Comments on: Chess As TV Attraction

By: Administrator

Administrator — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:51:52 +0000

I’m at a complete loss to figure out what you’re talking about. Where does the 50% comment come from? In fact, I’m not able to parse your single sentence in any way which makes sense, especially around “…for games effort to the not so convincing first place winner…”. I’d reply in more detail but frankly I can make no sense of the comment.

By: zaki

zaki — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:17:55 +0000

leaving the families & times best spent with them on the weekends is hard enough on the established ! player,s mind is hard enough ,not to mention the increasingly book worming effect on the equalization of top level players which it results in a measly .5 point lead between first & fourth in so many cases & for you to suggest for the runner ups to dedicate another 50% of their blood & sweat fought for games effort to the not so convincing first place winner is just another slap in their face for dedidicating their life & soul to this game !

By: Administrator

Administrator — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:32:48 +0000

You are correct, sir. That is the primary question. Since the original discussion assumed it was desirable, my contribution to it made the same assumption.

I think if the goal is to run big-money tournaments (let's face it, for many professional competitions the first place prize is larger than the entire prize fund of today's "big money" chess tournaments) then television is necessary because it grants sponsors the exposure they require as ROI for sponsorship money.

But absent the goal of seven-figure prize funds, there isn't a need for TV exposure. My personal preference is to grow from where we are until we hit the limits on it, and I'm not convinced we're there, yet. I think smaller amounts (under, say, 50 thousand) of sponsorship money can be found without television, and once we can consistently get into that range we can decide if we want to continue.

My own personal feeling is that shorter time controls are going to become more prevalent, not because they don't degrade the quality of chess played, but simply because they fit into the crowded schedules of the amateur player more easily, and after all, it's the amateurs that fund the rest of the chess activity, at least in this country.

By: Isovich

Isovich — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:17:23 +0000

Assuming all those changes are made, chess on TV will still not attract anyone outside of the marginal chess-playing public. And the reason is lack of US-born talent. No one cares about a tournament full of “*isoviches” that they can’t relate to. Bobby Fischer didn’t bring in great interest because he was crazy, but because he was a Brooklyn boy who thrashed the bad guy Soviets.

Question: If chess must be diluted in order to appear on TV, why want chess to be on TV?