23-10-2012, 12:26 PM
If Chess is included within the Olympics it'll only really be watched by Chess players. Other people might switch it on out of curiosity, but I suspect they will lose interest rapidly and change to something else. Why? Chess is not a spectator sport at the best of times (unless you are a Chess player), and it's incredibly tough for someone who barely knows the rules to get any enjoyment out of watching it. Particularly true when watching it invariable means looking at a couple of foreign Grandmasters stare at the position for an extended period. I can't be the only one who thinks that this scenario will simply confirm the view held by the majority that Chess is not a sport - at least not in the conventional sense.
Sports/games where the rules are easy to pick up and follow; where there is a clear and obvious objective that doesn't require you to study a rule book to understand; where there are moments that have you on the edge of your seat; where you feel the inclination to cheer and shout in support... these are what people will watch. Chess, as brilliant as it is in its own right, is not brilliant in the same way as Olympic sports. We'd be best, as previously mentioned, to focus on what makes Chess unique and brilliant, instead of trying to make it fit the mould of what makes everything else the same or similar.
Sports/games where the rules are easy to pick up and follow; where there is a clear and obvious objective that doesn't require you to study a rule book to understand; where there are moments that have you on the edge of your seat; where you feel the inclination to cheer and shout in support... these are what people will watch. Chess, as brilliant as it is in its own right, is not brilliant in the same way as Olympic sports. We'd be best, as previously mentioned, to focus on what makes Chess unique and brilliant, instead of trying to make it fit the mould of what makes everything else the same or similar.