We don't know for certain how many people in the world know how to play chess. A somewhat random, but often cited number is 600 000 000. Sounds pretty realistic. But we know one thing for sure: only about 260 000 people have a FIDE rating, almost 2400 times less. That means that chess is basically getting that times less funding and attention that it could. So what is the problem?

First of all, lack of human resources. In all areas: efficient managers, proficient organizers, qualified PR-agents, etc. Usually all these spots are occupied by ex-chess players who are seriously under-qualified, but possess a great ego instead of skills. It's very hard to untangle this knot: the state of affairs is so grim that promising recruits avoid getting involved, and without them nothing will ever change.  

Secondly, the love for standard time controls. While we have left behind the practice of postponing chess games and playing them out the next day, the so-called classic time control is alive and kicking. Here and there we hear that "the standard time control is part of chess traditions, without it chess will become a cheap game where reflexes will matter more than the power of human's mind". I can even recall a gorgeous quote by a fan of advanced chess who said that "advanced chess at one day per half move doesn't allow the player to create strategic plans!". Meanwhile, some players manage to implement strategic plans even in bullet. Of course, a balance is called for. Nonetheless, chess is getting computerized day after day. The tendency is rather sad: it takes hours to prepare for a game, even longer to play it out, and in th evening one has to start preparing for the next game. Any decent chess player has way more home prep than he can ever possible memorize. It's painful for me to realize during a game otb that I have forgotten one of the variations I have analyzed in detail at home. I can only guess how often it happens to the top pros whose databases are sufficiently larger than mine. Meanwhile, most people agree that in rapid chess theory isn't as important as in standard chess. One has to have an excellent technique since lack of it may lead to failing to convert technically won positions. Rapid chess is more dynamic and competitive than standard, while the quality still remains rather high. In modern chess the quality of rapid games is much higher than of the renowned masterpieces of pre-computer era. But did people complain at that time that the level of play is so low that a longer time control is called for? Also, I believe that the evergreen argument about "losing quality" has been created by perfectionists and is based on a flawed intuitive belief that "if the quality of play gets lower, that is terrible". Just think it over for yourself: if we were striving for quality, only two tournament types would have survived: 1) engine vs engine 2) advanced chess. But people somehow love playing chess, even if it involves making terrible mistakes and capitalizing on them.

All of a sudden, I felt that I would desperately love to play at a chess event. Btw, I often hear that confession from my friends. Usually our conversation ends with the inevitable phrase "alas, there are no tournaments in sight" or "I'd love to play, but I am very busy". People either quit chess (since there are many other appealing pastimes), or become Internet chess addicts. Even in relatively developed (in terms of chess) cities there are just a few rated tournaments per year. In most countries the situation is even worse: very few people have international ratings (for example, only 403 players per China!). The audience of a typical chess tournament consists of kids, students, unemployed people, retired persons. That's where low funding comes into play, and a commercially unattractive image. Indeed, an active and successful person won't be able to spend 9-10 days (not to mention the time spent on travelling) a few time a year in order to maintain his chess level. This is possible only for professionals or wealthy chess fans. At the same time, a rapid chess event takes a day or two (weekend), which significantly increases the number of potential competitors. Another serious advantage of rapid chess is that the playing schedule becomes less harsh. Fewer people will be suffering from psychological illnesses, overweight and other diseases common among pros.

 On a separate note, the idea of chess being televised is often laughed at. "No one will understand it, who is going to watch it, blah-blah-blah." In my opinion, given great commentary (see the first problem - lack of human resources), rapid or blitz time control and engine evaluations, chess in TV could become a hit. One can infer it from the Internet experience. Some chess amateurs (club level and above) are trying to follow the analysis and calculate variations. Others believe the commentator and enjoy watching the engine blink green (good move), yellow (inaccuracy) or red (blunder).  Most of them have no idea what's going on on the board, but they are still able to root for their favorite players and feel the tension of the struggle, Of course, there are many other important aspects: creating and cultivating powerful brands of leading chess players, interesting insights (statisctics, humor) and other spices that make any TV-dish especially delicious. But the idea itself is quite possible to implement!  

Having said all this, it's easy to see that chess has two main future scenarios. One is to stay where it is and remain a mystic game for nerds played at secluded clubs. The other is to unleash its potential, become a modern and popular sport, attract more fans. A gradual transition from standard chess to rapid may become a positive first step in the latter direction.