Communism and Chess, among other things

I am currently looking at the FIDE Federations Rankings, for those uninformed the rankings are based on the average score of the 10 strongest players in that federation (country). Although I am not surprised by the top 4 federations, a certain obvious trend popped forward right away, Communism, or a history there of. Before I continue I will list the top ten federations for the reference of this forum topic as currently listed on the FIDE website. 

 

 

Russia, Ukraine, France, and China. Of the four Russia, or more correctly the former USSR, and China are easily identifiable as the two powerhouses of communism throughout its history. I would roughly say that Ukraine, and the former Ukraine SSR, most likely follows right behind in its role of prominence in the history of Communism. Now France is a pretty big reach, but then again these are just my sudden thoughts on the matter. The earliest forms of Socialism, as is widely accepted in the histo-political academic field, did in fact rise from the French Revolution. As we all know Socialism did lead directly to Communism. Now France only did their "Socialism" stint after the French revolution for a brief period, as it didn't work out to well. This I think being both a factor the impracticality of Socialism, and the political situation of the French nation post-French Revolution. However, I personally believe that a little bit of that Socialist nature just never left, as it can still be seen in their healthcare and taxation/retirement. So if all of what I have said is presumed true, there is undoubtedly a trend of Socialism and Communism amongst the top ranked federations. Certainly Russia has a history of pushing chess on its younger generations. During Ukraine's time in the USSR, I'm sure that this "pushing of chess" was extended to the Ukrainian area, but would that truly explain there number two ranking? Certainly most surprising to me is France, they have no history of inclusion with the USSR, and have a fraction of the population that might account for China, the USA, or India's top ten ranking. The French average IQ is 98 according to Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen (2006) IQ and Global Inequality. In comparison, Germany's average IQ is listed at 99 and its population is 24% larger than France’s. Now I don’t necessarily believe in the exact correlation between IQ and chess ability, but if I did, this comparison would prove that IQ seems to have nothing to do with it. Note: Using Japan would have made this argument's strength three-fold, but I figured using Japan would make for a flawed argument as their top abstract strategical minds are used for the game of Go. Finally there is China. Is it their Communist association, their sheer massive population, their ridiculously high average IQ of 105, or some combination of all three? It would seem that certain aspect of my argument apply to most of the rest of the top ten ranking. Armenia and Azerbaijan were members of the USSR; India and the USA have massive populations; Israel has certain Socialist aspects in their government and society. As for Hungary, I suppose it has a close proximity to the former USSR. At this point I have rambled far too long and derived far from my original question of Communism and Chess are related into the more generalized what makes for a top ranked FIDE federation. I did have to do a little reference for the IQ, population, and FIDE ratings, but I listed where I got the information, and quite frankly you aren't getting a sources cited or bibliography so tough. In addition I tried to write with as little bias as possible when analyzing the concept of "Socialist" qualities of a federation, so as to stay on track. Also, excuse my interpretations of Socialism and Communism as they are entirely based of off my high school education, with no collegiate or graduate knowledge of the field, and feel free to correct. In addition I'm aware this is a giant paragraph. But please the whole point of this was to hear your thoughts and opinions. Namely Communism and chess, but also the other points I delved into, and even anything that reading this brought to your mind.

 

Thank you for reading.

 

Sincerely,

elispeigel

 

Well, actually I didn't read.  But England's no longer up there (dang).

I doubt that communism and chess prowess are linked. Chess, I believe was popular in Russia before the Revolution as well.

---

So I did a little checking up, and although chess had been played in Russia since as early as the 10th century, it wasn't until the mid/late-1800s that it actually started to become popular in Russia. This is the exact same time period as the Communist Manifesto. Listen, I know what I'm suggesting seems kind of like a conspiracy theory for chess; which in of itself is almost laughable. Sure, if it were just Russia and China, I would still be able to provoke the subject for discussion, but Azerbaijan? I mean even if it was occupied with "Russians" during its inclusion in the USSR, I highly doubt that the Russian's cultural take on the game would have rubbed off that strongly on them. Top that off with the fact that their total population is like 9 million, and it just is unreal. For me at least the only tangible correlation is Communism.

 

Sources:

http://www.chess.com/article/view/russian-chess-history

What about football and a history of fascism then? Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina and Brazil are by tradition the strongest countries in the world and all were fascist dictatorships at some point between 1930s and 1960s (some also before and after). There's also Euro 2004 surprise winners Greece, and top teams like Portugal, Uruguay and Croatia, while Japan is the strongest team in Asia.

Wow, I didn't even know they played football in all those countries...

I think there are two issues with your comparison. Firstly, football is the worlds most popular sport and as such is picked up and followed by a country in a very different manner than a sport like chess which is one of the least popular and would have required strong efforts by some force to make it the presence it is today. Secondly, naming an individual tournament where an underdog, Greece, won cannot be compared to a ranking list which mirrors the countries abilities' over a much longer period of time. fabelhaft wrote: What about football and a history of fascism then? Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina and Brazil are by tradition the strongest countries in the world and all were fascist dictatorships at some point between 1930s and 1960s (some also before and after). There's also Euro 2004 surprise winners Greece, and top teams like Portugal, Uruguay and Croatia, while Japan is the strongest team in Asia.

If there is a link between communism and chess why aren't Vietnam and North Korea as good as Azerbaijan?

---

 And I hear, of all things, they use their feet. Crazy foreigners.

It really doesn't have much to do with communism per se, but rather the ability to make a living as a chess player, and the availability of good competition, that are key. 

Totalitarian countries often need heroes to boost the national pride that keeps the system and nationalism blooming. That's why they help athletes and artists so much. The USSR and many other autoritharian and totalitarian systems have sponsored sports to give birth to "national heroes"

Just compare the ammount of help from the state that these people received over the other countries. 

Doubtless it is only due to the New Deal that the U.S. even made it into the top ten.

---

I think it has more to do with Ellis Island.

---

 Yes, we must thank the foreign feet-ball players that are clearly key to a strong national chess community.

---

 Only Le Quang Liem is over 2700, their next highest rated player is Nguyen at 2650~. USA has 4 or 5 at that level

I don't think its communism per se, but a variety of social and economic issues. Things such as competing entertainments, role models, inate skills and talents, and so on. To say its related specifically to the form of government is to over simplify. After all, communism has to a large extent replaced by varying levels of democracy, open markets, etc in many of those countries. If I read "Das Capital" will my rating improve? :)

I like Fischer's reply to the question of why Russia has so many more masters that America. 'The Russian state pays the players to play chess. They get a monthly check, they get a house, they get a car, they get travel expenses etc., etc.'

'In America we get zip. Only Reshevsky and myself make a living from chess---everyone else has a day job.'

Fischer was mistaken about Reshevsky---he had a day job too. 

I like Fischer too...I just don't talk about him every chance I get

Coming as I am from a comunist country, I can say the social system has nothing to do with chess prowess. Also, I worked in the sport system, so I know how it works: All the sportsman (chess included) would be in the "Pro" category, because they receive sponsorship from the goverment, a salary, and another goods. There are several sport schools, school programs, etc, which are paid by the goverment. It's that good? Sure. But there are a few downsides. You can't decide by yourself what to do: let's say, if you are a relatively good player and you want to play an open tournament, or to go abroad to have some "european" experience, you can't, even if you pay for the trip or the tournament and so: everything is determined by "merits", and if you are not and IM, at least, you are another cuban slave unable to get out of Cuba, and decide your what to do with your life like a human been. You are a number, because chess and sports are just  trophies showcasing their ideology.

Another thing, you are a "pro", but you do not earn real money, only those who are traveling abroad. You just survive. That's the other side of the coin, chessplayers without another perspective in life than surviving inside the country, they spend more time studying chess hoping to be good enough to get a title and get out of the country. That happened in Russia, and other ex-communist countries, and if they maintain the strength is because chess became tradition, and still is an atractive life in some nations.

What happen in America, and other 1st world countries? There are a relative high living standard, but you have to pay for everything. One hour lesson a day is a luxury that many can't afford, not to talk about three/four hours, the usual time spent in school clubs by masters and their students in Cuba, for free. So, over here, you have to decide what exactly you want in life, and go for it, but unfortunately for chess there are not scholarships and loans, is extremely competitive and not well paid, except for those supergms... except if you don't care to have a frugal life, the least.

So...

I seem to recollect that the reason Russia become a such a power house of chess was because Chigorin started the Soviet School of Chess in Russia and then the government added chess as part of the school training.

Mikhail Ivonavich Chigorin his fighting spirit embodied the character of the Soviet school of chess which was to dominate the chess world in the latter part of the 20th century.

If any country also adopted chess in that fashion they would develop many great players. I just think you threw in the Communism to stir controversy.

                                    IMHO