Reports | October 16, 2006 20:27

Toiletgate good for corporate sponsorship?

[lang_nl]Het is een bekend dilemma. Een jonge auteur debuteert met een roman. Uit de grote stapel boeken die de recensent wekelijks door te ploegen heeft, kiest hij deze debuutroman voor zijn wekelijkse recensie. Het boek is prut, dus hij schrijft het de grond in. Moet de schrijver blij zijn met de recensie of niet?[/lang_nl][lang_en]It's a well-known dilemma. A young author makes his debut with a novel. The book reviewer has to plough through a huge pile of books every week, and he chooses this debut novel for his next review. The book is crap, so in his article he burns it to the ground. Should the author be happy to see his book being reviewed or not?[/lang_en]

[lang_nl]In de literaire wereld heerst de wet: beter een slechte recensie dan geen recensie. Maar hoe zit dat met Toiletgate? Dankzij de beschuldigingen vanuit het Bulgaarse kamp en al het gedoe dat daarna volgde, heeft de WK-match veel meer aandacht gekregen in de internationale media dan normaal gesproken het geval zou zijn geweest. Moeten we daar blij mee zijn of juist niet? Susan Polgar vaart er in ieder geval wel bij, zo blijkt uit een artikel in de New York Times van gisteren (ook via de International Herald Tribune te lezen):

Susan Polgar, a former women's world champion who lives in Queens and created a foundation to promote chess, said that the off-the-board fights may even have helped. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMost likely, the match wouldn't have gotten as much interest if they had just played the games,?¢‚Ǩ? she said. Ms. Polgar said she depended on corporate and private sponsors to support her foundation, whose budget is about $60,000 to $70,000 this year. During the match, she said, she received new pledges from ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsome major new sponsors.?¢‚Ǩ? She declined to identify them, citing their privacy.

Misschien dat een fabrikant van toiletpapier zich bij mevrouw Polgar gemeld heeft. Want het is moeilijk voor te stellen dat bedrijven meer interesse voor het schaakspel hebben gekregen naar aanleiding van het afgelopen wereldkampioenschap in Elista. Toch?[/lang_nl][lang_en]In the literary world the following law applies: better a bad review than no review at all. But is this also the case with Toiletgate? Because of the accusations from the Bulgarians, and all the fuzz that followed, the world championship match got far more media attention than would normally have happenend. Should we be happy with this or not? For Susan Polgar it worked out quite well, as is suggested in yesterday's New York Times article (which can also be read via the International Herald Tribune site):

Susan Polgar, a former women's world champion who lives in Queens and created a foundation to promote chess, said that the off-the-board fights may even have helped. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMost likely, the match wouldn't have gotten as much interest if they had just played the games,?¢‚Ǩ? she said. Ms. Polgar said she depended on corporate and private sponsors to support her foundation, whose budget is about $60,000 to $70,000 this year. During the match, she said, she received new pledges from ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsome major new sponsors.?¢‚Ǩ? She declined to identify them, citing their privacy.

Perhaps it was a toilet paper manufacturer who gave Mrs. Polgar a call. Otherwise it's hard to imagine a growth of interest in chess with companies because of the world championship in Elista. Or is it?[/lang_en]

Peter Doggers's picture
Author: Peter Doggers

Founder and editor-in-chief of ChessVibes.com, Peter is responsible for most of the chess news and tournament reports. Often visiting top events, he also provides photos and videos for the site. He's a 1.e4 player himself, likes Thai food and the Stones.

Chess.com

Comments

Bert de Bruut's picture

Integendeel, het is h?ɬ©?ɬ©l goed voorstelbaar dat schaken meer belangstelling heeft gekregen. Maar alleen van plebejers die de pulp van De Mol en trawanten vreten en dus naast De Gouden Kooi ook graag een afleverinkje "reality-TV" over Toilet Gate bekijken, zoals Kramnik terecht al klaagde. Bah!

Goran's picture

The scandal might chase of some of the regular sponsors, but on the other hand chess was exposed to the wider audience over the mainstream media. All this can expand base of new potential sponsors. People love scandals, how else could tabloids sell so many copies ;)

The problem is that Elista events (together with Gormallygate) could change the image of intelectual sport. We are now using fists, accusing opponents of cheating, FIDE is lead by dictator etc.

Susan is spammer and opportunist, I couldn't care less for her business

Michiel Blok's picture

@ Goran
Hi Goran, I read your blog with interest. It's great, especially because chess news in the Balkans is hard to get.

I think your last sentence here could (should?) have been left out. If you don't care about Susan, then don't mention her here. Followers of your blog know about your grudge towards Susan because her handling of the Spassky stroke. And I support you in this.
But mentioning that you don't care about her on a third (=doggy's)blog is not the way, better not mention her at all then.
Greetings.

Goran's picture

Hi Michiel, thank you for your kind words. I reply when I see Susan mentioned, I did that on ICC, Mig's blog and some other places. However, I understand your point, this could drive important topic into the wrong direction. Peter can delete last sentence, I'm not able to edit previous comment.

doggy's picture

Is this allright? Otherwise nobody knows what you guys are talking about ;)

Michiel Blok's picture

Thanks Goran and Doggy :-)

name's picture

Good day!,

name's picture

Hello!,

name's picture

Hi!,

Your comment

By posting a comment you are agreeing to abide our Terms & Conditions