Lack of young(ish) adults playing chess

[matt_ward]

Yes Thats what I would of said.

Ladies, and Alcohol.

[Ben Purton]

Chess is a dire renewal unless its with Sharks. I mean playing a board in a random hall with random people is about as dire as it gets.

Chess players in the majority don't have any form of "bonding" in the respects most sports do.

4NCL is closes to team as it gets, and half the players dont know whos in there own team.

also chess players health might be as bad as darts. Which is about as impressive as it gets.

[Joey Stewart]

Thats not true - well, it kind of is for some of the large mercinary clubs which have a high turnover, but in most of the teams I have been in over the years we have had some sort of team bond.

Bonding can take other forms then getting completely hammered and turning up to the games an hour late with a huge hangover every 4ncl.

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

Bonding can take other forms then getting completely hammered and turning up to the games an hour late with a huge hangover every 4ncl.

It can? You mean group hugs?

[Sean Hewitt]

I suppose the question to be asked of 18-year-olds graded 120-180 would be: 'What do you want from chess that would make it at least as appealing as some of the other things that you also enjoy doing?'.

Ladies to 'socialise' with.

+ alcohol.

I don't think these attractions are restricted to 18 year olds though

[Mark Josse]

Alcohol and women maybe a little work

well at least thats why i gave up aged 20

I found now i am over 40 i fit into the chess scene though

I reckon if some of the 18-21 year olds stick with the game though they will get over that 200 barrier towards being a master but the options are far more fun

[Gareth Harley-Yeo]

I suppose the question to be asked of 18-year-olds graded 120-180 would be: 'What do you want from chess that would make it at least as appealing as some of the other things that you also enjoy doing?'.

Ladies to 'socialise' with.

+ alcohol.

I don't think these attractions are restricted to 18 year olds though

how about rather than give money to titled players to enter e2e4 events, you instead pay a couple of escorts to serve us our drinks. I'm sure Keith would be ok with it?!

[Neill Cooper]

Playing at the National Counties Final yesterday, it struck me that most of the competitors, with the exception of a few juniors mainly in the lower graded matches, were in the 45+ age-group (like me). The same is true in the Notts League where I play. As a teacher with an active chess club at school, I have noticed for a long time how players often give up at 18 when they leave school and only occasionally return to the game.

A good deal of focus, quite correctly, is on ways to promote junior chess, but it seems to me that a bigger challenge is to retain juniors as chess-players into adulthood, and to tempt adults back into playing after a spell away from the game. If we do not rise to this challenge, there will be a real crisis both in terms of lack of organisers and players in 20-30 years time.

Any ideas?

John - I think you have raised an important point. There are some schools (like yours) and clubs where teenagers are active in chess. In the Surrey and Croydon leagues there are lots of teenagers (about half my games this season have been against players under 18) but they do seem to stop when they leave school, even if they were club members.

[Andrew Wainwright]

As a 26 year old who didn't give up playing when he went to Uni and still managed to balance playing chess (two local evening league teams and a few congresses a year) with plenty of boozing and having fun I don't buy this c*#p about not having enough time to "fit chess in with being young" for a minute!

Sure if you want to be a GM then you might have to devote pretty much all of your time to chess and give up a lot of other things but if all you want is to play for the joy of playing then chess fits in fine with the rest of life, just like 5-a-side football (which I also play) or any hobby.

If I can manage to fit chess in alongside a demanding full time job, a family life and a social life outside of the game then "not having enough time" is a poor excuse in my opinion and is not really the genuine reason why people stop playing.

I also don't buy the comments about teams outside of the 4NCL not bonding, socialising and having a proper sense of "team". Anyone who has ever played against the Idle Knights will know this not to be the case My club has two teams and 18 players at present (a modest but growing local evening league club). Our club are predominantly in our 20s/30s with a couple of players in their 40's. These players are out there and if you find and encourage them then they will play chess. They might never be GMs but they can still play to a good standard.

Bottom line in my opinion is that there are so many things for people to do these days that chess is an "unsexy" option that generally only appeals to a smaller number of players. Most 20-30 year olds looking for a "hobby" will invariably turn to sport. Those that do play chess do so because they love the game, as I do.

[Alex Holowczak]

I think it's surprising here that people involved in the SCCU are complaining about this problem. How do you think the rest of us feel?!

Regarding a lack of junior volunteers, I should point out that the average age of the 4NCL's game input team next season is likely to be under 20!

[Gavin Strachan]

18+ year olds are very much into poker as it is currently going through the tail end of a boom period. The problem with poker is that as it is 100% gambling and inherently relies on a lot on luck as well as skill. With chess, although luck is involved to a point at the same level really as many other sports/games, it is mainly based on skill and has a far lower financial risk level. Being addicted to chess rather than poker is financially more beneficial. Now we are in the midst of a credit crunch where pockets are somewhat tightened, chess is a far more economical game to play! The boom that poker has gone through is a bit like the national lottery when it first started where people are gambling on obtaining quick financial solution, suddenly after losing lots of money they realise it is not quite as easy as they originally imagined.

[Mark Howitt]

Nope that last post is completely wrong. (Tbh it's probably based on a stereotypical view of poker that most people have).

In the long run skill is the predominant factor in poker.

I've done two things for quite a long time- write fiction and play chess. I'd say in terms of the mental effort for the amount of money you get, they're two of the hardest things you can do.

Practically all young players LOSE money up to IM level playing chess. Think about it, cost of entry fees, books, software, hotels, training...

Even for a young player who actually won a Major congress for example, for the amount of preperation time, travelling time and playing time he could have got at least as much doing a minimum wage job for the equivalent time.

Why do you think Grischuk spends most of his time playing poker, and more or less the only time he's playing chess is when he's at a tournament? Why do you think a lot of GMs have more or less given up chess to play poker?

I'll tell you why, it's because it's MUCH EASIER than chess, and it's easier to get money too. Think about it, people like Greg Shahade- struggling IM in chess, now makes over $100,000 in poker, easily.

I won't pretend I'm a good chessplayer, or that I was, but I beat a couple of people who represented England for their age groups. The amount I get per hour playing poker is much bigger than I get playing chess.

All depends on how much someone loves chess as to whether they keep on playing it. And you'd have to love it a HELL OF A LOT as a young person the way chess is in this country.

[Gavin Strachan]

When on the Dragons Den a pro poker player came on effectively looking for sponsorship, they all basically turned him down on the basis that the risk was too great. I will agree that ultimately there is a lot of skill in poker like chess, but ultimately it is gambling. This guy was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread and some of the dragons are poker players so are aware of the risks. Poker is an easier game to learn and understand; but ultimately there are a lot of people out there who have lost a hell of a lot of money playing poker, you hear about the big wins, but perhaps not all the losses.

[Mark Howitt]

Any good poker player wouldn't ask for or need sponsorship. It does make me laugh when people ask for this or 'staking' in the poker world. Basically they are saying *I do not have any money to play this game, but back me and I'll give you a percentage.*

The thing is though, someone who's played chess will be playing against these type of people. Real gamblers, who don't understand poker. Compared to the amount of study needed to be even OK at chess the amount you have to do with poker is so easy. Chessplayers can actually clearly see how far above the average of the population they are in terms of patience, memory and calculation- quite a lot.

[Joey Stewart]

In a 10 player tournament where the winners takes all, there are always going to be 9 who come away empty handed - it is not possible for every player to make a profit out of the game, and once all the muppets to stop throwing their money away in online games then poker will start to become a much more hardened game where everybody is quite a good player and very few are left able to earn a living from the game.

Also, there are not that many chess players who attempt to earn a living out of playing the game - it would be somewhat foolhardy to do so unless you are of master level strength and even then it is still very hard work. Much better to just keep it as a competitive but fun passtime.