What do we owe Pros?

Here is a list compiled by Bill Wall about studies correlating chess and improvements in cognitive skills and academics. Note that some of the findings/claims sounded bogus.

http://www.mathandchess.com/articles/article/1302222/60347.htm

If chess were that good, why wouldn't it be taught alongside Math? Because it is a game just like Monopoly, Life, Scrabble, Boggle, etc. The Board of Education probably decided to make any game an extra-curricular activity, alongside other activities such as martial arts and golf.

Where is scholastic chess now? A quick research into uschess.org and wikipedia.org shows that scholastic chess tournaments have reached the same popularity as choir and band competitions. In the last supernational tournament that is held every three years, 5,300 players participated.

http://main.uschess.org/content/blogsection/27/131/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholastic_chess_in_the_United_States

Here is a list of scholastic scholarships through chess:

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8164/131/

What else will it take to propel scholastic chess to the same level as football and basketball? It probably will never happen as chess is not the same type of spectator sport..

I realize the truth in that statement, so I take back my earlier suggestion for sponsors to invest into scholastic programs. Why? Because chess, like skiing and martial arts, is such an individualistic sport/game. By the time the children become pro chess players, they will go on their own ways, not needing to be part of any team to win championships like ball sports. The only other time that chess teams will be needed will be for the olympiad.

I realize that the best way to boost the popularity of chess is to have major tournaments that are as lucrative as golf, the closest spectator sport that chess can strive to become.

Imagine when chess tournaments offer hundreds of thousands of dollars in earnings for top placers in several tournaments throughout the year, as well as sponsorships by companies that make casual wear, custom suits, luxury wrist watches to energy drinks for starters. Within a decade the USCF could be overwhelmed with ultra competitive chess players who are hungry to win the top prizes and all the fringe benefits. Finally, there would be a dedicated "chess channel" with all the full coverage, lessons, announcements, tips, interviews, highlights and specials that one could find in the golf channel.

Bobby Fischer could have been the Tiger Woods of chess as early as 1972, and chess could have become bigger than golf today.

Actually, you do have that right (Thank God!). So long as Carlsen and Kasparov play outside the privacy of their home, anyone can spy on the game and report all the moves. So if it takes place in a tournament hall, its news, anyone can (and ought to) have access to it. That's how it is! I'm able to report on anything that happens in the world around me. This is why the paparazzi can get away with so much, but it's also the reason we have a free press.

I'm glad you mention that because it's a misconception that I think a lot of us intuitively feel must be true when we first hear about the model.  I felt the same way but the research says otherwise. 

There are hundreds of small, relatively unknown artists who are using this model successfully and it's this reason why I think it would work for pro chess players.  You can read more about it at Techdirt.com but the gist is that is only takes a small group of really loyal fans -- a couple of thousand people is enough -- to make a living off of the business model (not fabulously wealthy but 5 figure/lower 6 figures incomes are quite common.

If you have a connection with fans and they feel you add value to their lives, they are willing to support you.  It works for blogs, indie filmmakers and independent music artists. Essentially, it's the Renaissance patron model but instead of being funded by one wealthy patron, you're funded by many patrons some of whom pay much more than others.  The fact that chess fans tend to be more affluent than average is one of the reasons why I think this could really work for chess pros.  Of course, one of the big problems is that chess players often have a charisma problem and might find the connecting with fans part very hard to do! 

In a larger story about the music industry and Reznor in particular, this article  mentions several smaller artists who use the same concept very successfully.  Just scroll down a bit and you can read about a half dozen people who are largely unknown artists but nevertheless are still earning a living through the generosity of small groups of die-hard fans.

On a final note, I want to quote a part of that article that speaks directly to the 3 issues discussed in the chess.com TV program.  Concerning the examples where the CwF+RtB model has been very successful:

"They're not about getting a fee on every transaction or every listen or every stream. They're not about licensing. They're not about DRM or lawsuits or copyright. They're about better connecting with the fans and then offering them a real, scarce, unique reason to buy -- such that in the end, everyone is happy."