Which is the dominant norm?

[MJMcCready]

With regards to club and county chess, why do those partake in it:

Is it because they actually love chess?
Is it because they just like chess?
Is it because it just a hobby they kept going?

And sincere apologies for presenting these as unchanging elements in the lives of those who make up the aforementioned.

If I were to guess, I'd say most players once loved chess and now just like it.

Has it ever been written about? I assume not since club chess is usually considered unworthy of any real attention.

Mark

[Joey Stewart]

Club chess is definitely one that I'd say more people do for enjoyment then county, which tends to be played much more out of obligation now as the prestige it once carried is all but gone.
With club chess players can pick any club they like based on preferential team mates so it will tend towards being more of a social activity and, as a consequence, you'll feel more obliged to play better chess so as not to let your friends and colleagues down in matches.

[Jon Mahony]

At this point I just play club chess to keep my hand in the game really - I've had a job for the last 4 years which involves 12 hour shifts mixed days / nights / weekends - while it's helped me get into the adult world of the property ladder etc it's been pretty bad for the Chess life. County Chess / Congresses are pretty much out of the question right now; with working weekends it's not really fair on my partner to play Chess on the weekends I have free.

So, club Chess is pretty much the only access I have to the game at this moment - has to be said though, attempting to rush to the club after a full day shift hasn't been a great deal of fun - in a game I played last week I took one or two power naps at the board Only played a handful of games this season and already can't be bothered. I mainly keep going because it feels a shame to give up completely and also my club is struggling a bit for players at the minute.

Until circumstances have changed, I don't see myself taking the game anywhere near as serious as I used to do 10 years ago, when I would literally do a Congress a month and play every match game going.

[MJMcCready]

It seems like to actually love chess is not the norm at club and county level.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Well "love" is quite a strong term for anything at the end of the day.

I do wonder how important the social aspect of things is to many regular OTB players.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I keep getting mental images of GM and IM norms trying to be dominant.

But yet, the social aspects of chess is clearly important to many.

I am sure there have been studies done of working men's clubs and pub culture. Maybe less of the more genteel church and community hall scene. And congress (weekend) chess (which is omitted in the original post) has a social scene of its own, which is sometimes more family orientated.

You also have regulars at the 'big events' such as Hastings and the British, where annually renewing friendships can be formed lasting many years. You could extend that to the Olympiad and other international team events. The social aspects of junior chess would need a whole chapter.

Whether there is anything intelligent to be said about it is another matter. You might want to compare to other sports, board games and social events.

You could also look at the way some events cater to people who care mostly about the chess, partaking in it like an intellectual exercise. And then you have the professionals - those who make a living from it. No hobby there.

(And when considering words like 'love' and 'like', do not neglect all the 'love-hate' angles on chess.)

[Matt Mackenzie]

(And when considering words like 'love' and 'like', do not neglect all the 'love-hate' angles on chess.)

Indeed, anybody who has been through a seriously bad run of form (ie nearly all serious players) will know this well.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I was quite surprised (pleasantly) to find that there is an existing literature on the sociology of chess.

Some examples:

https://sociology.sas.upenn.edu/sites/d ... ure-CS.pdf

Sticky Cultures: Memory Publics and Communal Pasts in Competitive Chess by Gary Alan Fine (Cultural Sociology 7(4) 395–414 2013).

It is really readable.

Although examinations of social memory have largely focused on societies and large populations, much remembrance occurs within bounded publics. This memory, especially when it is held in common, ties individuals to their chosen groups, establishing an ongoing reality of affiliation. I term this form of memory work as sticky culture, recognizing the centrality of the linkage of selves and groups. To examine how sticky culture operates, I examine the social world of competitive chess with its deep history and rich literature. More specifically, I examine forms through which chess publics are cemented through remembrances of the past, focusing on the hero, the critical moment, and validated styles. Champions, memorable games, and recognized strategies establish a lasting public.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... e_of_kings

The sociological paradox of chess: the transclass distinction of the game of kings
December 2022
Krzysztof Olechnicki
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis
Folia Sociologica
DOI:10.18778/0208-600X.75.04

The article deals with the sociological paradox of chess. On the one hand, this game gives people who belong to its social world a kind of desirable distinction, but on the other hand this distinction is not connected with the class position. In Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, if we treat chess as part of the sports field, then class distinction should be interconnected with it. Why is chess extremely popular and widespread, and therefore egalitarian, although it seems to be an excellent instrument for increasing class advantage? What makes so many people play chess, and how does chess confer the transclass distinction upon them? In answering these questions I will focus on the accessibility and openness of chess, its social nature, the totality of chess experience and the impossibility of defining it within one field: sport, science or art, and – last but not least – on the possibility of manipulating chess’s illusio.

Lots more out there, such as what looks like an excellent book published in 2015 by the first author I named above:

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo ... 99117.html

Players and Pawns: How Chess Builds Community and Culture
Gary Alan Fine
University of Chicago Press

A chess match seems as solitary an endeavor as there is in sports: two minds, on their own, in fierce opposition. In contrast, Gary Alan Fine argues that chess is a social duet: two players in silent dialogue who always take each other into account in their play. Surrounding that one-on-one contest is a community life that can be nearly as dramatic and intense as the across-the-board confrontation. Fine has spent years immersed in the communities of amateur and professional chess players, and with Players and Pawns he takes readers deep inside them, revealing a complex, brilliant, feisty world of commitment and conflict. Within their community, chess players find both support and challenges, all amid a shared interest in and love of the long-standing traditions of the game, traditions that help chess players build a communal identity. Full of idiosyncratic characters and dramatic gameplay, Players and Pawns is a celebration of the fascinating world of serious chess.

Has anyone read or reviewed that book?

[Richard James]

Lots more out there, such as what looks like an excellent book published in 2015 by the first author I named above:

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/bo ... 99117.html

Players and Pawns: How Chess Builds Community and Culture
Gary Alan Fine
University of Chicago Press

A chess match seems as solitary an endeavor as there is in sports: two minds, on their own, in fierce opposition. In contrast, Gary Alan Fine argues that chess is a social duet: two players in silent dialogue who always take each other into account in their play. Surrounding that one-on-one contest is a community life that can be nearly as dramatic and intense as the across-the-board confrontation. Fine has spent years immersed in the communities of amateur and professional chess players, and with Players and Pawns he takes readers deep inside them, revealing a complex, brilliant, feisty world of commitment and conflict. Within their community, chess players find both support and challenges, all amid a shared interest in and love of the long-standing traditions of the game, traditions that help chess players build a communal identity. Full of idiosyncratic characters and dramatic gameplay, Players and Pawns is a celebration of the fascinating world of serious chess.

Has anyone read or reviewed that book?

Yes, I've read it and have been intending for a couple of years now to write something about it, which I may well do on my new Substack.

[Kevin Thurlow]

In case anyone else was wondering, Gary Alan Fine is not the son of Reuben Fine...

[Richard James]

In case anyone else was wondering, Gary Alan Fine is not the son of Reuben Fine...

Gary's father Bernard and Reuben, although not related, were both psychoanalysts practising a few blocks from each other in Manhattan, and knew each other casually.

[Stephen Westmoreland]

Club chess is definitely one that I'd say more people do for enjoyment then county, which tends to be played much more out of obligation now as the prestige it once carried is all but gone.
With club chess players can pick any club they like based on preferential team mates so it will tend towards being more of a social activity and, as a consequence, you'll feel more obliged to play better chess so as not to let your friends and colleagues down in matches.

I have always really enjoyed county chess, chatting to my opponents and fellow Captains. The recent u1850s match between Yorkshire and Greater Manchester in particular. Everyone got on and the food was fantastic. County chess can be very social.

In terms of the wider question, I play because I love playing. I do have wobbles occasionally and life gets in the way.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

County captains are probably more gregarious than the average chess player. There are some interesting things to be said about social dynamics and chess culture (probably already covered in the book I named above and other sources). But a lot of it will be very much focused on the local, or within well-defined communities and clubs. Much of it will be personal histories. A chess player's games and their travels is very much the sort of thing that lends itself to biographical analysis.

Cultural and sociological analysis might include but hopefully go beyond the friendships and the food consumed. Class considerations. Employment profiles. Ages and other demographic features. Economics. Philanthropy. Publications (e.g. county chess association newsletters, photographs). Traditions and rituals such as trophies and prize presentations.

Here is a question. How many famous chess players have written their own biographies? (Ghost-written ones count, and official biographies where the subject was still alive and was consulted.)

[Mick Norris]

I have always really enjoyed county chess, chatting to my opponents and fellow Captains. The recent u1850s match between Yorkshire and Greater Manchester in particular. Everyone got on and the food was fantastic. County chess can be very social.

My impression is that the NCCU is better than the MCCU for this; the MCCU venues were generally worse (I include our own in this, on the very rare occasions I got to play a home match, as opposed to the vast majority at neutral venues) either because the MCCU counties were parsimonious, or it's just the way things were done

The national stages were usually held at neutral venues within the MCCU, so generally ditto

I have found many opponents to be pleasant and good to talk to (even the southerners )

[Joey Stewart]

I think the milage on county chess varies greatly between locations - a strong and motivated team will be easier for the captain to manage and the players will enjoy the success it brings so enjoy their experience more. Conversely a struggling county will lose most matches, captains will tend to only be doing the job through coercion, players will be unhappier with what is perceived as a waste of an afternoon (or whole day if you are really unlucky) and find more and more excuses not to attend matches anymore so you'll have increasingly random teams with no camaraderie.

This doesn't seem to happen to the same degree in local leagues and I presume it is because players are happy enough to win,lose or draw with their regular team mates, plus there tends not to be extreme imbalance between sides so every match is an opportunity to turn it all around again ...