I find it odd that we have television matches in poker, billiards, bowling, and all kinds of sports, including sliding those little teakettles on ice in the olympics, but there is nothing on chess. During Fischer/Spassky in 1972 there was some television coverage, and many years ago I think George Koltanowski had a tv show for a while, but that's it as far as I know. There is not much to observe of the players, perhaps a sidebox on the screen would suffice, but the analysis by experts, discussion of past games and openings, discussion of the players are all possible. In the Olympics for example, before and after an event, there is a presentation about the player, and how he trained, a short biography, and so on. Such things could be added to flesh out the players. The analysis can be made understandable to the millions of players from amateur to master. I know there are millions of players, so there must be an advertising market. While not everyone watches the history channel (I like it), there are enough people who watch that it is on the air. So why not chess? I will guess that it is because the people who are program heads are not into it.
How about we players at chess.com starting a write in campaign to urge some television stations to broadcast chess. We have lots of interesting personalities (characters), teachers, and so on. With women now playing chess more and more, we have a broader appeal as in sports and a wider audience in effect. It would also provide an extra venue to chess masters who could become broadcast journalists, and advertisers such as chess.com, other sites, computer programs, publishers, etc.
What does the rest of the community think? Erik--our fearless leader?? Ready for showbiz? Maybe a chess centered screenplay to take us to broadway...
I AGREE THIS IS A GREAT IDEA!!!!!!!
I would watch it!! Anything is better than watching Golf on TV and they have a whole channel for that!!
I agree with you darius there,the only is... big company like tv stations are only interested in one thing ...that is money $$
I bet there's a market. There are millions of players worldwide. They are a market both for chess related and other commercial items. Many players are young and the young are a good market for lots of goods. All it needs is someone with imagination to get it going. There's a profit there if done right. It's got to be better than bowling, pool, and poker. Certainly a bigger market than the high school band which is televised and plays out of sync with poor sound quality. In the beginning the tennis audience was probably small but as it was televised and people talk about it and personalities emerge, interest spreads and audience grows. Just think, we can have the kco talk show. You interview chess personalities and on the darius show I will interview the checker champ!
OMG me!! no thanks darius but thanks for the offer. Let start something small and work you way up.
Already you guys have got kasparov and karpov chess acdemy in the U.S. !
This wont happen ever ever ever no matter how many people demand it.
No TV channel will put a blank screen on for 40 minutes while some idiot looks for a mate in one when you have both a knight and queena ttacking h7.
Good idea, but no-one wold do it as the TV channels would get jack from advertisements during chess time (stereotyped, I know, but the sad truth)
Even blitz games would be hard with commentary AND watching the moves at the same time...sigh...this si so annoying
cheesechat instead of saying that, we should be saying " what can we do to make it work ?"
If they can have 400 shopping channels, professional bowling which is a close 2nd to the sleeping pill known as golf (both of which I do but refuse to watch), then they can have chess. Of course, the majority of people watching televisiov have then mental capacities of a sponge and an IQ matched only by their shoe sizes. Oh man, don't get me started on idiots staring into the idiot box. I do think they should have chess televised. I'd watch it.
so you will watch it, then what is your shoe size ?
I would watch it. I've watched about every chess video on youtube.
well live chess wouldn't work because even a someone who loves chess such as I do would get verrrrrrrrrrrrrry bored watching anand think over his move for 5 minutes while we stare at the chess board thats not moving............but they could record games and that would be more interesting if we got a minute or two between moves and it kept going
the kasparov vs deep jr. match was espn 2, it was pretty boring, I watched kasparov stare at the board for around 30mins, then they agreed on a draw.
^^^^^
what I'm talking about right there........
i agree with darius, chess is negleted, darts, snooker.
i have a show size of 12 is that good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
heh, chess wouldn't make it on american tv, but it probably would in europe (unless they already cover it over there) it all comes back to an overall lack of interest, in america at least.
I wouldn't just show the static players. The commentary, the analysis, commercials, interviews and thoughts by other players, discussion of previous games, bios on the players during play--if you do it right it is interesting. When they show poker, pool, golf, Olympic sports like marathons, tour de France, much of the time little is happening. There's a bunch of cyclists, so what, but the commentary explaining what is going on, the moments when there is a shift and someone takes the lead or someone falls behind, the commentators flesh out the moments between significant events.
Koltanowski had a chess show and he would go over games, problems, and teach. Covering a tournament, multiple games are going on and a select few could be covered just as in a tennis match.
Chess is more popular outside the US, sure, but there are a substantial number of serious players and an even larger number of casual players. Chess coverage could be addressed to both, and those numbers would grow. People always get interested when something is presented as an "event." The Fischer/Spassky match attracted an audience that included people interested just because it was someone from US vs a Russian. Intercity, local teams would attract viewers.
I remember Fischer's Dick Cavett interview. Fischer was quite engaging. Personality counts and I'll bet some players would attract viewership. There's also crossover as chessplayers mingle with other "entertainment" figures. Things could snowball if it was approached, sold by professionals who know how to get a thing going.
Sometimes people surprise you. You think they won't go for a thing and they do. But it can't be presented flat. At least at first, you have to lead the horse to water cause it needs a little direction.
You know, I've got access to a local Cable Studio. I'll bet I could get something started. It would have an enormously small audience at first, but I'll bet we could do something with it.
There's no way any kind of Live Chess would work. As everyone says, there's too much time of nothing happening. But lots of other sports have their down moments as well. Like Darius said, if you fill those in with commentary, background videos on the players, etc., and edit out the long pauses, then the games would appear to move along much faster than they did in real life.
So what kind of a name would be the coolest for such a show? And how many games do you think would be the best to show in a standard half hour show?
If they're gonna do this, I think they might want to consider 15-minute games. That way there's enough time for commentators to say something about the positions, but not so slow that everybody's falling asleep. Also, you might be able to talk some very strong players into playing such games, since they're not Serious Tournament Games and more of an exhibition, so (maybe) not so much ego would be involved.
Personally, I think the chess world itself has to bear a fair share of the blame for this situation. Chessplayers traditionally have done next to nothing to make their game more popular and photogenic, and so a chess tournament remains a roomful of guys frozen in their chairs all afternoon; for the average spectator, this must be akin to watching ice melt. Oh well...at least it's no longer a smoke-filled room (and no longer all guys!).
I'd definitely support it. But it's (very sadly) going to be a dream in our minds. I mean, there are lots more (idiotic) people who don't play chess than people who do.
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.