what do you consider as biggest threat to organized chess?

[Paolo Casaschi]

There have been two major topics of discussions in the recent weeks about recently escalating threats to organized chess: the recurring theme of computer cheating, with no less than Kramnik as the most recent accuser; and the stories of bullying, harassment and discrimination, up to the most serious stories from Sabrina.

I'd be interested to hear opinions here, which of those issues (or any other) do people here see as the biggest threat to organized chess today?
Those are both important issues of course, but where would you suggest FIDE and national organizations should allocate more of their limited resources?

[Ian Jamieson]

FIDE

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Apathy and lack of organisers.

[Roger Williamson]

Professor James Moriarty, the Napoleon of Crime.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Apathy and lack of organisers.

Yes, there have been some promising signs recently but we need organisers to take full advantage of them!

[Paul Cooksey]

I was going to vote for apathy, but it seemed a lot of effort

[John Upham]

Escalating costs of venues is a huge threat to organised OTB chess.

[Joey Stewart]

Escalating costs of venues is a huge threat to organised OTB chess.

This is exactly what I was going to say - hotels being turned into full time council "housing" and refugee centers make them harder to secure contacts with, cheap little pub/social club/church halls all being run out of business and turned into flats (with those that remain open charging exorbitant rents). And chess players aren't exactly going to be forthcoming in paying hugely increased entry fees to cover the shortfalls, not when the prizes of congresses have remained unchanged since probably the 1970s and have now reached a point where even the winners are likely to still be making a financial loss playing the tournament after all costs are deducted.

[Paul Cooksey]

I disagree on the main reasons for increased venue costs but glossing over the politics and economics, I agree they are significant for OTB. I suppose chess is a bit different to, say, table tennis, in that online exists as a cheaper option.

[Reg Clucas]

Another vote for costs.

[Peter Ackley]

The greatest threat to organised chess is chess players themselves. Not all of them; a small minority. But they drag it down for the rest.

Many of us spend our lives trying to treat other people fairly, follow the rules correctly and adapt to the changing world within which we live (for example costs). But there's a small number of people out there who don't do this and drag the rest of us down with them.

[NickFaulks]

and adapt to the changing world within which we live (for example costs).

Are you saying that people should be willing to pay more?

[Peter Ackley]

I'm saying, Nick, that people need to be realistic and either:
(a) accept they will get less for the same amount of money as prices rise or
(b) pay more to get the same

Or, to give an example:
Pre-fuel price rises it cost £60 a tank for my car and I got 600 miles. Thus if I took two people 300 miles to a chess match the charge to each would be £15 for the petrol (assuming no quid pro quo existed) and I would absorb all ancillary costs related to the journey. When the price of fuel went up a tank got to £90 the price per person would then become £22.50. People had the choice of:
(a) finding another way of getting there for the same price
(b) paying the increased cost

Option (c) - try and offer me less than I ask for - was tried once but failed for a valid reason.

I play in my local pool league. I get offered a pint when I drive people to a venue 15mins away. Sometimes I turn it down as it's too much. I took someone from work dog racing once and got offered £20 and nearly ended up in a fight trying to return it. Compare this to the chess player who thought offering £2 for a return journey from London-Yorkshire and you see what I mean.

[Nick Ivell]

This portrait of the tight-as-cramp chess community rings very true to me.

[Ian Jamieson]

I don’t disagree with the portrait of chess players as tight but I would just like to add a bit of balance by pointing out that if you aren’t working say due to age, disability etc there is a limit to how much you can spend on chess although even then if you can’t afford it you shouldn’t do it - as someone has pointed out there are cheaper alternatives e.g. online chess although there you have the problem of people cheating.