Chess on TV

[Scott Tortorice]

Interesting article concerned with whether or not chess could be as popular on TV as poker:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3252

I think it could be. This article echoes many of the complaints I have had concerning ESPN's foray into televised chess. A slower, more thoughtful game would be more interesting to follow. I think his suggestion for a RTC game would probably be the best compromise between thoughtful games and exciting action.

 

[DaveStory]

I disagree. Although I enjoy playing chess, watching it has always been (to me) like watching paint dry.

 

[Jazz]

Interesting article concerned with whether or not chess could be as popular on TV as poker:

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3252

I think it could be. This article echoes many of the complaints I have had concerning ESPN's foray into televised chess. A slower, more thoughtful game would be more interesting to follow. I think his suggestion for a RTC game would probably be the best compromise between thoughtful games and exciting action.

While in Japan once I saw a GO game televised on a Sunday morning. It was all in Japanese but there was a pretty lively off-line commentary on the game in progress. If you knew anything about the game you could kinda follow the commentary as they had a board and pieces to perform the commentary.

Curiously, one of the commentators was a western fella...who spoke very fluent Japanese.

I've looked for that program every time I happen to be in Japan over a weekend and have yet to find it again.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

Asia seems to be much more open to televised gaming than here in America. I understand that in S. Korea, there are more than a few shows dedicated to PC gaming---StarCraft in particular. From what I have heard, they are (were?) huge TV hits.

 

[2054172]

Do we for get?

The championship matches of Fisher, most viewed for it's time. I don't have a TV to say. I wouldn't watch it if I did. Enjoy when I play, Scott where is my turn? :smoke:

 

[Lurker]

I would enjoy chess on TV. I watched some of the Fischer matches. It's a good way to learn how the GMs think by watching the annotations.

 

[RobZagnut]

Boring as hell. Poker has the dynamic of seeing the hole cards and the anticipation of the flop, turn and river cards. Plus, there is a large number of players at the table, so head-to-head matches are constantly changing. Also, there is a lot of money at stake. The player's own money ($10,000). Each hand is over in a few minutes and you do it all over again.

Chess has the same players, the same pieces, the same game going on for hours. No excitement whatsoever and absolutley boring as hell. A snoozer to watch.

I would rather watch someone play Candyland. At least it has a little more excitement and is faster moving. ESPN knows what they're doing.

 

[Lurker]

Boring as hell. Poker has the dynamic of seeing the hole cards and the anticipation of the flop, turn and river cards. Plus, there is a large number of players at the table, so head-to-head matches are constantly changing. Also, there is a lot of money at stake. The player's own money ($10,000). Each hand is over in a few minutes and you do it all over again.

Chess has the same players, the same pieces, the same game going on for hours. No excitement whatsoever and absolutley boring as hell. A snoozer to watch.

I would rather watch someone play Candyland. At least it has a little more excitement and is faster moving. ESPN knows what they're doing.

You have to be a chess die hard to enjoy it and the during game analysis. It's really not for the casual player.

 

[RobZagnut]

>You have to be a chess die hard to enjoy it and the during game analysis. It's really not for the casual player.

Exactly. So, ESPN's target audience number would be 10? Maybe 20 on a good day?

 

[Lurker]

Who said ESPN?

There's a very large chess crowd world wide and the one in the US isn't small either. There are many internet chess sites to play live and they're usually packed.

TV may be another matter. I rarely watch TV unless the Raiders or Patriots are on.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

I think the proof that chess on TV could be done is the success of the movie SEARCHING FOR BOBBY FISCHER. That film triggered a chess renaissance in this nation (USCF membership numbers skyrocketed for two years after the film's release---and that wasn't just juvie memberships either). Clearly, American's enjoy the game as much as the rest of the world. The problem is that there is a PERCEPTION of chess as a slow, boring game that requires a high IQ to enjoy. Any chess program would need to blow that perception out of the water ASAP. It would help if the MC for a chess show was a natural comedian. Likewise, it would help if the contestants on a chess show were not pros, but either average people, or better yet, celebrities. Will Smith is a big chess player. So is Lennox Lewis. I GURANTEE you that if there was a chess match between those two individuals, A LOT of people would tune in to watch. And if you could keep getting celebs of that caliber (Bush I versus Clinton :laugh: ), the show would be a hit. If you make the game benefit some charity, I bet you could get the celebs easily. And that would do a lot towards promoting the Royal Game on TV.

 

[Lurker]

... Clearly, American's enjoy the game as much as the rest of the world. The problem is that there is a PERCEPTION of chess as a slow, boring game that requires a high IQ to enjoy...

Interesting point. It's too typical of US marketing that everything caters to a fast or violent or overload of the senses approach. The UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championships) is a good case in point. I watched it from the beginning where the most non-violent of all martial arts won match after match - Jujitsu (Brazilian in this case). The grapplers, jujitsu and wrestlers, won all titles. After a while it was banned from many US markets then made a comeback, but with changed rules that heavily frown on ground fighting and put these talented individuals at a big disadvantage. Instead now it promotes bare fisted punch outs.

Yes, TV chess might be interesting!

 

[DaveStory]

For those of you who would like to listen to a little history on chess (and get an overview of David Shenk's new book "The Immortal Game: A History of Chess), here is a link to an interview from KQED (Michael Krasny's Forum) with the author.

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R609061000

 

[RobZagnut]

>The problem is that there is a PERCEPTION of chess as a slow, boring game that requires a high IQ to enjoy. Any chess program would need to blow that perception out of the water ASAP.

Perception? More like reality. Chess is boring. Sorry.


>Will Smith is a big chess player. So is Lennox Lewis. I GURANTEE you that if there was a chess match between those two individuals, A LOT of people would tune in to watch. And if you could keep getting celebs of that caliber (Bush I versus Clinton :laugh: ), the show would be a hit.

Guarantee? I guarantee that it would be a real snoozer. There's no hook. There's no action. There's no fun. One big yawn-fest.

Announcer: "Pawn to Queen 4. He's REALLY put a crimp in Joe's style with that move." "Joe is seriously going to have to comptemplate his next move. Let's go to a 15 minute commercial break as he thinks about it."

Audience" "Snore. Zzzzzzzz..."

 

[Lurker]

Are you a chess player, or just telling us how much you don't like chess?

I'm curious what you would consider a hook. If you want arcade action then I wouldn't tune in.

 

[RobZagnut]

>Are you a chess player, or just telling us how much you don't like chess?

Yes, I 'was' a chess player. My father taught me and we used to play a lot. We had the Fisher/Spassky book and used to move the pieces and study the moves from some of their matches. I also used to play on the computer boards that moved the pieces on the board and then switched to PC chess games. In high school I was in an un-offical chess club that used to meet in the cafeteria and we would play against the social studies teacher. I beat him a couple of times. I took an artifical intelligence class in college where the assigment was to create a chess program (Big Blue it wasn't).

I also taught my three boys to play. My oldest was in the grade school chess club. But, like me they think the game is too boring. I long ago moved on to wargames (ASL included), euros and card games (Legend of the Five Rings). You can play multi-player, there are a tremendous number of scenarios and they are fun for the whole family. We have a family game night once a week.

Chess has one scenario and you can only play two-player. There are way too many other games out there to enjoy (I own 700+ games) and I intend to play most of them.

>I'm curious what you would consider a hook. If you want arcade action then I wouldn't tune in.

A hook is what creates interest and compels an audience to watch. Poker on TV was boring as hell until 2002 when they started using the 'pocket cam', so you could see the player's hole cards. Now you can play along with the players, see if they're bluffing, second guess their bets, study how the masters play, see the percentage that each player has of winning and it's short enough and easy enough to actually learn how to play from watching. Also, poker is sudden death. You can be 'All in' and your tournament life is on stake for all to see. You can be gone in a heartbeat. You can go from being the chip leader to out of the tournament in one or two hands, which takes 3-10 minutes.

There is no hook for chess, because it is all laid out in front of the players already for everyone to see. Each match is too long. There are way too many moves and too much time before the next match. There are only two players, unlike Poker which can have up to 10 players at the table at the same time. These players chat, cuss, scream, pray and sweat right on screen. Chess players are quiet and the finer points are too complicated for average joe to understand or even want to learn.

Chess is much to cerebral (boring) for TV where audiences have short attention spans and want action NOW! This is also why baseball ratings continue to drop and why football ratings continue to grow.

 

[Lurker]

I'm just the opposite on poker. I find it extremely boring and have zero interest in watching it. The same holds true for reality shows, though many seem to like them for whatever reason.

Chess TV I could get into, if for no other reason then the in-game analysis. The nearly endless possibilities are facinating.

Go is another very interesting game which is even better than chess in many ways.

But to each his own.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

For those of you who would like to listen to a little history on chess (and get an overview of David Shenk's new book "The Immortal Game: A History of Chess), here is a link to an interview from KQED (Michael Krasny's Forum) with the author.

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R609061000

That is a great interview! Thanks so much for posting that. Now I need to head-out and get my copy of this interesting book!

:thumup:

I long ago moved on to wargames (ASL included)....Chess has one scenario and you can only play two-player. There are way too many other games out there to enjoy (I own 700+ games) and I intend to play most of them.

I have always found this interesting:

If you begin with chess and move on to wargaming, you inevitably begin to disdain all things chess-related.

If you begin with wargaming and then move on to chess, wargaming and chess can peacefully coexist on the gaming shelf.

I don't know why this is, but whenever "chess versus wargaming" comes up, the two sides always split along those lines. It is really weird.

Ultimately, to each his own, but I would correct one thing:

Chess has FAR MORE than one "scenario." Chess does have one set-up position, but a huge (well over 400) scenarios in the form of "openings." Openings are the closest analogy to what most wargamers think of as scenarios as the use of these opening lines govern much of the game's resulting battles. Never has a boardgame, limited to 64 "hexes" and just six distinct pieces, created so much variety within its own confines.

There is no hook for chess, because it is all laid out in front of the players already for everyone to see. Each match is too long. There are way too many moves and too much time before the next match. There are only two players, unlike Poker which can have up to 10 players at the table at the same time. These players chat, cuss, scream, pray and sweat right on screen. Chess players are quiet and the finer points are too complicated for average joe to understand or even want to learn.

Well, let's look at this more closely.

1) While the pieces are completely visible, everything is not laid out for the viewers to see. Anyone who has ever played chess has had that moment where a really obvious move, or clever move, remains hidden despite perfect knowledge of the board. It's these "D'oh!" moments that make chess both frustrating to play but delightful to watch. Twenty people could view the same position and arrive at twenty different strategies as a result. The point being: chess is not predictable for the players, nor the audience. The pieces may not be hidden, but there is still as much dynamism as found in any other game. Even better, since the audience knows as much as the players, it is the perfect spectator activitity for shouting at the TV for player X to move piece Y.

2) "Each match is too long." Oh, but if this was true! I love slow chess and lament the modern world where blitz and bullet chess are all the rage. Hence, my point: while chess games can be lengthy, they can also be as short as 60 seconds. Personally, I believe a 15 minute game would be the perfect solution for a 30-minute TV program.

3) As for too many moves and too long between matches...I suppose that could be an issue with certain chess tourneys, but no more than when a baseball or football game goes into extra innings or OT. God knows I have played far too many short games where I fell prey to an unexpected checkmate!

4) Only two players...boxing only has two players. Even poker comes down to two players at some point.

5) Chess players are quiet...true, but that doesn't need to be true for a televised game. As the article that started this thread states, chess players on TV should be encouraged to banter and "trash talk" just as with any other game. Such bantering is more important with a game such as poker, though, because there isn't much that the MC can add. Not true with chess! As you mention, there is a lot of analysis that a MC could provide to help the average viewer.

Chess is much to cerebral (boring) for TV where audiences have short attention spans and want action NOW! This is also why baseball ratings continue to drop and why football ratings continue to grow.

Now that is one argument that I , regrettably, cannot refute.

 

[Lurker]

I have always found this interesting:

If you begin with chess and move on to wargaming, you inevitably begin to disdain all things chess-related.

That's an interesting viewpoint that I've never considered. I started with chess and went to wargames but I still love chess. Wargames are fun, but there's always an element of luck when it comes down to dice roles, either real or electronic. And of course in CM there are the AI generated maps that can be very unbalanced. Chess is pure skill in a one on one battle without the element of poor logistical balance.

Ultimately, to each his own, but I would correct one thing:

Chess has FAR MORE than one "scenario." Chess does have one set-up position, but a huge (well over 400) scenarios in the form of "openings." Openings are the closest analogy to what most wargamers think of as scenarios as the use of these opening lines govern much of the game's resulting battles. Never has a boardgame, limited to 64 "hexes" and just six distinct pieces, created so much variety within its own confines.

Well, let's look at this more closely.

1) While the pieces are completely visible, everything is not laid out for the viewers to see. Anyone who has ever played chess has had that moment where a really obvious move, or clever move, remains hidden despite perfect knowledge of the board. It's these "D'oh!" moments that make chess both frustrating to play but delightful to watch. Twenty people could view the same position and arrive at twenty different strategies as a result. The point being: chess is not predictable for the players, nor the audience. The pieces may not be hidden, but there is still as much dynamism as found in any other game. Even better, since the audience knows as much as the players, it is the perfect spectator activitity for shouting at the TV for player X to move piece Y.

2) "Each match is too long." Oh, but if this was true! I love slow chess and lament the modern world where blitz and bullet chess are all the rage. Hence, my point: while chess games can be lengthy, they can also be as short as 60 seconds. Personally, I believe a 15 minute game would be the perfect solution for a 30-minute TV program.

3) As for too many moves and too long between matches...I suppose that could be an issue with certain chess tourneys, but no more than when a baseball or football game goes into extra innings or OT. God knows I have played far too many short games where I fell prey to an unexpected checkmate!

4) Only two players...boxing only has two players. Even poker comes down to two players at some point.

5) Chess players are quiet...true, but that doesn't need to be true for a televised game. As the article that started this thread states, chess players on TV should be encouraged to banter and "trash talk" just as with any other game. Such bantering is more important with a game such as poker, though, because there isn't much that the MC can add. Not true with chess! As you mention, there is a lot of analysis that a MC could provide to help the average viewer.

Good points and I fully agree.

As to banter - when I lived in NYC I would sometimes play 10 minute chess in Washington Sq Park in the wee hours of the morning and the banter was hot and heavy and non-stop. It's a big part of street chess and speed chess. It's just tournament chess that prohibits it.

 

[Scott Tortorice]

That's an interesting viewpoint that I've never considered. I started with chess and went to wargames but I still love chess. Wargames are fun, but there's always an element of luck when it comes down to dice roles, either real or electronic. And of course in CM there are the AI generated maps that can be very unbalanced. Chess is pure skill in a one on one battle without the element of poor logistical balance.

You are the exception to my rule. :laugh:

I think a lot of chess players become dazzled by the "chrome" found in your average wargame. All the added realism serves to make chess pale in comparison. So, after having grown up playing chess, but not wargames, your first experience with a proper wargame must sort of be like "Wow, this is like chess but with all sorts of new complications and added realism." I think that is why chess players who move on to wargames become prejudiced against the Royal Game.

For me, as a wargamer first and then a chess player, I sort of went through the process in reverse. It was "Wow, chess is like wargaming, only without the thick manuals, multiple dice rolls, and hard-to-find opponents."