It'd have to be highlights or a blitz match. The problem is there's millions of players but not many of them know what's happening at master level.

I've always thought that amateurs should do it  and show it can be done. We should try and film some matches and provide the works ourselves. If they see it happens and is popular....

Well, the reason things like poker, golf and baseball (where most of what you're seeing is people sitting/standing around waiting for the next card or the next shot or the next pitch) work, at least in the U.S., is because the average person can understand and relate to what is going on even if s/he doesn't play or doesn't play well.

Chess really isn't like that. It's hard to develop the skill necessary to understand what's going on without spending a lot of time developing the necessary skills to play at a fairly high level.  It's a much harder sell based on the game itself.

So if you're going to sell it, you have to package it in a way that patzers can relate to what they're seeing. So what might work? Steve Lopez speculated on this in a series of articles he wrote a few years back and his basic conclusion was 30 second chess with commentary by someone interesting and animated might be the best way to go. Here are some twists by me on his basic idea:

1.  The idea behind the 30 second per move idea was to keep things moving but on a regular pace.  There's no advantage to moving fast if you get exactly 30 seconds for your next move, so you might as well use all your time. I'd take it a step further and have a "warning tone" 5 seconds before the time limit and a player is required to move after the warning tone and before the "forfit tone." The reason is that whatever sort of commentary is going on in parallel, the commentators are going to need the time without being distracted by having to react to an early new move.

2.  Have an engine or multiple engines revved up on the side drawing arrows on some sort of a computer board.  Think John Madden going crazy doodling an offense or defense on top of a replay -- only you'd need a computer to do it fast enough in real time.  Maybe this part could be done later and edited in for broadcast. Doing it live (or at least maintaining the illusion) seems better than adding the commentary later.

3.  One or two dynamic commentators spewing in real time (I can't see doing this latter, editing it in, and maintaing any sense of spontenaety).

4.  This is going to sound a bit sexist, but one of the commentators should be a cute lady with a chess title if you want to maximize your audience.

5.  At least part of the view needs to be a shot of real players sitting at a real chess board moving real chess pieces, not two players sitting in front of two different computers pointing and clicking with a mouse. That should be the main shot at least between the warning tone and the forfit tone. That scene with the two players could then be shrunk to a small corner window while looking at a split screen of the commentators or the computer display with the graphics.  My guess is some experimentation would reveal the right mix of screen space.

6.  Put a significant amount of money on the line.

Anyway, just some stray thoughts...

L8erz...

=wild=

Yes definitely - I think every semi-serious chess player would love to see chess on the small screen, even if it's just a chance to show the naysayers that there's a lot more to the game than intense boredom, big glasses and ill-advised woolly jumpers.

Blitz chess would stand a much bigger chance of making it, simply because of its fast pace, as opposed to the potentially soporific classical time controls. There's a world blitz championship coming up shortly featuring some very strong players indeed, including the naturalised American Gata Kamsky. It's too late for this tournament, but an event of this calibre and nature would be ideal if chess were to be televised.

From what little I can remember of the Kasparov - Short world title match that was televised on Channel 4 here in Britain, it attracted fairly large audiences (around 4 million, I think), which is certainly a viable size. That was quite a large and one-off event, however, so if a regular TV programme were to succeed, it would have to be an attractive package, well balanced between explaining to those not familiar with game, and catering for regular players.

Also, as a side note, I know the RZA (from the Wu Tang Clan, and soundtrack producer for Kill Bill) is very into chess, to the point that he's set up a Hip-Hop Chess Federation. Maybe he could be of some use in appealing to a wider audience?

I think all these ideas are excellent.

If I were to set up a chess show, I would not conceive of it in terms of a single event presented face on--ie a tournament or reviewing a single game. Instead, I would have multiple events through the show, let's say a half hour, creating it much as chess.com has presented it but using the differences that exist in visual/audio media offers compared to print and picture on line or magazine.

For example, the shows theme song logo, and credits. 1) You might open up presenting a puzzle of the day and at the end of the show providing the solution and explanation. Music and art selections could be a big part of the show too.

2) There could be an interview one day and the interview can center on chess but diverge to the person's other interests or highlight their quirky characters, a historical bio another, and a current bio on another day. The bios could be about world grandmasters, local up and coming players thereby appealing to local interest, or interesting amateurs such as RZA who have other appealing things they do or players who are also actors, models, scientists, physicians, or hard working people who enjoy a game of chess as part of their lives. There's the chess.com fave--ladies in chess. Models who play chess. Talk show hosts who play chess. Chefs who play chess. Chess in different cities in the world. Chess played in the park. School chess.

3) The third part of the show could be instruction by a teacher on one aspect of the chess game, or going over a tournament game either international, national, or local, explaining the game but also, as is done with other games or with sports, giving some background on the place the game is being played and background on the players as individuals and on their past competitive games with each other. Chess analysis by top players and even argument/discussion over the game.

4) Other--a brief chess news segment, chess jokes, reviews of books about chess both instructional and fiction or historical novels centered on the game, viewer email and questions, and then editorial opinion about a chess related topic such as we have in the forums here.

5) Solution of the daily chess puzzle.

All this could use guidance by a good programmer, people who know how to make the thing visually appealing, researchers to provide info, writers to provide a script, people who know how to sell commercial space (once the demographics of the building audience is known then commercial sales become possible--word of mouth and advertising on line, in mags, etc to get the core group interested and then spread the word, get school teams interested and involved--educators and the like), and a good host with good personality or perhaps hosts--a man woman team is usually a plus (I agree with yeoldewildman on this, attractive hosts help, although it does not necessarily have to be looks alone, someone who is funny or engaging can be more effective than someone who is good looking but bland) (Billium, you're a professional actor, is there a johnny carson in you?). Celebrity player involvement is always a plus too.

If we can involve entrepreneurs and thinkers like Erik, people in the entertainment industry like Billium and RZA, this can become a reality. We're a generally bright group of people. I am sure tons of ideas can flow; look at all the freebie articles people write and the time invested on line by participants here, just for the sheer pleasure of the game. Imagine applying all those thoughts to a show, and how much positive influence that show could have on a game that is an art and can be a positive influence on a world so bored with itself it turns to less mentally engaging pursuits (notice I did not single out specifics since all the specifics I could think of were arguable and while perhaps of lesser value not completely valueless--maybe).

What would we call such a show? How about:

Chess Hop

Double entendre -- Hip Hop or meet you at the Hop (an old word from the fifties). Any others? I am sure there's a million titles out there.

Great post darius. I just remembered that apparently there's a large initiative to encourage chess in schools in Britain, so maybe the BBC can be persuaded this is part of their public service mandate?

http://www.chessforschools.co.uk/index.htm

Also here's an article on the increasing trendiness of chess, which mentions some celebrity endorsements:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/nov/20/sport.stephenmoss

sounds awesome, I'd watch

I doubt it would work on network TV. You can't even watch the Giro D'Italia anymore, despite how many cyclist there are in the U.S. How about offering it on your pc to watch? Chess.com? Most new tv's have a pc connection now anyways.

In India government TV Channel DoorDarshan Sports broadcasts (recorded) at 10.30 PM ( GMT + 4.30 ) games of some big tournament along with commentry usually by GM Parveen Thipsey for 2-3 days per week. This channel is free to air type so those with DTH connection should be able to get it. DTH details are as under  trans frequency 02511, Symbol 27531 , polarization Vertical, 22KH Off, LNB frequency 03756.

Program is in English and also available on other DTH platefarms.  

In England back in 1980/81 there was a fantastic chess tv program called 'The Master Game' presented by IM William Harston What they did was have a knockout tournament 16 players as I reacall ,each game was played under classical time controls and filmed. The players were then invited into the studio to record their thoughts as the game unfolds and then the whole game is shown with both players commentry but edited down to 30 minutes. It was fantastic I seem to remember players getting annoyed with each other and others trying to justify terrible blunders. I did read somewhere that the players were plied with wine whilst making the comments which ensured lively commentry. But the very best thing about this show was the quality of players The late great Tony Miles, Bent Larsen, Lother Schmit (the arbiter Fisher Spassky 1972) Victor Korchnoi, and a very young Nigel Short plus many others. the show ran for two seasons and did well ratings wise but not good enough to avoid the axe. Whether the BBC still have the recordings I don't know.  

Well, the rael question is WHY? Why do we need chess on television? What will we gain from it? And, is it possible? In the ninetees, when there was Investbanka Tournament in Belgrade, Belgrade television had an half-hour coverage every evening after the tour. They gave a problem in the begining, results, usually two games from the round, comments by a Grandmaster, etc. There is still weekly chess show on one of local televisions, I think.

Static nature of chess and low knowledge of average weiver are the main problem that keep chess from TV screens. No one will put his money(And that is what television is really about) into something that would be watched by insignificant minority!

We could have all thist, and more easily, but why go one the air? Internet gives us more possibilities than TV, we just have to use them right. Imagine a tournament tranlated on the Net. You could have the possitions on the boards in one window, commentaries in the other, camera shots in the third, live audio coverage, etc. If everybody paid entry fee to get a password for the round (say, 10c) the amount of money organizers could earn would make them take it seriously and do their best to give us quality product.

So, once again, why go the hard way? 

One thing to bear in mind when talking about a game being watched by an "insignificant minority": golf is famous in the TV biz for being a sport with a very small viewer base (certainly compared to the major sports)--and yet it has always been able to draw considerable TV coverage (and advertising revenues), due to the perceived affluence of its fans and participants.

I saw a rock paper scissors contest on tv once... Honestly!  If rock, paper, scissors can be on tv, Chess can too!!!

Because there is lots of money to be made using television; because I think there is a core audience and that it can be expanded; and because I would like to see the status of the game elevated and enduring.

when the internet came the encyclopedia brittanica did not know how to utilize it and eventually lost its market share. chess can stay the way it is and give way to what I consider lesser games, or it can perpetuate itself and expand and give its great players the status and money they deserve and the other players a broad community and sense of self.

I guess I envision a broader appeal and marketability that is possible while still retaining the qualities that make it special to me now.

Also, I think the social aspects of chess are overlooked. I've met a number of nice people here and years ago when I was an active player, players would become friends beyond the chess board so I see chess as a social game.

Ever since Darius first mentioned this idea, my brain has been racing.  I know enuf people with enuf equipment that we can at least get a pilot episode made.

My connections are still small, so it would have to start out being made for local cable access, but as soon as we have an episode in the can, it can be posted on the web for wider distribution, and see where it builds from there.

I love the idea of starting the show with a puzzle and ending it with the solution.

I don't think the blitz chess would actually work tho, cuz even I (a person who understands chess) has a hard time following blitz games sometimes, so the average non-chess-playing viewer would lose interest as fast as the players are moving. 

I'm thinking more like the weekly UFC shows (Ultimate Fighting Championship).  You get a lot of background on who the players are which makes them identifiable and gives the audience a reason to care about who wins or loses.  The players are both interviwed before and after the match so they can talk about what they plan(ned) to do, and what went right/wrong.  Editing in this commentary and video footage would help break up the monotony of looking at a chess board the whole time.  If it's not fun to watch, it's not going to work.

Chess is still viewed as an eliteist game for intellectuals (like Jeopardy!), so it needs to be "dumbed down" to some extent for the mindless masses.  Each episode needs to appeal not only to chess enthusiasts (the main demographic), but also needs to explain things for the non-chess player in a way that intrigues him or her in such a way that they want to keep watching, and hopefully even tune in next week.  We need to make chess look like fun for everybody.  It would be great if we could get some "Happy Gilmore" type players.

Some non-chess related lures would also be necessary I believe.  I don't want to go to the extreme of a Bikini Chess League, but hot chicks always attract viewers, and would be needed to shed the "old man's game" image that the general public has of it.  Just like Jeopardy, we need as many players as we can get that are not MAWGs (middle-aged white guys), cuz there's no shortage of chess-playing MAWGs.  I really don't think it will work without at least ONE really hot female who knows what she's talking about (proving that she's not just eye candy - but still serving as eye candy on top of it).

I was thinking of having maybe 2 games per half hour episode (with all the boring parts edited out, but showing each of the moves with enuf time for the commentators/players to explain/analyze them - like they do with televised poker).  The first game would be two kids (everybody loves watching kids doing "adult" things well), and the 2nd would be two adults.  If ALL the games are played at a Master level, the general public will lose interest fast.  It needs to have some "Wheel of Fortune" level mentality mixed in with the "Jeopardy!" segments.

Good music is essential.  One of the thoughts I had was approaching local bands.  Two bands would compete, each choosing one member as their player.  The winner gets his or her band's music played at the end.  Maybe edited over a quick recap of the game's visuals like a music video.  If we go this route, maybe we could call the show, "Rook and Roll Knights."

The idea of 30-seconds per move, with a tone at 5 seconds to keep everything "Live" definitely has potential, and I haven't discarded the idea at all.  But I'm still leaning towards the idea of editing in the player interviews during the game instead.  Maybe the show could have one game of each?

Keep these ideas flowing everyone.  Talk about what you think the strengths and weaknesses are in each argument.  If there is a way that you can help out (designing the theme music to be played at the beginning, end, and at the commercial breaks; animating a cool opening or closing title sequence, etc.) PLEASE let me know.

I really plan on making this a reality, and you can be sure that it will be on YouTube as soon as I have my first episode.  In the meantime, let's see if we can figure out exactly what will and will not work, so we can make this happen.

I would start a small chess league. Invite different players each week to play each other. You would tape the matches then edit them later for TV. That way you could watch a whole full length game in a 30 min time slot. You could even have 2 or more games going on and just cycle through the moves. The key is it would have to be taped then edited. Of course there would be bio's and highlights.

There would be different divisions and playoffs at the end of a season. Be a novel idea to get even casual players to watch as just taping matches from tournys around the world would not be overly interesting for the casual.

I just got access to public access cable here in San Francisco complete with a studio, all equipment, and production crew (my bass player has a televisiov show) so I am going to try to get something started here in the San Francisco Bay Area. It will take at least six months to get it rolling but I think I'll put my money where my mouth is (so to speak). To the person from Australia (my favorite Country other than my own), my shoe size is 175 or was that my IQ. Either way I have big shoes to fill.

There was a chess TV show in Vancouver (Canada) at the time of the upcoming

Karpov/Kasparov World Championship in the early to mid 80's, about 82 until

a year or so after the title match. It may have come from Seattle where Yasser

Serawan is from. I remember he occasionally was on the show. It may have been

local cable but it was well done. In fact it was similar in many ways to chess.com. By that I mean it was a grand scale program not narrowly  focused

on only the candidates match of the day or week, but included simple but

effective puzzles to explain situations, key combinational themes, a few minutes each show to include beginners by explaining early points to engage

new players and help beginners. There was also game comparison between

current players and past great events or matches. I think it  depends a great deal

on the host of the show. If you look at any successful program you need someone who has enough knowledge to deal with bs that can come from

a guest who has an agenda, can appear humorous and can explain clearly !!!

This last is why there are I think sooo many books about Chess. They can all explain some small point well but the rest of the book is repetative dross so you

need to read a thousand books to comprehend the main (I say)50 points of good

chess play.Anyway....a TV show about Chess...I would love it...I did love that

one 20 years ago. I was before "VCR'rs. It was saturday morning. You had to be there to see it... As for advertising...nowadays we have "google", we have our

friends at chess.com  we have 300,000 plus minds across the world that as well

as read books and play would also love the visual experience that TV can bring

if the fans are to be believed. Chess.com has accomplished something I didn't

think was possible given my experience on many other web  sites....TV...........

BRING IT ON!!

Yeah, I saw rock/paper/scissors too--it was a documentary on ESPN.  And I found out that there actually are professional RPS players!

Well sorry, I guess this isn't actually that relevant to the thread...it did boggle my mind though.

hey everyone

we dont need tv point of fact we have the ability to make a weekly show our selves

How about we call the show "Treasure Chess"