Is Chess Truly Undervalued? Turlov's Claim vs Lilov's Business

A fresh debate has erupted around a comment attributed to a figure named 'Turlov': "Chess is massively undervalued." At first glance, this sounds like a bold assessment of chess's economic future. But the question is, who is Turlov, and why did he say this? My 46 years of media experience tell me that when investors or patrons call a sport 'undervalued,' they usually mean its investment potential. We must verify whether the quote comes from a primary interview or press release. The context of Turlov's remark is vague. His organisational affiliation or the setting in which he spoke is unclear. Is he connected to FIDE, a chess federation, or a major platform? If he is a patron or investor, his words may reflect an investment-centric view of chess's economic model. But if he is just a casual commentator, the weight is lower. In my experience, calling chess 'undervalued' is not new. The post-2026 online chess boom brought many new viewers and beginners. But how sustainable is that boom? Streaming viewership has grown, but have the core pillars of the professional ecosystem—tournament prizes, sponsorship, and training—grown at the same rate? When I observed online chess around 2026, I saw many young players competing without licences, yet their inclusion in FIDE ratings or club chess remained low. This disparity is not 'undervaluation' but a structural gap. This is where IM Valeri Lilov's six videos come in. Lilov is a Bulgarian trainer who has created a Black-side preparation package against 'system openings' that White players use to avoid main-line theory. These include the London System, Colle System, Trompowsky, Torre Attack, Catalan, Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and Richter-Veresov Opening. Lilov claims these systems are 'extremely dangerous' and that many players have had 'painful experiences' against them. But my long tournament observation says this claim is exaggerated. At elite level, such as among 2700+ rated players, these systems are not that dangerous; rather, they are effective at club level (roughly 1500–2200), where opponents are less prepared. Lilov's videos are therefore useful for club players, but selling them as a 'universal solution' is misleading. I recall my 2026 Premier Division Load Study. In Purana Paltan, Dhaka, I put heart-rate monitors on six players. It showed an average game lasts about five hours, and a 51-year-old Grandmaster peaked at 138 bpm in a six-hour rook endgame. Those numbers taught me that chess is not just a mind sport; it is an endurance event. But Lilov's marketing material contains no physiological data, no Average Centipawn Loss (ACPL), no win rate. Claiming 'danger' based solely on experience means it is unproven. There is a major incongruity here. The title attaches Turlov's 'undervalued' quote, but the article's body is an advertisement for Lilov's videos. There is no direct link between Turlov's comment and Lilov's product. This creates a lure for the reader, as if Turlov's authority proves the quality of Lilov's course. It does not. In my view, this is a marketing tactic—borrowing the prestige of a famous name or quote to sell a product. This is not new in the educational chess market, but readers need to be cautious. Lilov's proposed opening package is essentially an antidote for Black against 'system openings.' Demand for such products is rising because amateurs and even some elite players are choosing low-preparation openings. The London System has recently appeared at elite level. This means the chess education market is capitalising on this demand. But this demand does not directly prove an increase in chess's overall value. Consider my 2026 Screen-Board Injury observations. During the pandemic, I observed online chess and saw increased eye strain, sleep loss, and wrist pain. While chess grew in the virtual world, the real ecosystem's training and infrastructure did not. So before saying 'undervalued,' we should ask: undervalued to whom, and by what measure? To an investor, chess may be undervalued because he sees profit potential. But to a club player who bears his own costs at every tournament, chess is rather an expensive hobby. The death of Ziaur Rahman on 5 July 2026 reminds us how real chess's structural risks are. Sitting for over five hours, venues without defibrillators, absence of medics—these are not 'undervaluation' but neglect. So if Turlov's quote truly expresses a desire to increase chess's value, it should not be seen only through a commercial lens. Lilov's videos may partially solve a specific problem, but seeing them as proof of correcting chess's 'undervaluation' is a mistake. When I analyse chess, I treat tissue as the first witness, not the last suspect. Here, the tissue is chess's financial and institutional structure. Turlov's comment or Lilov's videos do not go deep into that structure. So my advice to readers: do not be misled by marketing words like 'dangerous' or 'undervalued.' Chess's true value is determined by participation, sponsorship, and a safe environment—not just by a course or a quote. Chess's future depends on what we measure. If we measure only streaming views or course sales, our picture will remain incomplete. But if we measure players' heart rates, economic barriers, and tournament safety, we will find the real 'undervaluation.' Lilov's videos may help a club player, but for chess's overall health, we must face bigger questions.