Commentary by Bob Hu. Thank you Bob for your analysis.
It makes sense that many chessplayers think that image doesn’t matter, after all, on the chessboard, it’s the truth of the position that counts.
However the majority of the population is not digging for the truth in every thing they see. They are content with merely judging things based on IMPRESSIONS.
That’s where the issue of image comes in.
The looking at the recent history of chess the most successful period of chess organisation and funding was probably in the early nineties, with the PCA.
The PCA (founded by Kasparov) was sponsored by Intel for no less than $5 million a year. The only reason why they pulled the plug on that sponsorship was because of Kasparov’s Deep Blue match (which resulted in IBM’s shares going through the roof – Intel was not pleased).
So lets look at Kasparov, he is always richly dressed, nice clothes, nice watch, well groomed (have you ever seen him with a three day growth?). He appears on TALK SHOWS, writes books and articles and travels with assistants and bodyguards. I don’t think he ever has to drive himself and I’ve seen photos of him travelling by helicopter too. He is invited as a key speaker to conferences and when he talks, people listen – with respect.
Kasparov is someone that members of the general public can look at and say – wow, I want to be like this guy – he’s very glamourous. Amoungst chessplayers he’s known as ‘The Beast’ [of Baku]. A very lively nickname!
People want to be like him or be around him. That’s part of the appeal of stars and celebrities – including the stars of other sports.
This image of success (dignity/glamour) is very important. Would you invite an unshaven and poorly dressed man who smells of vodka and mutters to himself to visit a school? A city hall?
Chess is an intellectual game which boosts people’s cognitive abilities. Chess players should look, speak and behave intelligently too.
I don’t think suits and ties is necessarily de rigeur for chess tournaments but if someone is not dressed like that they should be wearing something fashionable or dignified. Sportswear for junior players is fine too since it gives a good impression when a team is dressed in a uniform but I am not sure that it should be instituited for adult players.
A chess players doesn’t necessarily have to have an interesting personality – but it is important for them to talk to journalists. There is no story without a person and Chessplayers need to be that person or the article/report will be cut and something about bowling/poker/pool/football put in it’s place.
Finally one observation I would like to add is this:
Have a look at the photo’s of the recent Kramnik – Aronian rapid match. Aronian is wearing a stylish white suit. But it doesn’t seem to look right on him does it?
Why? Because he is slouching, quite badly. Looking at him it is hard to see a man with confidence and self respect. Kramnik on the other hand, is STANDING like a champion. If you didn’t know the results and just looked at the photos it would be easy to guess that Kramnik had won!
It’s about more than a simple dress code. A monkey in a suit is still a monkey and quite a rediculous sight (I’m not saying Aronian is a monkey by the way – he’s just a convenient example, he may need to work on his posture though). Chess players should be role models and be living examples of people who use their brains to achieve success.
Bob Hu
Kelly Atkins from Chessville.com added the following:
There’s more to popularizing chess than getting it on ESPN. Kasparov on the cover of TIME and in the WSJ, or in the Pepsi & AltaVista commercials, as well as Susan giving a commencement address at a major university are good examples. ESPN may happen in the future after more of that, but perhaps they haven’t found the right way to present it there… yet.
Presentation and packaging ARE important. As Hu pointed out, Kasparov does a masterful job of presenting himself as a polished, articulate, admirable person to the public (and to businesses & potential sponsors), as does Susan. It’s no coincidence that they get the media and commercial attention that they do.
Can you imagine Tiger Woods being the spokesperson for American Express or Buick if he looked like a bum? Woods being in TV commercials and constantly in the public eye has drawn thousands of people into golf and made it much more a part of popular culture.
Look at how NASCAR has marketed its drivers & events and brought in millions of fans that would otherwise never have watched a race. Chess could do the same thing if players & the game were presented correctly.
Kelly Atkins
www.Chessville.com
Great comments Bob. Thank you.
I so wish that people would cease attempting to commercialize chess. At best (i.e., the PCA effort cited) chess will attain only intermittent, relatively small sponsorship. The reason is that chess does not attain high TV ratings. ESPN tried to televise and it didn’t work. That’s the end of the story. Live with it. It isn’t changing, unless an American wins the world title.
Have to take it easy on the GMs. First you make them play chess (Sofia rules), now you want a dress code. One at a time please….
Bob is right on. Thanks for discussing it.
The players must have a god reason for not dressing by the unwritten code. Has anyone asked them why they dress like they do?
There are other ways than television to popularize chess. Chess doesn’t play all that well on television, but it plays very well on the internet. With webcasts and live internet events becoming more popular, it might very well find a niche, if properly promoted.
Curling, Fishing, Poker are on ESPN. So who says Chess cannot be on ESPN?
Seirawan and Ashley showed with the right hosts Chess can work on TV. It should not be live unless it is blitz or rapid chess.
Polo…ESPN says chess won’t be on ESPN!!!! It was tried and it didn’t work. The ship has sailed.
Graeme…popularizing chess is qualitatively different than commercializing it. I am talking about the latter (making profit in the marketplace), not the former (thousands of people playing in their underwear at their home office).
There’s more to popularizing chess than getting it on ESPN. Kasparov on the cover of TIME and in the WSJ, or in the Pepsi & AltaVista commercials, as well as Susan giving a commencement address at a major university are good examples. ESPN may happen in the future after more of that, but perhaps they haven’t found the right way to present it there… yet.
Presentation and packaging ARE important. As Hu pointed out, Kasparov does a masterful job of presenting himself as a polished, articulate, admirable person to the public (and to businesses & potential sponsors), as does Susan. It’s no coincidence that they get the media and commercial attention that they do.
Can you imagine Tiger Woods being the spokesperson for American Express or Buick if he looked like a bum? Woods being in TV commercials and constantly in the public eye has drawn thousands of people into golf and made it much more a part of popular culture. Look at how NASCAR has marketed its drivers & events and brought in millions of fans that would otherwise never have watched a race. Chess could do the same thing if players & the game were presented correctly.
Kelly Atkins
http://www.Chessville.com
Popularizing Chess is DOOMED TO FAILURE. Just like the idea that machines can’t fly because they are heavier than air. If you think it is, it is. The important thing is to step aside and let those with another vision try and accomplish what you think is impossible. Chances are they see things in a different way and will bring in new ideas that have not been tried before.
If chess players were competing for sponsorship contracts, or if they could make reasonable incomes by making personal appearances, and both of these things depended on being well-groomed and expensively dressed, I think you would see the top players being well-groomed and well-dressed.
Since neither of these are true, they dress to suit themselves, and for some of them, that is jeans and T-shirt. Who can blame them?
In tournaments where organizers aim to please sponsors and ask the players to spiff up, you see the players spiffing up.
Before he became a top-level player and was making lots of money from chess, Kasparov wore leather jackets while playing. And, if you find old pictures of Kramnik playing when he was younger, they are hilarious.
So, I think complaining about this a bit over-the-top.
In the old days, the Eastern European players would wear bad suits (tie optional). This is how I remember Karpov, Kasparov, and their Soviet teammates dressed for the 1984 Olympiad in Lucerne. They weren’t too well groomed either.
More recently some of the players have moved to a more prosperous or business-like look, but unless someone is setting a dress code, there is a wide range of dress.
A player who wants to dress very casually won’t be the only one by a long stretch. So that is what you see.
If organizers want a certain look for their events, they have to take the lead, and invite players who will cooperate. It seems most of them will, if asked. They do own suits and ties.
As for requiring good posture — that might be asking a bit much.
Bob has accurately pointed out one of the key issues in the image debate. Image is indeed about impressions. It’s about impressions and the use of those impressions to get what one desires from others — respect, votes, money, etc.
As such, some view the creation of a personal image as being equivalent to the creation of a lie, but in chess lies are stripped bare for all to see on the chessboard (paraphrasing Lasker).
Frankly, I would prefer to see the sponsors, the public, etc. lay aside their prejudices and accept truth. Could you imagine the reforms that would occur in the U.S. if “we” could not be so easily manipulated by impressions and images?
Of course, the reality (sadly) is that images and impressions are extremely potent tools for manipulation and control. So the bottom line is: Do we want to “lie” to get what we want, or do we prefer honesty?
whg
Many top athletes make much more money from endorsements than they do from their actual sports. By making themselves marketable, companies want to associate their product with those stars’ persona. This in turn also draws attention to their sports career and it’s a win-win situation for all.
Chess has its own appeal as a mental endeavor. What it’s lacking in the public’s perception of it is “coolness” for lack of a better term. That CAN be changed. Look at how NASCAR overcame its image as just a fringe sport that appealed only to rednecks. I’m no NASCAR fan, but I sure admire what they did in marketing their sport and drivers. They made them very mainstream and broadened the sport’s appeal to a much wider audience.
The same could be done for chess. Its association with mental ability makes it a perfect platform for marketing bookstores, computers, investment companies, travel, banks, clothing, etc. Well-dressed, polished players could easily find themselves making millions as spokespersons for those type products and services, as well as many others.
Seeing chess players in those roles would also change the public’s perception of the game and the kind of people who are involved in it and help make it a more mainstream part of popular culture. The players have to present themselves appropriately though. IBM won’t hire someone who looks like a bum to do commercials for them. When they were much younger, Kasparov & Kramnik did dress much more sloppily, but they grew to see the importance of presenting themselves as professionals.
When people see Tiger Woods, Dan Marino, Michael Jordan, or Mia Hamm on TV, they see polished people they want to emulate, and that also promotes those stars’ sports in a very positive manner. What if we regularly saw players like Kasparov or Susan on TV talk shows, or doing commercials for Tag Heur watches or IBM or Mercedes Benz? Imagine the effect it would have on chess.
What is this Kasparov worship? I read quite a few Russian chess sites, and know that he is intensely disliked by most of the chess players. He is considered arrogant, extremely greedy, demanding huge fees for appearances, referring to all players outside the top ten as “tourists.” Many blame him and Karpov for the fact that most other chess players are close to being paupers. Kasparov’s Wall Street connections and publications for businessmen are seemed as further evidence of wrong priorities. Kasparov can afford to look rich. Topalov and Carlsen are unique stars in their countries and they enjoy sponsorship, but many others simply don’t have the resources to “look rich.”
I love chess, but I wouldn’t watch it on TV. Since actually seeing chess does not add anything to its understanding, why waste the time? I don’t think TV is the way to popularize chess. Educational programs, children’s tournaments, that’s where there is a chance to get
Dress code is a silly idea. People of different ages have different tastes. Having a variety of players is good for attracting more people.
There is a lot of appeal in the super-casual dress. Look at the MAC commercials on TV. The PC guy is in a clean suit, while the MAC guy is the free spirit in baggy jeans. Formally dressed Karpov, Kasparov and Topalov attract middle-aged businessmen. Young people are likely to like Carlsen, Morozevich and the very sloppy Grishuk. They look young, self-assured and happy to be themselves. Let’s not make chess attractive only to middle-aged lawyers.
As for Michael Jordan, Mia Hamm, etc. – the public loves them for what they do outside of their suits, not for their appearances on talk shows.
From Bob Hu’s comments:
“It’s about more than a simple dress code. A monkey in a suit is still a monkey and quite a rediculous sight (I’m not saying Aronian is a monkey by the way – he’s just a convenient example, he may need to work on his posture though).”
I think Mr. Hu should be able to understand that if Aronian is a “convenient example”, we must assume that he does indeed consider him “a monkey in a suit”.
And I consider people who prefer the spelling “rediculous” (one of several such gaffes in that short vitriolic article) ridiculous.
Comments about Aronian are completely wrong. Yes, he is slouchy, he has bad skin, and he shaves rather irregularly. But he is also a very popular person in his country and abroad, has a huge fan base and is one of the most popular chess players. He is probably more popular than Kramnik, who is much cleaner looking.
I am afraid that attempts to popularize chess are concerned only with the show aspect of the game. No draws, dress code, shmoozing with the media and fans, etc. Chess is too good for PR people, they will cut it to size to fit into their world. This isn’t Hollywood, one does not need to be attractive and sexy to succeed. Let’s not change that.
Thank you Susan for posting my ideas up and thank you to all those who gave me feedback and encouragement.
I am particularly impressed with Charles Milton’s startling logic:
I quote: ‘I think Mr. Hu should be able to understand that if Aronian is a “convenient example”, we must assume that he does indeed consider him “a monkey in a suit”.’
The reason why I wrote “I’m not saying Aronian is a monkey” is because I DO NOT consider Aronian to be a monkey. I wanted to make this very clear.
In the final paragraph I wrote my conclusion. In the conclusion I wished to draw was a summary of my points:
1 – Suits and Ties are not necessarily de riguer for tournaments, but players should look fashionable and/or dignified.
I evoked the image of a monkey in a suit to point out the failings of single-mindedly pursuing a standardised code of dress.
2 – Players ought to be exemplars and role-models.
3 – Players ought to be living demonstrations of using one’s brain to achieve success.
As a post-scriptum I would like to issue a public apology for misspelling the word ‘ridiculous’. I deeply regret the suffering that I have caused Susan’s readers and their families by my thoughtless actions.