Chess to make the evening news!

Here is a story about some chess players being featured on a nightly news program:

http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=6711690&nav=menu90_3

What do you think? Will we see more stories like this on the news? Will chess get more publicity on television, or will chess never become successful on television?

Hrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................ great questions. I have thought a lot about this obviously because of Chess.com :) I'd love to see chess become more mainstream and more popular with TV coverage, etc. Truth is, I'm not sure it can ever be "the next poker", which is the example I use of something similar that HAS reached huge success in mainstream media. Here are my reasons why:

#1 You need skills. To understand GOOD chess, you need to BE good at chess. With poker, however, the rules and play are so simple and it is so easy to follow a game, who could win, etc, that someone can understand it within 5 minutes. Not with chess though - it's too subtle!

#2 It takes too long. Chess games are long with a lot of silence and sitting in a chair. In poker there are cards being dealth, money being moved around, etc.

#3 Small wins. In chess the game isn't over until it is over. In poker there are frequent moments of resolution when the particular hand is over.

#4 Chance.  With chess you win because you are better. There are no real "underdog" stories. In poker, someone who learned 3 minutes ago can believe they have a chance to win!

Those are just a few of my thoughts on it ;) 

Yeah, some good points there Erik. However, I think I must disagree with one of your points AND fully support another one.

#1 I don't think that you have to be good at chess to fully enjoy watching event coverage on television. I remember a few years back watching the Kasparov-Fritz matches on ESPN with commentators Maurice Ashley and Yasser Seirawan. I thought those two did a GREAT job on the commentary. They had energetic commentary which simplified many of the positions into basic explanations for a general person who just knows how the pieces move would be able to follow along with. I really think if some good, energetic, and funny commentators are found then I think live chess broadcasts (event coverage) could be quite successful on television.

#2 I think that the time controls of chess MUST be shortened to increase the pace of the game for it to be acceptable for television. Sadly, this will ruin the quality of the endgame play when both sides will just be in a crazy time scramble, but this is a sacrifice that must be made to have our great game and sport on television. I propose that the time control used for televised games should be 25 minutes with 5 second delay for both sides. That way there is not a 15 minute think on one move during the game when the commentators will have to struggle with one position for that long. With fast paced action like this I think people would be interested to watch. Especially when both sides are down to 1 minute left on the clock and the pieces are flying across the board at a fast and furious pace!

there is a 5th point I would like to add to yours. This is the aspect of humor and human interest stories from the commentators. The commentators will have to add in some humorous stories. I have often listened to the commentators on the Chess.FM radio broadcasts during live event coverage and these commentators do a great job of interjecting funny little stories about some of the players, game situations, or past chess experiences (particularly GM John Fedorowicz, "the Fed"). I think he would be great for tv chess commentating. Also there should be some personal stories about the players which will create interest in the players and actually have the observers rooting for someone. You can talk about nice things about their families, some heart-warming stories about how the players have persevered over some traumatic experience or even give some backgrouund of their chess history and their accomplishments. With these types of stories the audience will gain respect for these players and start having favorites and actually root for one player to win over the other. This would also create more spectator interest.

Just some of my opinions  :)

Interesting comments.  I have banged the drum before about human interest stories on other forums.

Ultimately though, I think that the internet is the perfect medium for chess and we don't need chess on TV to popularise the game.  As technology improves and PC's and TV's tend to merge into one piece of hardware, I think chess will benefit further.

bump

H

Poker is on ESPN. They have little trouble with keeping people's attention on a game that is about as fun to watch, 80% of the time, as watching flies mate. Hundreds of people in those tournaments are never shown or met or interviewed. It works because it fulfills the spot people have for entertainment.

Chess could fill a spot as well. What needs to improve, is how the game is expressed. Mastery is what needs to be conveyed. What does it look like? The pieces move the same no matter how good you are. There is no visual aspect of chess which defines mastery from the novice. I can sit at a board, a complete nube, across from Magnus, and from my barring and his, to any observer I would likely be the one identified as the 'master'. If that's all we have to express that aspect of the game to a general audience.

Now, if the game was speed chess, then Magnus would have a clear advantage as being perceived as the master, because he has that skill, and I don't. It would show. I would lose on time, and the cause of that loss would be clear -- I don't know what the heck I'm doing. It would show. If all I have to do is sit at a board, I can look as formidable as anyone.

Poker shows will leave the main table and bounce around the room at times to break up the monotony of watching a handful of people stare blankly at each other. But that tactic would be havoc on a chess tourney.

Football, has a technique called Telestrating.

Telestrating has been utilized in sports broadcasts since the 1970s. It involves using a touchscreen or a device with a graphics overlay to draw lines, circles, or other markings on the screen to provide analysis or enhance the viewer's understanding of the game. Chess commentators could make good use of that technique. In fact the Streamers do using the arrows and Cirles on the computer boards. GothamChess is a perfect example.

Some method of score keeping ... an introduction for the use of stats on methods, and use of different attacks which expresses a valid 'score' the advantage between the players, or an expression of the balance between them... which chess has... massive quantiles of... it strikes me that chess is much like Quidditch, the scoring bit. You can be scoring higher and higher, but still lose with one sudden event. No saving throw. Jesus saves the rest of you take damage. ... ah hem.. anyway... your mileage may vary.