Making Chess (slightly) more interesting for spectators

All Things Chess
1

(Note: most commentators on how to make Chess more interesting usually end up using words like “bikini” and “knife throwing”, and certainly more sex and violence would help, but it might also detract from the quality of the Chess. I’m actually going to make a Chess related suggestion.)

I tried watching some Olympiad coverage today, and, just as expected, it was more exciting than watching paint dry, but I’m not sure the difference was statistically significant.

The problem is that by the time one of those people resigns, I still rarely know who’s winning. Meanwhile, even the commentators just aren’t all that good at figuring things out. The Turkish commentator was basically saying, “Uhhh yeah he could push the pawn and maybe then there’d be something that could happen with the white queen, but black could just exchange and…yeah…I don’t know. It looks good for white but black still has good chances.”

Here’s what I would like to see. First, go to a good online live Chess site like chess.com and see how they do live chess challenges. USCF take note. That’s how they ought to be done. Now, add in the capability to start a game from some position other than the normal start position. Finally, follow the matches on the top board of the tournament, but let anyone issue a Chess challenge from the current point in the game. We’ll play out the current position, but in a blitz, or maybe just quick, time control.

It would give people a chance to really see a little bit more about the current position, and would give people something to do while waiting for the next move. By the time the blitz game is done, maybe they would have moved again. Of course, the real game won’t develop the same way the blitz game will, but that’s the point. They’re better than you. You can make your moves, and then go back and either see right away why that wasn’t so good, as you got smashed by your opponent, or you can compare what the master played, and see why that developed a lot better.

Just a suggestion.

And if that doesn’t work, there’s always the bikinis.

2

Live chess is not very interesting for spectators.
Live fishing tournaments are not very interesting for spectators.
Live poker tournaments are not very interesting for spectators.

But fishing and poker are on TV and chess isn’t. Perhaps one big reason is that they never show poker and fishing as live events. You always watch a highlight reel. You only see the parts that are interesting, and the comentary can be scripted.

3

Or, fishing and poker are easier to understand?

4

If golf had to focus on just one twosome, showing them hit their balls then walk 150 yards or more, would it be on TV?

The other aspect is that golf, poker and even fishing are sports that viewers can readily internalize, they can visualize themselves making that great sand shot, filling an inside straight against a poker stars champ, or landing that lunker with five pound test line.

Any woodpusher who has faced a GM knows that his odds of winning are virtually zero.

5

I’m just trying to get past the mental visual of Tim Just paying chess in a bikini while throwing knives.

6

Youtube at 11 PM!

7

Exactly, but it’s much, much, worse than that. I know that my odds at beating Tiger Woods at golf or beating Hikaru Nakamura at Chess are approximately the same. Neither one is going to happen, ever.

However, when I watch Tiger Woods, I know whether or not he is winning against his opponent. I know whether or not he has a difficult shot, the kind that only he can make. As I watched a few minutes near the end of Kamsky’s game today, I didn’t even know who was winning. I assumed it was probably Kamsky.

With the scheme I proposed, I could at least get to the point of “what would I do in this situation”, and could see how well it would work. Of course, it wouldn’t work against the real opponent, but that’s not the point.

8

In the absence of a running point total, it’s the job of the commentator to clear up that uncertainty for you. If he can’t do that, he’s a bad commentator.

Imagine trying to keep track of a field of gymnasts, divers or figure skaters if you couldn’t see what scores the judges awarded.

9

I think you missed the point a bit.

Yeah, Tiger would blow you away in an 18 hole contest, but with 70 or so shots over a three hour time period, there’s a chance that some of your shots will be better than Tiger’s.

Similarly, over time the poker star will take all your money in three hours, but you will probably beat him in a few hands.

With chess, the ‘unit of measure’ is one three hour game.

10

Sigh?!

11

That thong cutting you a bit too tight, Tim?

12

Oh, no … where is that brain bleach, again?

13

A better commentator would help, but it’s not the fundamental problem. If he were truly good enough to comment on what was happening, he would know what to do, and then he would be playing instead of commenting.

As it is, I can’t watch gymnastics and tell you who will get the gold medal, but I can tell you which girls seemed to do the most flips and land on her feet without stepping. I don’t know enough technicalities of the rules, but I can tell you the most impressive performance, and if that’s not the gold medal winner, it will at least be in the top five.

And there’s no way in heck I could imagine myself, realistically, doing any one of those moves that they do in their routine. Mike’s theory of imagining that once in a while I might do something better than the athlete being watched doesn’t hold water for me. No, I cannot do anything as well as those gymnasts were doing it, not even once.

But when they do it well, I can recognize it. When they mess it up, I can see what went wrong.

To the vast majority of potential spectators, a Chess game between GMs is a dead even contest and then someone resigns.

14

Weren’t the commentators totally befuddled when Byrne resigned in a game vs Fischer?

15

The reason chess isn’t shown on american TV is that chess doesn’t have the same degree of cultural acceptance as in Europe and Russia.

Over there, chess tournamants (regardless of on TV or not) are actually followed (if only from the local paper and/or internet) and people have actual favorite players they would like to see win or place well in tournaments.

16

A decent amateur (being over 1600 USCF helps) has real chances of drawing a GM in a tournament game: certainly more than 1 in 1000, no matter what Prof. Elo says. In some respects, it’s easier to play one-on-one against the GM than play in a simul. Don’t sit down at the board feeling doomed! And don’t self-destruct by the extremes of superficiality and perfectionism in critical positions (as I have on multiple occasions).

17

President Reagan when a young radio sportscaster virtually made up a baseball game’s play by play action when the telegraph went out. Not being in the same city as the game he invented what was happening on the field. Noone could tell the difference.

As regards chess, I am reminded of Abe Lincoln’s quote (not about chess), “If you like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you will like.”

How to make it more exciting??

18

Everything that has been said here by everyone is true. All the reasons given for why chess is virtually unmarketable on television (at least in the US) make sense. I’ll add one more:

In the summer of 1972, the highest rated show on PBS was the Fischer-Spassky match. People would go into bars and see Shelby Lyman’s show on TV instead of sports, instead of the political conventions, instead of anything. The network news reported the results during their evening broadcasts. Bobby Fischer was the reason. The average person back in 1972 knew as much about chess as they do today, almost nothing. But, they were attracted to the outrageously bizarre craziness that swirled around Fischer. The popularity of chess in the US during those 3 months was completely driven by Fischer’s personality. We have nobody like that today, not even close. The closest we have now is Nakamura, and with no offense to him, he is a milquetoast compared to Fischer. You would need a Nakamura to the tenth power, and maybe then all your dreams of getting chess on American TV would happen.

19

A 2000 player has an expected score of about 0.053 against a 2500 player.

A 1900 player has an expected score of about 0.03 against a 2500 player.

A 1600 player has an expected score of about 0.006 against a 2500 player.

When the ratings committee has looked at actual results between senior masters and non-masters with established ratings, the non-masters have tended to score a little below the expected performance curve.

In quick chess there tends to be more upset wins and fewer draws between senior masters and non-masters, that may be even more common in blitz chess. Whether that would make quick chess or blitz chess more suitable for TV is a separate issue. (Would people be that interested in games between senior masters and non-masters, for example?)

20

only with really good commentary to explain what is going on.