Arne W. Moll says “No”
chessvibes.com/columns/why-c … be-popular
I certainly hope not. Chess would have to be dumbed down, probably eliminating promotion, en passant, and castling, before it could become popular.
Bill Smythe
I agree with the article. No matter how you hack up this game, it won’t be popular with a mass audience, still two people sitting at a table shuffling chips of wood. So don’t try, and don’t hack it up.
If say Anand thinks he can make more money from his sponsor NIIT by playing differently, that’s his decision. Presumably he’s already made whatever tradeoff he chooses in that regard.
Chess will always be popular with good-looking intelligent people.
Moderator Mode: Off
Well, Chess is popular with me…
‘Popular’? Moll’s term is too vague. As I read his context, even Moll’s use of the term ‘chess’ is a bit vague.
The correct question is — Will chess organizations ever succeed in enticing substantially more people to join who have never joined?
There are a lot of adult males who have some interest in chess, but would almost never consider joining the style of chess club that we know of today.
Are there things the USCF could do to entice a chunk of the non-members to consider joining?
Really the target population is the people who play real-time chess on the web, but who have never joined the USCF.
This seems a realistic subset to target, along with retaining scholastic competitors.
Chess became more “popular” for a period of time in the early 1970’s. Chess was on TV, in magazines, and in the newspapers. The number of members in the USCF soared. Then the new players realized that chess was hard work, it took up time, gaining expertise was a long process, and the rewards in terms of money were few. That chased out those without the artistic sense of the game and the enthusiasts who liked competition for its own sake.
Chess is never going to be popular for lazy people, for couch potatoes, or for people who play games of chance. Chess players are more like marathon runners. Not many athletes have the dedication or perhaps the borderline insane intensity of preparation associated with marathoners who make it a part of their overall lifestyle.
There are so many niche sports today. Chess for many people is just another of them. Most niche sports have a small but dedicated following. Most of those sports don’t care if they are particularly popular.
Mr Magar wrote, “Chess is never going to be popular for lazy people, for couch potatoes, or for people who play games of chance.”
Each and every day I prove him wrong… 
Armchair Warrior
Yes. But only if we change the grass roots models.
Well, if you’re old enough, you remember the chess craze after Fischer won the championship. Everyone was interested. So, Mr. Nakamura needs to bring the championship back to the U.S.! (Nothing like piling the pressure on 
).
I graduated from High School in the mid 1970’s and I was on the chess team, so if there was a Fischer craze I was in the maelstrom.
It was a pretty quiet maelstrom. More like an occasional ripple. Chess was not a popular sport and we had no screaming fans. Our HS Principal in Delaware would spend no money to send our team to the National High School Champ. in NYC, where we might have done pretty well with 3 A players; instead he wanted to spend every possible penny on our football team which was always losing. Maybe we had more members because of Fischer, but it’s hard to tell who was added by that. You don’t reach a competitive level for a few years, so the teammates are years from what got them started in the first place and have found some sort of internal motivation by then.
Look at what is possible, and popular, after all:
Serious over-the-web tournament 2012-June-08
“The response was extremely positive, as almost all the top eligible players decided to participate.”
“There will be no takebacks in the event of mouseslips.”
Article neglects to mention whether the games will be USCF rated.
I know.
It will be rated since there will be TDs at the sites, thus meeting existing requirements for rating internet based games.
Even if Mr Nakamura were to win the World Title I suspect it would not mobilize the masses in the same fashion as did Fischer in 1972. Too many other dynamics were at work in that ‘perfect storm’ including the over arching political context of US Soviet relationships with the spectre of nuclear annihilation hovering directly overhead. It was less about Fisher the man and more about Fischer the metaphor for this larger context. The entire episode is now a nice allegory and bookmark to that historical era but can hardly be duplicated regardless of people’s desires to do such.
Meanwhile, I remain unconvinced as to why we need it to get any bigger or more popular anyway except to serve the financial interests of those that would reap some benefits from its increased popularity.
It’s not the size, it’s the quality that counts in life, but it is interesting to see how some people are just so married to this idea that chess needs to be popular as to lose focus on just simply enjoying it as a great game that really only needs two people in which to partake fully.
I believe USCF statistics on membership will indicate a great increase in interest. “Craze”? Maybe that word is. A little too strong.