How important is it for the professional players to learn how to properly communicate with the media?
How important is it for the professional players to reach out and interact with the fans, sponsors and supporters?
Or is it as long as the professsional players play good and exciting chess, nothing else is needed?
What is your take?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
How players conduct themselves in public is FAR more important than how they dress.
They don’t need to go all out either – they just need to be approachable and friendly and act like “real” people.
They just have to be good players, all the rest is optional.
>>How players conduct themselves in public is FAR more important than how they dress. >>
Faulty Dilemma Fallacy.
Of course it’s important. It’s very important. So many of the top players don’t care about this and the result is they can’t make a living while some who are good of this are very successful.
It depends on how you view chess players:
If you view them as artists, then their work should speak for itself.
If you view them as sportsmen, then their conduct is as important as their chess.
A professional chess player has an obligation to help create a better environment for their sport. Even if for just purely selfish reasons.
But really they just need to be accessable and friendly from time to time. In most sporting venues, except for occasional press appearances, people that lend their face and personality to an event, or sport tend to get paid for those moments, either up front (like soccer players that provide day coaching for ticket sales), or individually, like poker players who provide on air training.
But it is also clear, that rabble rousing and rancour is not good for the game as well. Especially, from top players and top organizers.
It would be better if they didn’t say how much it sucked (there are others that do), and tried to win the how much it sucks race.
Rather, people would be much, much more impressed, with a transparent personality, how much better it would be. If there are serious procedural issues, fess up to them. Be the grown up. A professional does not hide, nor scold. A professional leads, plays by the rules. If they trade on their personality, they allow their personality to be laid bare.
This is a cost. Because the public tends not to like secrets. But will instead allow all sorts of things, along as they are transparent. Politicians of all stripes understand this.
I am quite sure, that the people will generally accept a rah rah candidate, that leads, has vision, acts professionally and responsibly, and is demostrably pro-chess, pro-organization, and if “conflicted”, does so transparently enough that every one thinks it’s a good idea or doesn’t care, and nay sayers are simply that, nay sayers.
You know, not sure if this was discussed in Part 1, but in several of our professional sports
(a) coaches and players are required to show up and be interviewed following games.
(b) not speak poorly of officiating
(c) have a dress code, if not by the league, by their team.
It really is about marketing, and if these folks want to be professionals, there should be expectation that they act like professionals.
I think the top players do need to communicate well and be personable with the fans and media. But I do not think that the players need to dress a certain way as discussed earlier. So long as they have a good character and are personable with fans/media.
When they’re involved in teaching yes they should look properly and behave mannerly, otherwise if they’re playing in tournements and if they stand there for their game=art let them wear whatever they want..
Melody
Some sports go as far as to mandate that players speak with the media. Why should chess be an exception?
Do you know what separates chess from Monopoly? It’s the rich tradition and characters. Chess itself is parlor game. If you aren’t willing to make an effort to support the culture and tradition of chess, then you shouldn’t have a right to consider it any different than what kids dabble with on a rainy day.
Now do you wonder why Kamsky has no endorsement deal?
What’s really needed for chess is a champion that has personality. To the rest of the world chess is boring and the people who play it are boring. Chess culture is boring. It’s almost underground as it has been for over 100 years. It’s no different then Bodybuilding (of which I am a fan). Amongst those obsessed with musculature Bodybuilding’s Mr. Olympia is THE premiere event with various other “Big” events throughout the year. Who here can name Mr. Olympia? For those who don’t know, it’s Jay Cutler. Great story behind him and his ascension to the top. Thing is…he’s boring. Who is the Bodybuilder everyone knows? Arnold Schwarzenegger! Why? He’s exciting, he promoted himself and the sport in a positive way. Fischer did the same thing (although not so positively) with chess. That doesn’t exist right now. Chess desperately needs a champ with charisma and daring.
There is a post for you Susan, who would be the best promoter of the sport?
Who sets the standard? This is the better part of chess tradition that is not so difficult to honor.
When one leads, it is best done by example. What message does unprofessional dress give? Granted, it is only a part of the whole. However, it is an easy “freebie” to dress in fine clothes for something that is public and still respectable, like a chess match.
People notice what standards are set.
How players conduct themselves in public is extremely important – and not just for chess. When Kasparov accused IBM of cheating in his match loss to Deeper Blue, then (1) he alienated a potentially huge sponsor; (2) taught kids all over the world how to lose ungraciously.
Susan asked:
How important is it for the professional players to learn how to properly communicate with the media?
Chess players in general? Which media? I, for example, have no idea which non-native-English speaking chess player can speak English anyway. In USA it would make a difference, but it wouldn’t help if a translator would have to interact (as far as promotion in general).
How important is it for the professional players to reach out and interact with the fans, sponsors and supporters?
In all sports, it increases the popularity of the sport (or in almost anything) if a famous person interacts with fans, sponsors, supporters. Susan, you are the best example. I wouldn’t be sitting here and typing these sentences, if you didn’t reach out to your fans. Heck….I knew your name, I knew you were a famous chess player, but that was it. Of course it makes a big difference.
Or is it as long as the professsional players play good and exciting chess, nothing else is needed?
In the long run, something should be done about the large number of draws. Even if chess would get an unlikely break and one of the major TV networks would (for some weird reason) broadcast the upcoming Mexico world championship, and it would be broadcasted well, games (moves) commented, explained, if so many games would end in a draw, that would be the last of such broadcast, because people (in general) don’t like tie games in any sport.
Assuming that you are looking for angles which can make chess more popular in USA.
————-
A crazy idea just popped in my head. How about to “invent” some game, based on chess of course, which could be suggested to the tv networks to make a game show out of it. Now, something like that would make chess popular again. Imagine an announcement:”….and if you can find this mate in three within the next thirty seconds, you would win a million dollars….”. Or something like that.
When Kasparov accused IBM of cheating in his match loss to Deeper Blue, then (1) he alienated a potentially huge sponsor; (2) taught kids all over the world how to lose ungraciously.
How very true.
Yet, Kasparov’s behavior created a spectacular manifestation how much technology improved:
Kasparov a decade ago accused humans to help the computer.
A decade later Topalov accused computers to help the human.
That was one major turnaround.
If chess players want to succeed professionally (meaning financially) as a group and as individuals, they need to accept that they are in the entertainment business. I’m talking about eaning money for playing chess, as opposed to teaching, writing books, etc.
Marketing is a key part of the entertainment business, therefore both organizers and players need to do it well. It’s ok if they consider themselves artists – as long as they remember that there is a reason for the phrase “starving artist”.
If we start seriously considering wardrobe choices and public persona, we will need too many great players. I notice that questions of image are never discussed by great players, only by bureaucrats who want to dictate to players how to look, how to talk and how to play.
Question: Leko’s gaudy sweaters, Carlsen’s sweats, Morozevich’s tempers after losing, Aronian’s scruffiness and scandalous girlfriend (the notorious Sharapova of chess) – are these criteria for judging them?
Who are these bureaucrats that you are talking about? The image & packaging of professional chess competitions does affect their potential popularity among paying fans. Are you saying that indifference to such things will lead to commercial success?