English Chess Forum

Dylan Loeb McClain's latest column is foillowed by the text

This is the final chess column to run in The New York Times.

[Via Jonathan Zalman.]

That is terrible. It used to appear 3 times a week.

It may be resurrected online

I always enjoyed Lubomir Kavalek in the Washington Post. He described Carlsen as the Mozart of chess; how would he describe Caruana? Beethoven?

See here

Francis Fields wrote:I always enjoyed Lubomir Kavalek in the Washington Post. He described Carlsen as the Mozart of chess; how would he describe Caruana? Beethoven?

Too soon, I think, for Kavalek to declare Caruana as a Beethoven to Carlsen's Mozart - Fabio would need to succeed Magnus as World Champion to fit that bill.

Kavalek's final Washington Post column can be found here -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01223.html

He writes on chess for the Huffington Post from time to time - not since Sept?

John Upham wrote:See here

Good to see the Guardian columnist turn out for the Surrey U-160 team away to Sussex at Horsham last Saturday. In the long-term, I tend to agree with what he wrote in the article linked to by John Upham, above, but there's a lot of life in the grand old game of chess, yet.

That piece is ludicrously pessimistic about the future of chess IMO.

John McKenna >Good to see the Guardian columnist turn out for the Surrey U-160 team away to Sussex at Horsham last Saturday.<

It took a few moments to realise you didn't mean Leonard Barden.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/m ... nue-online

with Kasparov quote

Few will mourn, even as a symbolic loss. "This is the final chess column to run in The New York Times."

Kasparov presumably being such a jerk because McClain exposed the Leong deal.

But isn't Kasparov right? The chess (and bridge) columns in newspapers don't have much in them. If one is a regular reader of any newspaper, one's eye might stray to the chess column only out of casual interest or ennui.

A few weeks ago he was putting himself about as the great hope to promote chess, with special emphasis on the USA and Europe. Now the USA's leading newspaper loses its chess column and how does he react?

With Kasparov, it's always about Kasparov.

Arshad >The chess (and bridge) columns in newspapers don't have much in them.<

Hello, perhaps you don't support chess. The chess and bridge columns in newspapers should not be disparaged. They are of great value to the chess community. The loss of Leonard Barden's column in the printed version of the Evening Standard was a serious blow.

One thing the chess column has, which the editor likes, is a diagram that sets off the rest of the page. It adds gravitas to the paper. That is why you so often see chess sets in advertisements on TV.

Stewart Reuben wrote:Arshad >The chess (and bridge) columns in newspapers don't have much in them.<

Hello, perhaps you don't support chess. The chess and bridge columns in newspapers should not be disparaged. They are of great value to the chess community. The loss of Leonard Barden's column in the printed version of the Evening Standard was a serious blow.

One thing the chess column has, which the editor likes, is a diagram that sets off the rest of the page. It adds gravitas to the paper. That is why you so often see chess sets in advertisements on TV.

In what sense? Serious players subscribe to NIC, BCM, and maybe the Informant as well. Maybe the chess column served a purpose fifty years ago, when the columnist might cover some tournament abroad and there was no other source of information about recent interesting games or tournament results. Today, as you yourself are admitting, its primary function is to lend gravitas to the paper ("See, our readers are interested in high-brow recreation.").

Interesting article on Slate magazine at http://www.slate.com/articles/life/gami ... hance.html. Essentially saying that in the internet age newspaper chess columns need to go beyond simply reporting tournaments results and games. The column has a couple of interesting ideas for writers who fit the bill.