war would prefer
to quit and go home.

What are you trying to say?

My context was with regard to Isidor Gunsberg's contention that the USCF
should secede from FIDE. My point was that then some American chess-players
could quit the USCF because they would believe that "membership in the USCF
is counterproductive to (their) chess interests", such as being eligible to
participate in FIDE events and qualify for FIDE titles. For instance, the
young GM Hikaru Nakamura might decide to represent his native Japan rather
than the United States in international chess competitions.

If the USCF were to secede from FIDE, then would chess in the United States
be better off if many of the best American players were to quit the USCF?

--Nick

Nick wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she
were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
his or her chess interests"?

Well obviously any member of any organization should quit if they feel
that it's not in their best interests to be a member.

If that principle were always true, then most combatants in war would
prefer to quit and go home.

If that's in their best interests, yes. Of course, weighing against the
immediate convenience of not being on the battle field are the
possibilities of being caught and imprisoned or shot as a deserter, the
possible feelings of guilt, the loss of income, the difficulty of getting
home, the risk that the knock-on effects of the desertion will cause the
loss of the war with a consequent reduction in quality of life. So I can
well believe that staying at the front can be in the soldier's best
interests.

The distinction between one person quitting the USCF and the USCF quitting
FIDE is that the individual member is acting solely in their own best
interests, whereas the USCF must act in the best interests of its members
at the very least and, really, of such lofty and abstract concepts as
chess in the USA.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Incredible Game (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ family board game but it'll blow
your mind!

David Richerby wrote in
message ...
Nick wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Nick wrote:
(context snipped by David Richerby)
Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she
were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
his or her chess interests"?

Well obviously any member of any organization should quit if they feel
that it's not in their best interests to be a member.

If that principle were always true, then most combatants in war would
prefer to quit and go home.

If that's in their best interests, yes.

"Dans ce pay-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour
encourager les autres."
--Voltaire (Candide)

Of course, weighing against the immediate convenience of not being on the
battle field are the possibilities of being caught and imprisoned or shot as
a deserter, the possible feelings of guilt, the loss of income, the
difficulty of getting home, the risk that the knock-on effects of the
desertion will cause the loss of the war with a consequent reduction in
quality of life.

Bates : He may show what outward courage he will; but I believe, as cold a
night as 'tis, he could wish himself in Thames up to the neck; and so
I would he were, and I by him, at all adventures, so we were quit here.
Henry : By my troth, I will speak my conscience of the king: I think he would
not wish himself any where but where he is.
Bates : Then I would he were here alone; so should he be sure to be ransomed,
and a many poor men's lives saved.
Henry : I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone, howsoever
you speak this to feel other men's minds: methinks I could not die any
where so contented as in the king's company; his cause being just and
his quarrel honourable.
Williams:That's more than we know.
Bates : Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know
we are the king's subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to
the king wipes the crime of it out of us.

--William Shakespeare (Henry V, scene before the Battle of Agincourt)

For further reading:
"The Monocled Mutineer" by William Allison and John Fairley

So I can well believe that staying at the front can be in the
soldier's best interests.

'Can'? On one hand, if the British soldiers at Rorke's Drift in 1879 had fled,
then they probably would have been overtaken and cut down by the pursuing Zulus.
On the other hand, if the Prussian grenadiers of Frederick the Great had dared
to retreat without being ordered, then they presumably would have been cut down
by their own officers.

"Rogues, would you live forever?"
--attributed to Frederick the Great (18 June 1757, when rallying his soldiers)

Can David Richerby recognise any fundamental conflict between a code of
military discipline and the right to make a 'free choice' in determining
one's own best interests? Or might he be a spiritual descendant of Harry
Faversham (the hero of A.E.W. Mason's novel, 'Four Feathers')?

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward the Light Brigade!
'Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of death
Rode the six hundred.

--Alfred Tennyson (The Charge of the Light Brigade)

The distinction between one person quitting the USCF and the USCF quitting
FIDE is that the individual member is acting solely in their own best
interests,

Not necessarily--a member might have various motives to quit the USCF.

whereas the USCF must act in the best interests of its members at the very
least and, really, of such lofty and abstract concepts as chess in the USA.

Perhaps David Richerby has great faith in the profound wisdom, moral integrity,
and absolute personal disinterestedness of all of the USCF's leaders.

"Lieutenant Faversham, our regiment expects you to do your duty.
The colonel's daughter has immediate need of a dancing-partner." :-)

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
David Richerby wrote in
message ...
Nick wrote:
(context snipped by David Richerby)
Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she
were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
his or her chess interests"?

Well obviously any member of any organization should quit if they feel
that it's not in their best interests to be a member.

If that principle were always true, then most combatants in war would prefer
to quit and go home.

What are you trying to say?

My context was with regard to Isidor Gunsberg's contention that the USCF
should secede from FIDE. My point was that then some American chess-players
could quit the USCF because they would believe that "membership in the USCF
is counterproductive to (their) chess interests", such as being eligible to
participate in FIDE events and qualify for FIDE titles. For instance, the
young GM Hikaru Nakamura might decide to represent his native Japan rather
than the United States in international chess competitions.

If the USCF were to secede from FIDE, then would chess in the United States
be better off if many of the best American players were to quit the USCF?

They wouldn't need to...presumeably a successor organizzation to
FIDE would be created, which would rip off the rating system and the
Title system, and the Olympiads, and the World Title Cycle.

Top US Chess Players would NOT quit the USCF--not if they ever
wanted to play in a big money Swiss event.

--Nick

(Nick) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message . com...
(Nick) wrote in message
. com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message . com...
eepmeep (John Fernandez) wrote in message
...
Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
Actually, FIDE leadership cares MORE about the **votes** of the
167 countries, than they do about the concerns of US chess players.
The USCF should affiliate with FIDE only as long as FIDE serves the
interests of US players. Screw the other 166 countries

Well, this is a pretty stupid (and sadly, typical American) viewpoint.
We should only be part of a world organization that only cares about
us? Give me a break.

Evidently, Isidor Gunsberg translates 'gens una sumus' (FIDE's motto)
as 'screw the other 166 countries'.

FIDE's motto has become an empty sentiment.

FIDE's motto expresses an ideal, not necessarily a reality.

When Americans 'pledge allegiance to the flag...with liberty and justice
for all', do they (apart from some ignorant jingoists) really believe that
'liberty and justice *for all*' must be universally true in the United States?

On the other hand, what sentiment does Isidor Gunsberg's "Screw the other
166 countries" express?

Would that it were actually manifest in the actions of FIDE.

I have no objection to thoughtful criticisms of the 'actions of FIDE'.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote to John Fernandez:
If FIDE were doing a good job, then it stands to reason that the interests
of players around the world would be well served.
However, even if I accept your dubious premise that FIDE is actually
serving the interests of chess and chessplayers in the other
166 countries, I still believe that if membership in FIDE is
counterproductive to American chess interests, then we ought to leave.

(Was not "then we ought to leave" said in South Carolina in 1861?)

The problem was that it was the South that was ruled by the "FIDEcrats"
of the day.

Did the Confederate Congress ever proclaim that Paul Morphy must be the
world champion of chess? :-)

Given that it is just chess, and given that FIDE has become worse than
useless, I think that it is perfectly justifiable for the USCF to "secede".

In my view, the question should be not whether it's 'justifiable' for the
USCF to secede from FIDE, but whether that USCF secession would be better
for the ultimate interests of chess. How would the USCF's proposed post-FIDE
future be better for the ultimate interests of chess?

If the USCF were to secede from FIDE because the USCF's leaders believe that
"membership in FIDE is counterproductive to American chess interests", then
why should not any U.S. state's chess association secede from the USCF if its
leaders were to believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to
its state's chess interests"?

Answer: They should

Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or she were to
believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to his or her chess
interests"?

They should. Evidently, many adult players HAVE made such a judgment

Who has the right to represent all 'American chess interests'?

My question was primarily about who has the right to make the decision for
the USCF to secede from FIDE.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
Another boom would occur if the US were to generate a home grown telegenic
chess talent. Somebody who does not have a Russian sounding name.

Has Anna Kournikova's "Russian-sounding name" stopped her from frequent
appearances on American television?

So what?

That seems to be Isidor Gunsberg's characteristic 'response' to adverse
evidence.

There is NO evidence that you present. The only reason that she
receives media attention is because she is marketed as a Sex Kitten.
Her appearances are not due to her successes on the Tennis court, but
because she is well...telegenic. She is basically a model who uses
tennis as a gimmick.

Do you want to compare her endorsement contracts with Serena Williams'?
Are girls drawn to play tennis because she presents a fine role model?

For the record, Isidor Gunsberg originally wrote (above) nothing about
'endorsement contracts', 'fine role model', or 'Serena Williams'.

Still, why don't you compare the popularity of the Williams sisters
vs. Martina Navratilova? She bacame an American citizen. She was a
stellar tennis oplayer. Yet, aside from the questions of her sexual
orientation, she drew mostly yawns.

My point was simply that Isidor Gunsberg evidently implied that someone with a
'Russian-sounding name' could not become a famous 'telegenic...talent' in
the United States. I just cited Anna Kournikova as a counter-example.

Actually, my implication was specifically pertaining to the Chess
World. This is why I wrote: Another boom would occur if the US were to
generate another home grown telegenic **chess talent**. Since this is
an RGC newsgroup, and we are discussing what would help US Chess, then
it is most reasonable to interpret my statement as pertaining to Chess
Players. Hence, your counterexample is absurd.

Clearly, chess has "baggage" that Tennis doesn't have. Further, in
a field such as Ballet, a dancer would be more likely to be a star if
she/he is Russian.

Of course, Anna Kournikova is a much weaker tennis player than Serena Williams,
which accounts for their disparity in *athletic* 'endorsement contracts', but
Anna Kournikova's comparative weakness at tennis cannot be explained by the
fact that she has a 'Russian-sounding name'.

Is there a tennis boom that I don't know about?

I prefer to avoid discussing the extent of Isidor Gunsberg's ignorance.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote:
It would be even better if that player were MultiCultered (like Tiger
Woods), and/or a Woman.

Are the American television chess commentators, GM Maurice Ashley and
GM Yasser Seirawan supposed to be too 'redneck' to suit Isidor Gunsberg?

No, but evidently Seirawan and Ashley are not talented **enough**

Again, my point pertained to Isidor Gunsberg's comment about a "home grown
telegenic chess talent"--nothing else. Evidently, GM Ashley and GM Seirawan
*are* telegenic enough and talented enough at chess to have become chess
commentators for American television.



If either of those guys were to become World Champion, THEN a boom might
result.

My point was *not* about predicting that GM Ashley or GM Seirawan will become
the FIDE world champion, which I also doubt will happen (particularly if after
the USCF were to secede from FIDE).

Then your point is not only irrelevant to my post, but to your
earlier post.

Note that Ashley and Seirawan have an infintessimally small chance of
becoming FIDE World Champion, even if the USCF were to remain in FIDE
(as seems probable)

Rather, it seems that your main point is to quibble and to indulge in
misinterpretations of what others write.

Obviously, a Chess Player might make an occasional appearance on US
TV, but that does not constitute a boom. It certainly doesn't mean
that corporations will be eager to sponsor chess by providing
substantial sums of money.

--Nick

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in message om...
(Nick) wrote in message
great big snip

NB Evidently, Isidor Gunsberg translates 'gens una sumus' (FIDE's
motto)
NB as 'screw the other 166 countries'.

IG FIDE's motto has become an empty sentiment.

NB FIDE's motto expresses an ideal, not necessarily a reality.
NB
NB When Americans 'pledge allegiance to the flag...with liberty and
justice
NB for all', do they (apart from some ignorant jingoists) really
believe that
NB 'liberty and justice *for all*' must be universally true in the
United
NB States?
NB
NB On the other hand, what sentiment does Isidor Gunsberg's "Screw
the other
NB 166 countries" express?

IG Would that it were actually manifest in the actions of FIDE.

NB I have no objection to thoughtful criticisms of the 'actions of
FIDE'.

Isidor Gunsberg wrote to John Fernandez:

IG2JF If FIDE were doing a good job, then it stands to reason that
the
IG2JF interests of players around the world would be well served.
IG2JF However, even if I accept your dubious premise that FIDE is
actually
IG2JF serving the interests of chess and chessplayers in the other
IG2JF 166 countries, I still believe that if membership in FIDE is
IG2JF counterproductive to American chess interests, then we ought to
leave.

NB (Was not "then we ought to leave" said in South Carolina in 1861?)

IG The problem was that it was the South that was ruled by the
"FIDEcrats"
IG of the day.

NB Did the Confederate Congress ever proclaim that Paul Morphy must
be the
NB world champion of chess? :-)

IG Given that it is just chess, and given that FIDE has become worse
than
IG useless, I think that it is perfectly justifiable for the USCF to
"secede".

NB In my view, the question should be not whether it's 'justifiable'
for the
NB USCF to secede from FIDE, but whether that USCF secession would be
better
NB for the ultimate interests of chess. How would the USCF's
proposed
NB post-FIDE future be better for the ultimate interests of chess?
NB
NB If the USCF were to secede from FIDE because the USCF's leaders
believe that
NB "membership in FIDE is counterproductive to American chess
interests", then
NB why should not any U.S. state's chess association secede from the
USCF if
NB its leaders were to believe that "membership in the USCF is
NB counterproductive to its state's chess interests"?

IG Answer: They should

NB Why should not any American chess-player quit the USCF if he or
she were to
NB believe that "membership in the USCF is counterproductive to his
or her
NB chess interests"?

IG They should. Evidently, many adult players HAVE made such a
judgment

NB Who has the right to represent all 'American chess interests'?

NB My question was primarily about who has the right to make the
decision for
NB the USCF to secede from FIDE.

IG Another boom would occur if the US were to generate a home grown
telegenic
IG chess talent. Somebody who does not have a Russian sounding name.

NB Has Anna Kournikova's "Russian-sounding name" stopped her from
frequent
NB appearances on American television?

IG So what?

NB That seems to be Isidor Gunsberg's characteristic 'response' to
adverse
NB evidence.

IG There is NO evidence that you present.

Absolutely untrue. Nick *has* presented evidence that possessing a
"Russian-sounding" name is not--certainly not in the person of Ms.
Kournikova--a barrier *per se* to becoming a "telegenic chess talent"
in the US.... It's true that she's not "home grown", as you put it,
but Nick's point--with respect to which he has *presented
evidence*--is that neither being foreign nor possessing a foreign name
are relevant to success on television in the US.

So you believe that Kournikova is a 'telegenic chess talent'? But
she doesn't play chess.

The only reason that she
receives media attention is because she is marketed as a Sex Kitten.

Nope. Absolutely wrong. There is more than one reason. The other
reason is that her proficiency with respect to tennis is great enough
to enable her to play on the professional circuit.

There are many more women tennis players who are more proficient
with respect to playing tennis. What makes her novel, in comparison to
these other, better, women tennis players is the marketing of her
looks.

If she hadn't been
a tennis player, her being a "Sex Kitten" would have been totally
irrelevant, since without the tennis talent she would have been--at
least--almost entirely unknown in the US.

You know this with certainty? How? After all, there ARE other
Russian women who have become celebrities (as models) based on their
physical appearance.

Her appearances are not due to her successes on the Tennis court, but
because she is well...telegenic. She is basically a model who uses
tennis as a gimmick.

Nope, you've got that the wrong way around. She was (and is) a tennis
player *first*.

Ohhh sure, she has obviously been devoting Herculean exertions to
training and improving her tennis skills to become a better tennis
player. NOT




The money she makes from endorsements and suchlike is
*peripheral* to her *being a professional tennis player*

If forced to make a choice, do you think that Kournikova would
opt to retain the money that she made from tennis tournaments, or the
money that she maintains from "peripheral" activities? I suspect that
the latter dwarfs the former.


--which is to
say that without her having been a professional tennis player, she
would never have gotten the other breaks.

Her tennis career **helped** get her visibility, but her agent got
her where she was today. I'm not so sure that her agent would not have
found some other talent for her to exploit, if tennis didn't lend
itself as a vehicle.


Do you want to compare her endorsement contracts with Serena Williams'?
Are girls drawn to play tennis because she presents a fine role model?

For the record, Isidor Gunsberg originally wrote (above) nothing about
'endorsement contracts', 'fine role model', or 'Serena Williams'.

Still, why don't you compare the popularity of the Williams sisters
vs. Martina Navratilova? She bacame an American citizen. She was a
stellar tennis oplayer. Yet, aside from the questions of her sexual
orientation, she drew mostly yawns.

She drew (and draws) few yawns from folks who appreciate good tennis.

'I've always wanted to equalize things for us...Women can be great
athletes. And I think we'll find in the next decade that women
athletes will finally get the attention they deserve.'
--Billie Jean King. Interview, Sept 1973

No argument about her tennis skills. But, undeniably, no boom
occurred during Martina's reign at the Top. Indeed, it can be seen as
a slack period, sandwiched between the BJK/Chris Evert era, and the
advent of the Williams sisters. However, even with the Williams
sisters, the Women's tennis tour is not gaining all that much
popularity, compared to other sports.


My point was simply that Isidor Gunsberg evidently implied that someone with a
'Russian-sounding name' could not become a famous 'telegenic...talent' in
the United States. I just cited Anna Kournikova as a counter-example.

Actually, my implication was specifically pertaining to the Chess
World. This is why I wrote: Another boom would occur if the US were to
generate another home grown telegenic **chess talent**.

Name a home grown, telegenic US chess talent--and please don't say:
"Fischer"--the dude is soooooooooooo untelgenic and camera shy that
it's untrue. Ok, so he was on the Dick Cavett show, but he
disappeared. He could have earned a fortune and *sustained* a chess
boom if he wasn't off his head.

This is precisely why the "boom" petered out after a year or so.
Clearly, having a US player win the WC Title as a one off event is not
sufficient.
Imagine if Fischer hadn't gone AWOL, and if he had the personality to
sustain the promotion of chess. Fischer could be made to look nice on
photos--he made the cover of Life, Time, Newsweek, etc.

Since this is
an RGC newsgroup, and we are discussing what would help US Chess, then
it is most reasonable to interpret my statement as pertaining to Chess
Players. Hence, your counterexample is absurd.


Hardly. Nick's point was that in *chess* (just like in *tennis*) it
*should* be possible for a home grown talent with a foreign-sounding
name to have a TV career.

It's possible--just quite substantially less likely.

Who knows, if Hikaru Nakamura ever
challenges for the world title, he could start a chess boom in the US.

Putting aside questions about Hikaru's personality, he hardly has
a striking appearance.

Clearly, chess has "baggage" that Tennis doesn't have. Further, in
a field such as Ballet, a dancer would be more likely to be a star if
she/he is Russian.

Like in *chess*, you mean?

No, in chess, a Russian player is more likely to be quite skilled.
But there are no Russian chess stars (or the magnitude needed to
create a chess boom), on the scene. The Bareevs, Morozevichs, and
Kasparovs appeal to chess afficionados, but not to the general public
of the US.

However, because of the demographics of Balletgoers in the US, a
ballet dancer who is Russian is more likely to be dubbed with star
status.

NB Of course, Anna Kournikova is a much weaker tennis player than
Serena
NB Williams, which accounts for their disparity in *athletic*
'endorsement
NB contracts', but Anna Kournikova's comparative weakness at tennis
cannot be
NB explained by the fact that she has a 'Russian-sounding name'.

IG Is there a tennis boom that I don't know about?

Evidently, enough people play/watch/appreciate tennis to make the
large sums of money which Serena Williams earns from athletic
endorsements pay.

But that has more to do with the nature of Tennis, than it does to
with Kournikova's television appearances.

Unlike Nick, who, in reply to the above, wrote:

NB I prefer to avoid discussing the extent of Isidor Gunsberg's
ignorance.

Is there a ray of hope that Nick will give up the ghost, and
cease his prattle? Was this a parting shot from him?

...I'm quite happy to discuss the incredible extent of IG's ignorance
and stupidity. Bring it on.

IG It would be even better if that player were MultiCultered (like
Tiger
IG Woods), and/or a Woman.

NB Are the American television chess commentators, GM Maurice Ashley
and
NB GM Yasser Seirawan supposed to be too 'redneck' to suit Isidor
Gunsberg?

IG No, but evidently Seirawan and Ashley are not talented **enough**

More ignorance and stupidity. Oh dear. Read my lips: THE REASON THAT
CHESS IS NOT POPULAR IS THAT IT'S TOO COMPLEX FOR MOST FOLKS TO GET
IT. It has *zero* to do with the extent to which players are talented.
When folks watch tennis, many, indeed, possibly *most* of them are
able to appreciate a good rally or a good shot. What proportion of
those same people could appreciate the depth and subtlety of
Kasparov's sacrifice against Topalov played at Wijk-aan-Zee in 1999?
What proportion would *fail* understand the concept of checkmate?

That did not stop the millions of Americans who took up the game
in the wake of Fischer's WC Match victory over Spassky in 1972. Of
course, chess does not lend itself to being a televison sport. If
Ashley WERE the World Champion, he--and chess--would receive TONS of
publicity in the US. A Boom would surely result. Obviously, then, the
degree of an American player's talent is vital to determining whether
he/she can become WC, and hence, create a boom.

Chess is simple enough for most people to learn to play. A boom in
chess in the US would entail more of an increase in people PLAYING the
game, rather than being spectators.

NB Again, my point pertained to Isidor Gunsberg's comment about a
"home grown
NB telegenic chess talent"--nothing else. Evidently, GM Ashley and
GM Seirawan
NB *are* telegenic enough and talented enough at chess to have become
chess
NB commentators for American television.

IG If either of those guys were to become World Champion, THEN a boom
might
IG result.

NB My point was *not* about predicting that GM Ashley or GM Seirawan
will
NB become the FIDE world champion, which I also doubt will happen
NB (particularly if after the USCF were to secede from FIDE).

IG Then your point is not only irrelevant to my post, but to your
IG earlier post.

Nope. Wrong again--do learn to read. Nick and you are discussing the
*nature* of telegeny, and the possibility of "home grown" US chess
players popularising the game through the medium of television.

Yet that hardly means limiting the exploitation of the medium to
"play by play" commentary of chess games



Over
and over again, Nick has provided examples which both confute your
arguments, and demonstrate that, evidently, it's not the fact of
having a "Russian sounding name" which precludes a TV career in the
US,

I never argued **THAT** as a general proposition. I argued that
**with respect to the game of CHESS**, in the US, that

"Another boom would occur if the US were to generate a home grown
telegenic chess talent. Somebody who does not have a Russian sounding
name."

Clearly, the "somebody" in the 2nd sentence is in reference to the
boom creating "home grown telegenic chess talent" of the first. Having
a Russian surname may actually help make one a "star" in certain
endeavors (ballet), may not be too much of a hindrance in others
(tennis), yet may be a "non-starter" in other fields. I am arguing
that this is precisely the case in chess.

That is: a ***chess*** talent (as opposed to other talented people,
such as professional tennis players) is NOT liable to be deemed as
"telegenic" by the media, IF he/she was not raised in the US, or if
he/she does not have a non-Russian (preferably Anglo-Saxon) surname.


Since I think that we can all agree that Anna K. is no chess
player, then it is clear that she has no logical place in this
discussion.


Indeed, it is evident you and Nick are the ones that "cannot read"


neither is it not being "home grown". Rather, it's the nature of
the game of chess *itself*. This is the point which you seem to be
missing, evidently deliberately, over and over.

Note that Ashley and Seirawan have an infintessimally small chance of
becoming FIDE World Champion, even if the USCF were to remain in FIDE
(as seems probable)

Rather, it seems that your main point is to quibble and to indulge in
misinterpretations of what others write.


Physician heal thyself!

Obviously, a Chess Player might make an occasional appearance on US
TV, but that does not constitute a boom. It certainly doesn't mean
that corporations will be eager to sponsor chess by providing
substantial sums of money.

Clearly. This has more to do with *the nature of chess* than with
being either "home grown" or "telegenic".

You obviously don't have a clue about the "Fischer phenomenon" in
the US, in 1972-73. IF a home grown telegenic chess talent were to win
the World Championship title, THEN a boom would result. Maybe even a
substantial and long lasting boom (if the Champ were sane). America is
infatuated with winners.



Is this sinking in yet, or did I use too many long words, like, for
example: "in"?

Well, you don't need to resort to petty insults to try to win your
argument. Or do you?

Mark

(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message . com...
(Mark Houlsby) wrote in
message . com...
(Isidor Gunsberg) wrote in
message om...
(Nick) wrote:
(Please read it elsewhere in this thread if you are interested.)
(snipped)
Nick's point was that in *chess* (just like in *tennis*) it *should*
be possible for a home grown talent with a foreign-sounding name
to have a TV career.

It's possible--just quite substantially less likely.

If Anna Kournikova had chess talent comparable to her talent in professional
tennis, then could she not be invited to comment on chess for television?
Then would most of the viewers say to themselves: "No, I cannot watch Anna
because she has a 'Russian-sounding name' (Gunsberg's phrase)"?

Unlike Nick, who, in reply to the above, wrote:
NB: I prefer to avoid discussing the extent of Isidor Gunsberg's
ignorance.

Is there a ray of hope that Nick will give up the ghost, and cease his
prattle? Was this a parting shot from him?

I have concluded that Isidor Gunsberg is just another troll who does not
warrant a detailed response from me.

"Dear Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you."
--GM Susan Polgar (19 October 2003, writing to me)

On the other hand, GM Susan Polgar has rebuked (in her quite diplomatic manner)
Isidor Gunsberg for making an unwarranted personal attack against GM Zhu Chen
in his created troll thread, "Who was the WEAKEST WOMEN's World Champion of
Chess ever?"

...I'm quite happy to discuss the incredible extent of IG's ignorance
and stupidity. Bring it on.

That Herculean labour seems like cleansing the Aegean stables.

"The gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of
a mountain, whence the rock would fall back of its own weight. They had
thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile
and hopeless labour....

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden
again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and
raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth
without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that
stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a
world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's
heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

--Albert Camus (The Myth of Sisyphus)

(snipped)
Is this sinking in yet, or did I use too many long words, like,
for example: "in"?

Well, you don't need to resort to petty insults to try to win your argument.
Or do you?

That's hypocrisy from Isidor ("Screw the other 166 countries.") Gunsberg.

In this thread, Isidor Gunsberg made an ad hominem attack on John Fernandez.
In his response, John Fernandez wrote to Isidor Gunsberg:
"However, now that you go to personal insults, go **** yourself."

John Fernandez's expression has at least the advantage of being harder for
Isidor Gunsberg to misunderstand.

--Nick