Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public; I'm not sure thriving is in the cards ever again for chess. Chess has a lot more to be grateful for with Magnus than not.

That's what Magnus is to the "general audience" with regards to chess, and it's going to take a lot for Magnus to be a net negative to chess. We are only making drama because Magnus is so good. Nobody would be blinking an eye if I failed to show up to a tournament, and my opponent would be glad to reap the points.

> Magnus & Nakamura and a handful of other grandmasters are basically the only reason why chess is not dead to the public

Not really, at all. That TV series and the COVID pandemic have way more to do with current chess popularity than Magnus & Nakamura. The playing public doesn't really care who the champion is, they play with themselves and only very few follow every game on major tournaments. As a spectator sport, chess is beyond boring, even worse than baseball (seriously, how come people in the US are so into watching baseball??!)

I agree with most of what you said, except that I think chess can be a great spectator sport. Perhaps not classical chess, but rapid or maybe blitz.

I was mostly referring to top level classical chess matches, yes, it's as entertaining as watching the paint dry. More fast paced chess are better for watching, I agree.

> Losing games on purpose is unsportsmanlike.

So is cheating. At least this is blindingly obvious.

It's unsportsmanlike to the players in the tournament who are not cheating, especially in most tournaments with top Grandmasters because those are generally round robin tournaments. All those non-cheating players have to play Magnus too.

In the few high level tournaments that are knock out or Swiss system it would be less unsportsmanlike because in those most other players won't have to play Magnus.

I did address that in my comment.