"Chess: Beth Harmon and Magnus Carlsen triggers for an unlikely boom"

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Following along the conversation as we have been watching the series too. This statement is a bit confusing.

There are plenty of American chess players in our social circles and of course lots of card playing and talking between rounds at OTB tournaments (Sheepshead anyone?). There is zero conversation about chess in pop culture. It never comes up.

Not sure which American players "seem to be desperate". Desperate is kind of a provocative term - not sure what you are going for there. Seem to be interested? That would not be overly surprising and certainly would not imply any negative connotation.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

There are millions of Americans who play chess - men, women, children, grandparents, orphans, twins, triplets, only children, middle children, single, married, divorced.

American chess players tend to? They may feel? These statements are offensive and completely unnecessary.

We can discuss pop culture without lumping millions of people as having a knee-jerk reflex. It is simply not true. Maybe we should stick to what we actually know instead of mocking and criticizing complete strangers.

North America is too distracted with a faster pace of life to care about chess.

Yes we do get overly excited when we see chess in movies or on TV.

@Cheesemaster

If we slow down for baseball, chess is a piece o' cake

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Those sports you mentioned have the ability to generate revenue.

You need to buy equipment and clothing to play those sports and you need a course or a field.
That means regular people have to pay to play.
So sponsors or companies compete for your cash.
Golf clubs and clothing is expensive and you have to pay to use the course.
Pay a pro golfer an endorsement contract while he wears our clothing and uses our golf clubs and people will go out and buy that equipment.

The same parameters apply to the other sports as well.

Anybody can buy a decent tournament chess set for 10 bucks and play anywhere so why would big money sponsors spend money on chess?
There is no financial return other than a potential revenue from advertising.
(Like when chess players wear those dumb jackets with multiple sponsors on it)

Also, people that suck at sports can still get enjoyment by watching the event.
Even dumb people can understand sports.

Do you think people who suck at chess want to watch a 6 hour game of chess that they couldn't possibly understand?
Even worse is the fast games where it is too fast for them to even realize what is going on.

Chess was never a big deal in North America.
Fischer vs Spassky was big because of the cold war and not the chess.

@Cheesemaster

ain't buying it.

the US was a world power in chess because a lot of enlightened people played.
the US turned out a world champion (by acclaim) in Paul Morphy, and that does not really happen in a society that has no care for the game.

@Earl-of-Trumps

Paul Morphy was against money being involved in chess 😉
And that was almost 200 years ago!

If you had said Fischer 1972 it would have been more convincing.

@Duchess64

Soccer and basketball are easy for dumb people to follow.

Chess isn't.

The myth that chess ability means intelligence is a misconception that will probably always exist.

Chess will never see the day where it matches the sponsorship like other sports.
At least not in North America.