Tweet
Re: IMPORTANT: Kevin Spraggett's blog and the revelation this week ...
True, it wouldn't be chess any more, it would require a new name. The actual over-the-board play would be just like playing chess from some non-standard starting position (never the same) with your King and no more than 7 other pieces / pawns.
But your comparison to golf is laughable. What are the demographics of the TV golf audience? Probably at least 80% retired men who have nothing better to do and enjoy watching something that moves slowly so as not to confuse them and shows a lot of nice, manicured scenery. Golf does attract lots of spectators to the actual tournaments because it's outdoors, people get to walk around, enjoy nature and a fair degree of quiet. And golf is big, it needs lots of acreage, so people can find a spot and still get a good view. You could try holding an outdoor chess tournament, but you wouldn't get away with charging spectators the kind of fees that golf charges. Very few people will get a good view of anything unless it's on a jumbotron somewhere, and all they're going to see is a piece move maybe every 15 minutes. If they try moving from board to board, they don't get anything, because chess isn't divided up into short segments. You have to watch the entire game to get anything out of it. Remember, we are talking about the general public here, who don't follow or understand chess. They'll just shake their heads and wonder why they wasted their time and money.
I'd also point out that for all it's skill level, golf still includes a large degree of luck, and unknowns can still beat the likes of Tiger Woods on any given weekend. Chess is completely devoid of luck, and the general public just doesn't like that. You say it's just a matter of creativity. To that, I say that if the creativity doesn't include introducing some degree of luck plus dividing the game into smaller segments, the effort to have chess achieve mass spectator popularity and regular TV coverage to even half the levels as poker has achieved will fail miserably.
Incidentally, the top prizes in the World Series of Poker are much better than the top prizes for any of the golf major tournaments. Poker doesn't restrict entry to any top echelon of players. Anyone with $1500 to $10,000 can enter one of over 50 separate WSOP bracelet-level events, and guess what, thousands of them do. This is what those who dream of chess popularity have yearned for.... for years and years and years....
*** the preceding was sponsored by the Debbie Downer Foundation.
Originally posted by Ed Seedhouse
View Post
But your comparison to golf is laughable. What are the demographics of the TV golf audience? Probably at least 80% retired men who have nothing better to do and enjoy watching something that moves slowly so as not to confuse them and shows a lot of nice, manicured scenery. Golf does attract lots of spectators to the actual tournaments because it's outdoors, people get to walk around, enjoy nature and a fair degree of quiet. And golf is big, it needs lots of acreage, so people can find a spot and still get a good view. You could try holding an outdoor chess tournament, but you wouldn't get away with charging spectators the kind of fees that golf charges. Very few people will get a good view of anything unless it's on a jumbotron somewhere, and all they're going to see is a piece move maybe every 15 minutes. If they try moving from board to board, they don't get anything, because chess isn't divided up into short segments. You have to watch the entire game to get anything out of it. Remember, we are talking about the general public here, who don't follow or understand chess. They'll just shake their heads and wonder why they wasted their time and money.
I'd also point out that for all it's skill level, golf still includes a large degree of luck, and unknowns can still beat the likes of Tiger Woods on any given weekend. Chess is completely devoid of luck, and the general public just doesn't like that. You say it's just a matter of creativity. To that, I say that if the creativity doesn't include introducing some degree of luck plus dividing the game into smaller segments, the effort to have chess achieve mass spectator popularity and regular TV coverage to even half the levels as poker has achieved will fail miserably.
Incidentally, the top prizes in the World Series of Poker are much better than the top prizes for any of the golf major tournaments. Poker doesn't restrict entry to any top echelon of players. Anyone with $1500 to $10,000 can enter one of over 50 separate WSOP bracelet-level events, and guess what, thousands of them do. This is what those who dream of chess popularity have yearned for.... for years and years and years....
*** the preceding was sponsored by the Debbie Downer Foundation.
Comment