Tweet
I posted the following within an entry on my CFC Discussion Board blog today; perhaps chesstalk members have their own thoughts affirming or to counter the apparently common public perception that chess is largely a game for geeks:
The perception of chess as a game for geeks seems to be fairly common, which may hurt the popularity of the game, at least when played competitively. For instance, the full title of a book about a successful NYC high school chess team includes the word 'geeks':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kings_of_New_York
Just after brainstorming today, two approaches to tackling the commonly perceived geek factor of chess occured to me. The first was to hope for the increased popularity of chess variants with a certain anti-geek flavour, in the hope of indirectly 'elevating' the public's image of standard chess' players, or at least possibly making standard chess rules more familar to the public. I finally rejected this approach since it would be admitting tacitly that there is little that can be done for chess in its standard form. In case anyone wishes to pursue the approach, here are certain variants (or forms of competition that include games of chess) that may hold some promise for countering the commonly perceived geek factor of chess, if they are promoted:
1. Chess boxing;
2. Competitions with multiple games, variants and/or sports of which chess is just one a participant or team plays - points for scoring a win at each particular contest are tallied up;
3. Bughouse chess (aka doubles chess);
4. Strictly for married people, playing by superb (and accessible) rules for strip chess in the home.
The second approach to possibly reducing the commonly perceived geek factor of chess that occured to me would be to encourage the participation in greater numbers of various types of players at chess competitions. In possibly increasing order of difficulty to acquire more for such, here are possible types of players that may hold promise for countering the commonly perceived geek factor of chess:
1. Female players;
2. Armed forces members (could have their own prominent chess events);
3. Diplomats or politicians (again, could have their own prominent chess events);
4. Charismatic (if not also tough, in a personal sense) top national players.
[edit: here's Google's definition of geek, for the curious:
geek/ɡēk/
noun
1.an unfashionable or socially inept person.
2.a carnival performer who performs wild or disgusting acts.
verb
engage in or discuss computer-related tasks obsessively or with great attention to technical detail.]
[edit: Below is a wikipedia link discussing one (former) Canadian player who is described as charismatic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sarwer
The perception of chess as a game for geeks seems to be fairly common, which may hurt the popularity of the game, at least when played competitively. For instance, the full title of a book about a successful NYC high school chess team includes the word 'geeks':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kings_of_New_York
Just after brainstorming today, two approaches to tackling the commonly perceived geek factor of chess occured to me. The first was to hope for the increased popularity of chess variants with a certain anti-geek flavour, in the hope of indirectly 'elevating' the public's image of standard chess' players, or at least possibly making standard chess rules more familar to the public. I finally rejected this approach since it would be admitting tacitly that there is little that can be done for chess in its standard form. In case anyone wishes to pursue the approach, here are certain variants (or forms of competition that include games of chess) that may hold some promise for countering the commonly perceived geek factor of chess, if they are promoted:
1. Chess boxing;
2. Competitions with multiple games, variants and/or sports of which chess is just one a participant or team plays - points for scoring a win at each particular contest are tallied up;
3. Bughouse chess (aka doubles chess);
4. Strictly for married people, playing by superb (and accessible) rules for strip chess in the home.
The second approach to possibly reducing the commonly perceived geek factor of chess that occured to me would be to encourage the participation in greater numbers of various types of players at chess competitions. In possibly increasing order of difficulty to acquire more for such, here are possible types of players that may hold promise for countering the commonly perceived geek factor of chess:
1. Female players;
2. Armed forces members (could have their own prominent chess events);
3. Diplomats or politicians (again, could have their own prominent chess events);
4. Charismatic (if not also tough, in a personal sense) top national players.
[edit: here's Google's definition of geek, for the curious:
geek/ɡēk/
noun
1.an unfashionable or socially inept person.
2.a carnival performer who performs wild or disgusting acts.
verb
engage in or discuss computer-related tasks obsessively or with great attention to technical detail.]
[edit: Below is a wikipedia link discussing one (former) Canadian player who is described as charismatic.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sarwer
Comment