Originally posted by EladarSomeone needs to develop a form of chess suitable for television much as Texas Hold em poker, with cameras under the table to view hole cards, was developed for poker to great success.
How many people would watch chess matches on tv? It would be a very small percentage of the viewing audience.
There is plenty of television bandwidth so, if someone came up with a good forum, interesting commentators and the money to mount a pilot TV tournament, prizes would increase.
I think a "slow blitz" format would work. It would have to be fast enough to keep non-aficionados interested but not so fast that viewers would have a hard time following the action.
There would have to be some way of discouraging draws and reward aggressive play.
I would LOVE it if chess was on ESPN. If chess became a large spectator game with adverstizing and ensorsements then they could offer real prize money.
The problem is with most spectator sports just about anybody could follow the drama and know when someone makes a really good play. When the GMs play only a select few can appreciate what's happening on the board. Hell, I absolutely LOVE chess and I would have to have a lot of the moves explained to me.
But I do think the idea can be explored. Perhaps have very experienced chess players give commenary with the moves - and have a virtual chess screen that can play out different possiblities from where they are at.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThis happens at some of the larger tournaments in the UK. There will be a room where a strong player (IM or GM) will be going over one of the games on a large demostration board as it is being played. The audience, which often contains several other IMs and GMs as well as ordinary club players, will call out ideas and guesses for the next move. It's a great atmosphere and much more fun than sitting quietly in the audience in the tournament hall.
But I do think the idea can be explored. Perhaps have very experienced chess players give commenary with the moves - and have a virtual chess screen that can play out different possiblities from where they are at.
Unfortunately you need to have a certain level of understanding of chess to be able to appreciate games between strong players and there simply aren't enough chess players of that standard around to support chess on TV.
The Master Game series work very well for the TV.
It ran for three/four series. So it can be made TV friendly.
I ran the demo boards in an International team tournament in
Edinburgh in the 80's.
I had to stand there in front of about 80 people and explain what
was happening on all six boards.
One board was a quick draw so I used that board to show them
all opening traps. It was great. I got £50 for cracking jokes about
the other five games and showing opening traps. They loved it.
Chess Prizes:
In my time I've won a flask (Cleveland 1972) and,
this is good, a chess set.
They actually gave me a chess set in Dortmund 1973.
A standard everyday plastic, felt bottomed b/w chess set.
"Like wow, I've not got one of these...."
(I still have it).
Originally posted by greenpawn34Pawn dude you know these things, what is the prize money like in say the Scottish championship, if there is such a thing, i remember reading somewhere that Danny Kopeck won it once or twice, as well as Mr, Aagaard
The Master Game series work very well for the TV.
It ran for three/four series. So it can be made TV friendly.
I ran the demo boards in an International team tournament in
Edinburgh in the 80's.
I had to stand there in front of about 80 people and explain what
was happening on all six boards.
One board was a quick draw so I used that board ...[text shortened]... bottomed b/w chess set.
"Like wow, I've not got one of these...."
(I still have it).
Chess will never have a significant TV presence for a number of reasons. Most significantly is because of its complexity. You have to think hard to play chess and think hard to watch chess. Average Joe can follow the subtleties of golf/cricket etc because they (compared to chess) are simple games whose subtleties are physical (eg. the mastery of a delicate chip onto the green or a great cover drive). And what's more these subtleties can be appreciated by those not trained in the discipline, "look! the white ball went in the hole from a long way off, that's a good thing!" .
But try getting Average Joe to appreciate the implications of a tactically tense position or a positional sacrifice or the heaven forbid the endgame! Chess literate people struggle with these things daily especially at the IM, GM level.
We dabble in an INTENSELY cerebral and abstract past time which no matter how absorbing, stimulating or addictive we find it, will never be appreciated by even a small proportion of the general TV audience. And i for one don't mind one bit.
Originally posted by MarsanI think you are wrong on that one for one big reason. T.V stations don't give a rats ass about the general population all they care about is the money. Take a station like CBS. They have many millions of viewers so commercials want to get time on this station. CBS charges for time. Now how many dedicated chess players watch CBS? I would guess not many so, if CBS would gather a whole new viewing audience no matter the size they will almost be guaranteed to get a bunch of commercials advertising for chess products books, chess sites and such... Which means they make MONEY!
Chess will never have a significant TV presence for a number of reasons. Most significantly is because of its complexity. You have to think hard to play chess and think hard to watch chess. Average Joe can follow the subtleties of golf/cricket etc because they (compared to chess) are simple games whose subtleties are physical (eg. the mastery of a delicate ch ...[text shortened]... ed by even a small proportion of the general TV audience. And i for one don't mind one bit.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHi Robbie.
Pawn dude you know these things, what is the prize money like in say the Scottish championship, if there is such a thing, i remember reading somewhere that Danny Kopeck won it once or twice, as well as Mr, Aagaard
I think the 1st prize at the Scottish is £1,500 they are making
it an open so far has attracted 10 GM's.
http://www.scottishchesschampionship.com/Home.html
Originally posted by EladarThey would be pulling in a whole new fan base for a whole new set of commercials. CBS always has some shows that are flops and nobody watches or an old series that has run dry that, once ahain, nobody watches so there is almost always a spot for a new series. Paying more money then what they are currently making? All the rest of their shows are directed towards the same fan base which means the same commercials which does mean they make money for that time but even with the chess series the old commercials are going to still want time. Another plus is that the you will have lower rate of turnover ie people that start watching this show are less likely to stop watching. This means that the show, if successful(as in brings them commercials) will most likely stay that way for a LONG time.
It would only be money if the chess business brings in more money than the present shows are already bringing in. It isn't like there's dead air where they can now just schedule chess which will make them more money.
They've always got another show waiting in the wings which is supposed to attract a certain fan base. If the new show is supposed to target a larger audience (even if the same old viewers) the show will get better Neilson Ratings and therefore demand more money for the advertising slot.
I just don't see chess having near the ratings that even a flop would get. The chess numbers are just way too low. The poker shows have their following because alot of people play poker. Alot of people play poker, way more than play chess. Poker is also alot easier to understand and most people aren't too bright. At least when compared to the average chess player.
I play in relatively a lot of chess touraments, (about 5-8 each year) and have decided that its not about the money. I play mainly in scholastic tourneys (<18), and enjoy myself when I go to one. The entry fee is usually only $15-$20, with a first prize of maybe $100 and a trophy. However, when I go to a tournament, I find that I simply enjoy playing and meeting other players. If you win, then sure, it would be nice to have a larger prize, but for the most part, that "warm squishy feeling inside" is enough. I guess at my level, its more about playing and having a good time than winning money.
Originally posted by EladarI'm not so sure you're correct on that point. Things can always be dramatized. Do you think people would watch a show about real boring CSIs? No, I doubt they would. All you need is some factor that increases the drama and bingo! That is why interrest in chess spiked when Bobby Fischer was playing. Plus I think you are incorrect about the flops. A TV doesn't want flops because those always cost them big bucks because they hired the people under contracts and already payed them and they had to pay all other expenses for a show that ran for a whole two weeks. Whereas with a chess series they don't really need payed actors or a set or much that is all provided all the need is the cameras and the crew. Another thing is, like i've said before, that a series on chess is a constant. Meaning they don't need to come up with new ideas for every season. My last point, the show doesn't have to be a daily or weekly series. They will always be able to clear slots for important tournaments and matches especially important annual tournaments like Corus and big time national championships. This fixes the slot prices since the demand for the time slot will greatly increase.
They've always got another show waiting in the wings which is supposed to attract a certain fan base. If the new show is supposed to target a larger audience (even if the same old viewers) the show will get better Neilson Ratings and therefore demand more money for the advertising slot.
I just don't see chess having near the ratings that even a flop would ...[text shortened]... stand and most people aren't too bright. At least when compared to the average chess player.