When are they going to have some GM games On Tv

Maybe never..

Chess isnt exactly popular.. so there would be very little viewers which makes chess not on t.v...

but its surprising.. i once read that the Fischer- Spassky on ABC or something was the most viewed show ever (For abc or something) idk..

But i promise ya, if i somehow get rich ill buy a t.v. network and put it all about chess :P

Didn't ESPN try something with celebrities?

I think that's the right approach. People will tune in to see their favourite singers and movie stars. It might not be quality chess, but like celebrity poker or Dancing With the Stars, it makes the game appealing to a starstruck audience that wouldn't otherwise give it a try.

If the celebrities pull them in, the chess might keep them interested. The host would be important too -- you'd want somebody both charismatic and knowledgeable. Over time you introduce REAL players.

We've covered this before...chess doesn't make a good spectator sport. At least not as far as the TV companies are concerned.

But now you can watch live games on the Internet :-)

People watch Nascar and poker. Even basketball is just glorified ping pong. Chess would be more exciting to the mainstream public if the players' personalities were involved. Maybe even have a little trash talking between the players could liven things up.

YEah whats up with that? Sure we get 34 straigh hours of reality crap but god forbid we get some chess on tv, and not that crappy play by play espn game like narration like i saw once, i mean decent game with genuine comentators and good graphics... at least the world championship.

I think chess is a good spectator sport if you have spectators that follow whats going on and you have a comentator that REALLY knows whats going on and can narrate well enough to interest amateurs and stir pros....which i guess its few people.

man chess rules!

Who cares.  I wouldn't watch it.  Seriously, who would sit for 3 hours and watch a game of chess... where 99% of the time, NOTHING is happening.

I would rather the game as a PGN, perhaps with commentary, so I could analyse it myself when convenient, or the highlights reel where all/most of the waiting time is removed.

Chess just isn't a TV thing imo.

Chess is a terrible spectator sport.  Poker isn't so great either, but poker is big because it has a luck factor that attracts the average person and makes them believe that there is a chance that they can someday be on tv at the WSOP.  My friend was at a table at the WSOP when Jen Harman took a one outer and was eliminated.  The hand was so improbable that it gets play on tv over and over...and there he is, sitting there with a pokerstars hat on (you have to wear their gear if you get your seat through them).  I don't strive for it, but I know there is a possibility that I might be that smiling idiot at the felt table some day.  Now chess, on the other hand, gives me no delusions of someday sitting opposite a GM at an international tourney.  It is a game where the best move wins EVERY time and a mistake costs you.  A better player will beat a worse player 100% of the time, barring any blunders.  Better players will gain better positions, see more tactical possibilities, increase their space and piece activity, and eventually either smother the lesser player with compound inferiorities, or find a checkmate.  The subtleties of this process are lost on even the average chess player, let alone the viewing public, and the players who understand it will usually require some time to look the positions over before they fully appreciate what went on.  Watching it live leaves most of us hitting pause and rewind so we can understand what is going on.  Poker is like a series of tactical puzzles between players with a winner at the end of each one.  A chess game between two grand masters is nothing like the mental fast food viewers are addicted to.

 The games obviously wouldn't be shown for its full 3 hours. I have many chess videos and they show highlights with analysis. When people watch reality shows, they don't see everything -- they see a week of action edited down to 40 minutes of airtime.

If games were blitz, they could show several live in real time.

For a 4-hour game, there would be highlights, analysis, and likely interviews from the 2 players afterwards. That's what I've seen on videos, and I'd expect TV shows to be the same.

Of course, things would have to watered down for the general public, not pure chessplayers. The average fan wouldn't know what a Sicilian Defense is, but they might tune in if 2 celebrities were playing. So if you can hook them in, it's just a matter of keeping them interested with witty commentary, etc.

we will never have any indecent GM exposure on chess.com TV!!

Poor Erik, always getting the wrong end of the stick...

Anyway. Chess has been on TV before. We must ask ourselves why it was cancelled. Perhaps therein lies the answer.

I've at times wondered this as well, and it's true -- apart from the fact that it's visually less impressive than virtually every other sport, viewers who have no more than a passing familiarity with the game (the majority of the public) would not be able to appreciate or understand the games, even (maybe especially) with analysis and commentary.  It's a shame.

The thing with poker is that there are hundreds of hands, and so you only see the most interesting hands when it's shown on television. I love watching poker on tele, but I doubt this would be the case if I had to sit through the hands where very little happens.

Hmm... Let me see...

It can't be how slow the game is, people watch golf after all...

It can't be how complex the rules are, people watch tennis...

It might be personalities, since Kasparov vs. Karpov and Fischer vs. Spassky were widely covered...

I like the idea of celebrities playing chess though. Let's face off Garry Kasparov vs. Justin Timberlake! Magnus Carlsen vs. Daniel Radcliffe! Susan Polgar vs. Paris Hilton! Now THAT'S entertainment!

I myself would like to see chess matches like Carlsen - Anand(and matches like that on tv), but i sure can understand that most people doesnt and i also understand why huge tv networks dont use several hours in a day to show chess matches. Of course the chess people would say that a live chess match is more interesting then "Big Brother season 8", but most people dont. We just have to realize that Chess isnt much of a spectator sport, and only those really into the game would understand anything while watching.

Being in Washington Square Park, I saw how non-chessplayers were fascinated by watching the games. It's colourful characters there, fast-paced, a little trash talking, educational, philosophical, etc.

I'm sure chess on TV would work, if done right. Past failures shouldn't put an end to the idea.

Yes i can se how the chess in Whasington Square park can be a little more interesting for non-chess players, but i guess thats because its most blitz games, and people shouting, trash-talk and stuff like that...dont think we would have seen a lot of that in a Topalov - Anand match:)

Who knows ?

Well, that's why TV would need the celebrity involvement. Lots of star-struck people out there. They follow their heroes. They buy magazines so they can see their favourite movie star in a bathrobe. Bono is apparently very good, as is Screech from Saved By the Bell.

On ESPN about a 3-4wks ago.

It was on the "this edition of the nuts" portion of WSOP 2009 main event. That day they showed a chess game between the commentator, I think Chad's his name and a poker player.  To make it interesting Chad referred to moving his "little horsey"  while Howard Lederer (the poker player) was intent on winning. They used clocks - looked like maybe 5/0 blitz but the Chad guy was probably really bad. It looked like a real game but I couldn't see the pieces on board too clearly.

It lasted a total of about 5-7 minutes.

Actually, I would now rather watch chess on tv - I am getting really bored watching the poker shows even the Main Event ..