Is Chess Really the “Least Expressive” Sport? An Outside View and the Audience Challenge for Vietnamese Chess

A former badminton athlete who now works in sport sustainability has made a statement that has drawn the attention of the chess community: chess is one of the least expressive sports. Notably, this claim does not come from technical data, and is not tied to any specific game, player or tournament. It is an aesthetic opinion, a judgment about the spectator experience. And precisely for that reason, it raises a very real question for Vietnamese chess: if ordinary viewers cannot see the emotion on the board, what must this mind sport do to keep them watching?

1. AN OPINION FROM OUTSIDE THE BOARD

The first notable point is that the speaker is not a chess player, not a coach, and not a tournament organiser. The author is a former badminton athlete who moved into sport sustainability, and has been associated with fast-paced motorsport projects including Formula E, Extreme E and WEC. In other words, this is a voice from outside the chess world.

Because it comes from outside, the claim has a distinct reference value. It tells us nothing about openings, middlegames or the strength of any player. But it tells us something important: how professional sports people from other disciplines see chess. This is perception data, not technical data.

It must be stressed from the outset that the original article contains no technical content whatsoever. There is no game, no move, no opening system, no rating figure, and no named tournament. Therefore, no technical or competitive-data analysis is possible, and we will not speculate on the source's behalf.

1. WHO IS THE AUTHOR?

The central figure is Naganethra Reddy. She is a former badminton athlete who currently works in the field of sport sustainability. Her background shows she is originally from Bengaluru, India, and now lives in London, United Kingdom. She has taken part in communications and sustainability projects for electric and endurance racing series such as Formula E, Extreme E and WEC.

This matters a great deal for placing the claim correctly. She understands very well what an expressive sport looks like: badminton is a discipline where every effort is visible to the audience, from jumps and smashes to racket-head speed and visible exhaustion. Electric and endurance racing are likewise sports where viewers see speed, tactics and emotion in live images.

By contrast, her relationship with chess is recreational. According to the article, she was inspired to explore chess by her brother, who is described as very difficult to beat. This is a telling detail: the author's chess reference point is domestic and amateur, not elite competitive.

In other words, we are reading the opinion of a sports professional, but not a chess expert. That does not strip the claim of value, but it determines how we should use it: as a public-opinion data point, not as a domain conclusion.

1. WHAT DOES EXPRESSIVENESS MEAN IN SPORT?

To read the debate correctly, the notion of expressiveness used by the author must be clarified. In a sporting context, expressive does not mean that athletes smile or cry a lot. It is a sport's capacity to transmit three things outward: physical effort, competitive emotion and the tempo of the contest.

A sport is considered expressive when ordinary viewers can see who is ahead, who is tired, and who is being pushed into difficulty, with the naked eye. Football, tennis, badminton, basketball, athletics and swimming all belong to this group. Spectators do not need a full understanding of the rules to feel the drama.

Chess sits at the opposite end of that scale. The entire drama unfolds inside the heads of two players. There is no pronounced physical movement, no display of exertion, no externally visible tempo. A new viewer sees two people sitting still, occasionally reaching out to place a piece. That is precisely what the term least expressive is meant to capture.

This is a critique of watchability, not of the sport's value. The two must be kept distinct, because in public debate they are frequently conflated.

1. WHY IS CHESS PLACED AMONG THE LEAST EXPRESSIVE?

There are three main reasons chess is routinely placed among the least expressive sports.

First, chess lacks visual signals of effort. In most sports, sweat, breathing rate and movement speed are visual indicators of who is being pushed to the limit. Chess has none of those indicators. A player in a losing position can sit perfectly calmly.

Second, the drama unfolds over a long and dispersed period. A classical game can last several hours, most of which is thinking time. For audiences used to the fast tempo of televised sport, this is a major barrier.

Third, chess requires background knowledge to be enjoyed. Viewers who do not understand why a move is good, or why a position is dangerous, will not feel the climax. In football, by contrast, everyone understands that a goal is something to celebrate.

These three reasons explain why the author's claim, even as a personal opinion, touches a real issue in the chess industry.

1. BUT IS CHESS REALLY DRY?

The first and strongest counter-argument is this: chess does have drama, it is just not muscular drama.

In recent years the chess industry has developed powerful tools that lower the entry barrier. The engine evaluation bar shows in real time which side is better. Commentators can explain strategic ideas in plain language. Online platforms let viewers follow games with analysis on the same screen.

Blitz and bullet chess deliver an entirely different tempo. There, the drama unfolds within minutes, and hesitation, tension, even mistakes caused by time pressure become visible. This is the format closest to an expressive sport that chess possesses.

Beyond that, players' personal stories are another powerful source of emotion. Comebacks, titles won at a very young age, and rivalries lasting many years are all material for storytelling.

So the problem may not lie in chess itself, but in the way chess is presented.

1. COUNTER-EVIDENCE FROM THE ONLINE CHESS WAVE

Looking at the growth of chess on online platforms and streaming channels, the least expressive claim runs somewhat against the trend. The number of online chess players has grown very strongly, especially after global disruptions that kept many people at home.

That growth comes from several factors: easy-to-use interfaces, free play, skill-based matchmaking, and above all the emergence of player-creators who turn chess into a fast-paced form of entertainment.

This shows something important: when the entry barrier is lowered, chess can absolutely appeal to ordinary viewers. The issue is not that chess lacks appeal, but that its appeal needs to be designed and guided.

Still, it must be acknowledged that growth in players does not automatically mean growth in viewers. Playing and watching are two different behaviours. A person may play chess every day without ever watching a professional game.

1. THE VIETNAMESE STORY: A STRONG GRASSROOTS BASE, A CAUTIOUS AUDIENCE

In Vietnam, chess has a relatively solid grassroots foundation. Leading players such as Le Quang Liem, Nguyen Ngoc Truong Son and Tran Tuan Minh have established standing in the international chess world. In the women's game, figures such as Pham Le Thao Nguyen also help maintain Vietnam's presence at regional and continental events.

Chess has also entered schools in many localities, becoming an extracurricular activity supported by parents because it helps develop thinking skills. Youth, student and grassroots tournaments are held fairly regularly.

But from an audience perspective, the picture is not yet bright. The number of people following professional chess tournaments on television or via live streams remains modest compared with more popular sports. Major tournaments tend to become widely known only when a Vietnamese player achieves a strong result, and that attention is usually short-lived.

This is exactly where Naganethra Reddy's claim, despite coming from abroad, can apply to the Vietnamese context: the problem is not the quality of play, but the ability to convert competitive achievement into an engaging experience for ordinary viewers.

1. THE AUDIENCE-EXPERIENCE DESIGN CHALLENGE

If being least expressive is treated as an experience-design problem, it can be addressed in several ways.

The first is investment in commentary. A good commentator can turn a dry move into a story. They explain the idea, anticipate the plan, and most importantly help viewers know when to feel excited.

The second is packaging players' stories. Audiences watch sport for the people, not only for the technique. Building profiles, backgrounds and journeys creates emotional connection.

The third is choosing formats suited to new audiences. Blitz and bullet tournaments, or shortened time-control formats, can be a more effective bridge than classical games lasting many hours.

The fourth is making use of technology. Evaluation bars, visual graphics, real-time analysis and information overlays all help audiences follow the action without deep expertise.

1. THE DRAW-RATE AND ANTI-EARLY-DRAW DEBATE

Part of the debate about chess watchability is tied to draw rates. At the top level, many games end in draws, especially when neither side wants to take risks. To ordinary viewers, a draw is often perceived as nothing happening, even though technically it may be a high-quality game.

Historically there have been reform attempts to limit very early draws, such as rules prohibiting draw agreements before a certain number of moves. Such rules have been controversial, but they show that the chess industry is aware of the audience problem.

It is worth noting that the original article mentions no regulation at all. The link between the least expressive claim and rules debates is therefore an indirect inference, not something the source states.

1. COMMUNICATION RISK AND SIGNALS TO WATCH

In terms of impact, this is a low-weight opinion. It is tied to no tournament, no player, and carries no data. There is therefore no competitive, financial or governance risk.

There is, however, one type of risk worth noting: perceptual risk. If the chess is not expressive critique is repeated by many different voices from outside chess, it could contribute to a modest headwind in attracting new audiences.

Three signals are worth tracking. The first is the frequency of similar opinions from people outside chess. The second is the growth trend in chess players and viewers on online platforms. The third is how organisers respond, specifically whether they invest more in commentary, graphics and storytelling.

The important point is not to respond by denial. The most effective response is to prove the case through the product: broadcasts that are clearer, more engaging and richer in emotion.

1. CONCLUSION: AN AESTHETIC OPINION, NOT A TECHNICAL VERDICT

Ultimately, the claim must be placed in its proper context. It is an aesthetic opinion from someone who works in professional sport but plays chess recreationally. It is not a technical analysis, not an assessment of any player's strength, and not a statement about the future of chess.

Its real value lies in forcing those in chess to ask themselves: how are we presenting this sport to audiences? Are we assuming viewers must figure it out themselves, instead of guiding them step by step?

For Vietnamese chess, that question is especially meaningful. The grassroots base is strong, competitive results are good, but the gap between achievement and public attention remains. Closing that gap is not the work of players alone, but of an entire media ecosystem.

And if there is something worth acknowledging in this controversial claim, it is this: it came from outside, and sometimes the outside view is the one that points out what insiders have grown too accustomed to notice.