A friend pointed out to me the difference between what he perceives as the difference between American youth chess and that of European
youth chess, esp, that of Eastern European. And that is where our focus is on building scholastic chess programs for as many schools as possible, the Euro focus is on area or regional better financially supported youth chess clubs. The advantage to the American approach, at least in America, is that it has lead to more kids playing the sport than seemingly any other time. The disadvantage is that few schools really
have the resources/focus necessary for these kids to become elite players. Thus the number of top level players will not be as great as that, say, with the club approach, which would take in probably far fewer players, but with those players develop a stronger core.
So the question is, which approach is better – ie, should the primary goal be to bring chess to the masses, or to have a sharp increase in the
number of top youth players??
Europe itself is rather different from the United States in terms of chess culture, parenting, child-rearing and education, so a comparison with Europe won’t necessarily tell us what we should do, or what would work best here.
It also depends on what you want. I’d like to see more of both: more kids playing to build knowledge and appreciation of the game (the audience or fan base) AND an increase in the number of top youth players (the “pros”).
Neither approach precludes the other. Soccer, baseball, swimming, figure skating, music can all be done at a variety of levels and intensities by different kids.