The population of the USA is estimated at 292,000,000. 90,000 out
of 292,000,000 is just over .03%, an extremely low percentage.

Surely you're not claiming that because .03% of the US population
are USCF members, that proves that chess is popular in the US.

That's the number? Give or take in memberships and types of
memberships what does that add up to in revenue. Looks close to 3
million dollars a year doesn't it?

EZoto

In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:

On 24 Jan 2004 02:46:49 -0800, (Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski) wrote:

Not true. And the title is not true either.
Chess is extremely popular in Russia, Ukraina,
Armenia, Georgia, perhaps in all ex-Soviet states,
in Serbia and all ex-Yugoslavia states, in Hungary,
Iceland, ... It became very popular in the UK.

In the US too. When I first found out about the USCF (1967), they had
12,000 members. Now, it is about 90,000. And the greatest increase
has been in young people.


How do you know that represents an increase in popularity? Just because
only 12,000 people belonged to the USCF doean't mean that there weren't
far more people *playing* the game than that. It may be simply that the
USCF has better marketing, or that people who used to only play
recreationally need to join in order to plya in tournaments.

In addition, the population is much bigger now, so percentage-wise that
increase is not quite as impressive as it sounds (although the
population certainly hasn't increased 8.5-fold or close to it).

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 10:35:38 -0700, "Ken Blake"
wrote:

The population of the USA is estimated at 292,000,000. 90,000 out
of 292,000,000 is just over .03%, an extremely low percentage.

Surely you're not claiming that because .03% of the US population
are USCF members, that proves that chess is popular in the US.

It isn't as popular as it is in some other countries, but membership
in the USCF has gone up 650% since 1967.

A lot more people play chess that are not members of the USCF. It is
said that about 40,000,000 people in the US play bridge, but the
American Contract Bridge League (bridge equivalent of USCF) has about
200,000 members. So only about 1 out of 200 people that play bridge
are in the ACBL. In that ratio holds roughly for chess, that means
that roughly 18,000,000 Americans play chess.


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:28:40 -0500, "RPM1"
wrote:

I recently started a chess club at my son's elementary school. Since
there are 600 children in the school I figured I might get about 15-20
attendees. To my suprise, (and the principal's suprise), 45 children
showed up. I figured it would drop off after a while. To the contrary
attendance last week was 50!

Thank you for telling about the interesting things about the school
club.

My daughter's school of 500-550 has a club. Initially there were
about 35 at each meeting, now it is about 25. That is far up from
when I was in school. In '68 we had to get a person from elementary
school to make the 3rd member (of a 3 player team) of a high school
team. In 72 we had to do it again to make the 4th member of a 4
member team.


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:20:54 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:

How do you know that represents an increase in popularity?

I don't know for sure because I don't have any figures on the number
of chess players there are in the general population.

Does anyone have those figures?


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

In article ,
Jud McCranie wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:20:54 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:

How do you know that represents an increase in popularity?

I don't know for sure because I don't have any figures on the number
of chess players there are in the general population.

Does anyone have those figures?


Doubtful. It wasn't on the census, and thus the only way people would
have any idea is if they commissioned a survey. The one for today
wouldn't be *too* expensiive, but the cost of time travel would make the
1967 one a bit exhorbitant.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:12:23 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:

Doubtful. It wasn't on the census, and thus the only way people would
have any idea is if they commissioned a survey.

"popularity" is a relative term. How many players does it take to
call it "popular"? My guess is that poker and bridge are both more
popular than chess in the US. What about other card games?
Backgammon? Checkers? Etc, etc. Of all of the games that are played
in the US, I think chess is one of the most popular.

The American Checkers Federation currently has 477 members
http://www.usacheckers.com/abouttheacf.html.

The American Contract Bridge League has 165,000 members, including
Canada and Mexico: http://web2.acbl.org/html/about_acbl.html


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

Harold Buck wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Al) wrote:

Chess will never be popular because the participants in top events can
simply "chicken out" by agreeing to a draw. The latest example is
Corus where Adams and Anand just agree to a draw right out of the
opening (if Adams won, we would be tied for the lead with Anand).
They can agree to a draw in an extremely unclear position when the
spectators really want to see it played out! The suspense of who is
going to *win* is quite a big draw in spectator sports. Can NFL teams
agree to a tie after 6 minutes have been played? Could you imagine
what the fans would say? Can basketball teams, hockey teams, tennis
players, golfers, etc. agree to a tie early? Unfortunately, having
the option to chicken out early has ruined the game.

How many people were bummed during the Kasparov - random computer
match? Kasparov chickened out in a superior position in the final
game. He simply should not have that option.

It probably won't change because most of the elite chessplayers like
being chickens. Sigh.


Hey, nice troll.

[If you're not a troll and really interested in this topic, why don't
you do a google search and read the 3,492,522 posts on this topic over
the past 2 years. Then come back if you have something new to add.]

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson


My apologies, Harold. Frustration got the better of me after watching
the Adams - Anand game.

Al

In article ,
(Al) wrote:


My apologies, Harold. Frustration got the better of me after watching
the Adams - Anand game.



Yeah, I don't much like "GM draws" either, but we've talked about it a
LOT on this group, and the "solutions" always seem to cause unintended
problems. It's just not an easy thing to "fix," especially when there's
a large contingent of people who don't think there's anything wrong with
it.

Hey, I think I just came up with an idea that is workable, although a
lot of people will hate it:

At the beginning of eash tournament, put each GM in a room and keep them
isolated from everyone else. They'll make their moves via computer, and
will never know for sure who they're playing. They won't know the
tournament standings, so they won't be able to figure out when a draw is
"good enough" to win the tournament, and they won't be able to talk to
their opponents to pre-arrange draws anyway.

Of course, since many people play chess at the GM level because they
enjoy the human interaction, they may not like this option. :-)

Seriously, though, what are the drawbacks here besides the obvious "not
being able to face your opponent"?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 23:24:33 -0500, Harold Buck
wrote:


Seriously, though, what are the drawbacks here besides the obvious "not
being able to face your opponent"?

Sometimes an all-or-nothing opening might be appropriate, where a win
is good, but a loss or a draw amount to the same thing. Not knowing
the tournament standings would preclude this.

Also, a long tournament would be akin to being in a sequestered jury
-- probably not very enjoyable.