The Chess Mind

I would vote Nigel's column as the most entertaining not for his annotation, but for his wit. Is it just me or is chess actually gaining in popularity now? Not on the scale of poker to be sure, but I think the internet has really boosted awareness and interactivity. Anyway, here's the email I sent to the Telegraph a few days back and their response:

Dear Telegraph, Shame on you for canceling Nigel Cross' Sunday chess column. Mr. Cross is one of the most famous chess players in the world and undoubtedly its most entertaining and informative chess columnist. I
registered with your website specifically so I could read his column there and I doubt that I will be returning in his absence. I'm certain that one of your competitors will employ Mr. Cross in the near future and I look forward to taking my business to that smart newspaper."

Telegraph's Reply...
"I am afraid that the demand from readers for poker in the paper was overwhelming, while the reader appetite for chess was waning. We do our very best to keep all readers happy, but there was such a vast discrepancy on this occasion that I felt I had to address reader demand. We are now looking at expanding our games page, so it is possible that we may bring the chess column back in the future."
Best wishes
Sarah Sands
Editor

Cross, duh, don't know where that came from. The same place the blunders do I suppose. oops.

I keep all the major chess columns bookmarked and go through them each Sunday. Nigel's column was always the one I enjoyed most, both for his chess content and the quality of his writing. Of the Telegraph's three chess columnists, I can't fathom why Nigel was the one cut; not to say David and Malcolm don't write fine columns, but Nigel's column just seemed head and shoulders over everyone else. As always with decisions like this, there is probably money behind it. I would guess that Nigel got paid more than the average columnist and the new owners of the Telegraph probably didn't think it worthwhile. Sad to say, but from a business point of view, they are probably right.