<Chessville: You've been quite outspoken regarding the so-called "GM-draw", first with your editorial "The End of the Draw Offer?", and then the Generation Chess International Tournament where a no-draw rule was employed. Still, it seems this was all in the past, and we haven't heard much of late about this effort. What's new on this front, and are you going to keep "fighting the fight?" What's the next step in promoting your anti-draw initiative?

Maurice Ashley: Well the HB Global Chess Challenge is the next step in promoting this initiative. The point is if players don’t comply, they’ll be fined or they will be forfeited rounds or they won’t be allowed to play in our events. Well we won’t fine them, but we will prevent them from playing in our events and they will be forfeited that round. I think that the only way to convince players that this rule is important to us is to show that you mean business and if they want to play in the top event in the world then they will have to adhere to the rule. No we haven’t heard that much about it, but it really doesn’t matter. We feel as a company that we are on the forefront of something very important. That chess fans all around the world e-mail me in droves to say how much they appreciated my coming out and writing this article. I don’t think I did anything special, I just stated something very very obvious and just to me it’s not really a fight, although you know some chess players might disagree, but I don’t see it as a fight. I just see it as a natural evolution of the game. It's very natural, it not even something that should be considered unusual, except maybe to people who have it so ingrained in them that they can’t change, but I see it as very natural. A part of the game that simply has to change, it has to become current with the fighting spirit that is exhibited in all major sports. Hopefully all the top chess players will come around and see that this is the way it has to be and with enough money on the table they’ll start making an effort to make this change.

Chessville: What sort of reaction did you receive privately from other GMs and tournament organizers about your anti-draw initiatives?

Maurice Ashley: Well, it was probably the strangest thing to me that GMs kept so quiet on this. But, actually the only public one I saw was Nigel Short who agreed that this is a rule that he feels definitely needs changing. I also saw Viswanathan Anand in an interview say that he is not sure about the way I wish to implement it but he thinks that something should be done and that it should be tried in every single chess tournament. Or by organizers, just try it and see what happens. That the important thing is in the attempt to try to work this out in a way that’s going to suit both players and fans. Privately I have received a great response from chess fans, from Grand Masters, for example Gregory Kaidanov. Kaidanov he said that this was really a big change for him, that after reading my article, he decided inside that this what he wanted to do, to just not have these quick draws anymore. And organizers, Jerry Weinkel, who organizes the Reno tournament he called me recently and said he wants to do one in March. The organizer of the Millennium Tournament in Virginia Beach, Tom Braunlich, wants to do the same thing also for his tournament in upcoming years. So its catching on. Recently in Corsica they had a tournament where they wanted to do no draws at all. No agreed draws at all and also three points for a win and one point for a draw. So I think the movement is beginning. And I think when people see the big tournament like the HB Global Chess Challenge work, they’ll start to realize that things aren’t as bad as they thought and that this is not some kind of bizarre rule that is being imposed on them from on high, that it’s just about playing chess.

Here is a review for the first dvd which I agree with completely:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/li...

or, if that link doesn't work, you may search for "maurice ashley" here:

http://tinyurl.com/9v426

Bravo, GM Ashley!

(: Bishop Berkeley :)

Maurice Ashley is the first black chess grandmaster in history. He is also one of the games finest ambassadors, an ardent spokesman and advocate of the intellectual and character building effects in young people for over 15 years. In a short CNN report, part of the series on "Black in America", he speaks about the driving forces in his life and his career. We bring you Maurice unsquished.

I wish that the Anand-Kramnik match could also be broadcast on ESPN with Yasser and Maurice in the same role as announcers...

The state of chess is part of what keeps chess from being marketable on mainstream channels like ESPN. We have bland, unengaging "champions" that continually play short draws and beat the Petroff to death.

When it comes to major competition in the USA, you always, always know who the champion is at the end of the season after the SuperBowl, NBA finals, or NCAA tournament. This helps make the product more marketable.

FIDE's scattered nature doesn't make for good marketing through "regular" sports outlets.

It's not just Fide's fault but also has a lot to do with the stereotypes associated with chess. Yes the schism didn't help the cause of chess promotion.

i'd like to hear your opinions on this.

the system of titles is a problem. in the US, if you walk around calling yourself "life master," you will not be taken seriously. if you go around expecting people to call you "grandmaster" so-and-so, people are gonna think you're talking about quidditch, and you will not be taken seriously.

these titles are unnecessary and counterproductive. the PGA isn't going to call tiger woods a "grandmaster" of golf, this would be laughable, and would bring no benefit to golf or mr. woods.

i understand that the grandmaster title is an honor to chessplayers, but to the average sports fan in the US, it sounds like something out of harry potter.

Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/6z8fnk
Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/6mtlrh
Part 3: http://tinyurl.com/6f8wwt
Part 4: http://tinyurl.com/6b9ny8

(Daaim Shabazz with GM Maurice Ashley, 2002)

I think that's putting backwards, confusing the cause with its effects. Soccer has little exposure in the USA because it is relatively unpopular; demand drives what is shown on TV, things don't become popular just because they happen to be on TV. The commercial breaks you mentioned are the key. Advertisers constantly research what it is that people want to watch, then the networks follow suit with their findings so that they can rake in the advertising revenue.

The biggest reason that soccer (which is, btw, personally my favorite sport) is unpopular in the USA is that we have <four> other major sports that already have a huge following of loyal fans, with their own well established cultures and lore. The problem of trying to introduce soccer here is the same problem as trying to introduce, say, baseball in Europe; people are already caught up in something else (truth be told I also feel like soccer is just vastly superior to baseball but that is nothing but my opinion).

As to why chess is not popular (and it should be noted that relative to sports, this is true all over the world), I think it's simple.

In the first place I don't consider chess to be a sport; like Kramnik I feel it is a unique blend of art, sport, and science that can't be separated out into neat little compartments. As such, chess depends on an understanding of the game in a way that other sports don't. I knew an immigrant once, a very strong Russian chess player, who jumped right into American football a month or so after he arrived. He liked the passing game, the hits. His grasp of what was going on wasn't the greatest (he couldn't understand why a team would ever punt), but he was able to enjoy it- and conversations about it with many of us who have been fans for years.

Go ask some of your friends who know nothing about chess to get a free trial on ICC and listen to Mig and the GM commentary on icc for a couple of hours. Ask them how they like it.

I think that's the fundamental difference between chess and sports. Sports are a visual and emotional spectacle, chess is "Heavy Mental".

This holds even for sports considered by many people to be "boring". There's no deep understanding needed to be entertained, or even electrified. I don't know what sports you watch- but judge for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLKX...

How about:

White wins - White gains 0.9 points, Black gains 0.1 points Black wins - Black gains 1 point, white gains 0 points Draw - Black gains 0.6 points, White gains 0.4 points