Usually, being a 'professional' is perceived as good, high quality and 'amateurs' are viewed much less favorable. A couple of days ago, Michael Goeller from the Kenilworthian wrote a nice post on "chess amateurism", raising a few interesting points on the way chess is played now and in the past as well as the future of competitive chess in the US.

Citing the article "Steinitz and the Inception of Modern Chess" (pdf) by Federico Garcia, he argues that the end of the romantic phase in the history of chess, with its brilliant or not-so-brilliant sacrifices, is related to the beginning of professional chess. I have been ranting quite a bit about the amount of drawn games in today's top-level chess tournaments lately and find this explanation quite compelling.

Regarding the future of chess, Michael Goeller writes "Chess is increasingly being sustained by amateur involvement on the internet [...]". For me, it is the amateurish players I encounter in my games (sorry guys, winning against me does not make you a professional) and their insights from blogs and comments that keep me interested in this game, so I could not agree more. Anyway, read the post on "chess amateurism" yourself, it is worth it.

Comments (1)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by The Kenilworthian, December 05, 2007

Thanks for the positive feedback -- and the link! You are certainly a big part of the rising tide of chess amateurism -- and I mean that in a good way!

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Website

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment