Is the guy from the FedEx commercials available to be the commentator for blitz?
I think the Fischer phenomenon had as much or more to do with the cold war than with Fischer himself, but I was too young to really remember it.
I should note that I am under no illusions that what I have proposed would make the game more interesting to the average American. However, to those of us who are inclined to play Chess, but frankly don’t have a clue about what the GMs are thinking, this would be a great hook. So, perhaps the emphasis is wrong in the thread title. What I really mean is that for those of us who find it somewhat interesting, but are lost because those guys are playing at a much higher level than we are capable of, this is one way to help us get involved and perhaps raise the interest level in great tournaments.
I would gladly start a game right at the moment when Nakamura got his second queen this afternoon, and see what I couild do with that position (against another player with my skill level, that is).
Could USCF afford him? Maybe if we discontinued CL Mag. 
Moderator Mode: Off
No need to discontinue anything. I have a specific USCF member in mind that has a lot of money…
No, the cold war was only a minor part of it. It was almost all due to Fischer wiping out the competition and being the right type of magnetic personality to create a “15 minutes of fame” buzz. The US champion in 1972 was Robert Byrne. If it was Robert Byrne playing instead of Bobby Fischer, it is very doubtful there would be anyhere near the same excitement and public interest that there was with Fischer.
That actually sounds more like Yogi Berra.
Bill Smythe
Chess, in general, is a more participatory sport rather than a spectator sport. How it is presented has been a problem for over a hundred years. Chess magazines, newspapers, television, radio, and the internet are all media that have been used to present the game to a wide audience. The form that is likely to be most successful is the internet, or rather a combination of multimedia - streamed video, interactive diagrams, computer “war room” suggestions, and fan commentary that is based on the internet.
It is unclear what type of commentary we would find most acceptable. Do you want a gushing “homer” speaking? A whispering, solemn, almost religious in tone commentary like they sometimes do in golf? Do we want to hear a story teller? Would argument and sarcasm among the broadcasters work, like in football? Screams for joy at a score as in soccer? Just how would we like the comments and the games presented? However it is done, it will have to be edited the way they do with poker in order to cut out the minutes and hours of inactivity on the board.
I think you blundered into something Bill. Yogi could do the Blitz commentary. Imagine Yankee Stadium. 17 fanatic chess fans watching the grass grow on the chessboard.
Clock punched. Yogi: “It ain’t over till it’s over. Oops! It’s over!”
BTW What was Lincoln really like?
Best spectator chess I’ve ever seen was in Virginia Beach. During the Virginia Chess Federation’s Millenium Chess Festival, they would have an evening event with 2 Grandmasters. Each would be in a separate ballroom with a large demo board, and an assistant would use a radio to inform the other ballroom what move was made. The Grandmaster in each room would be talking about the position, what the theory behind it was, and was open to questions (and even suggested moves) from the audience. It was a great opportunity to see the thought process behind why they were doing what they were doing, and for them to show why another move doesn’t work (i.e. when an audience member said, “Why can’t you just move the pawn to e5?”, the GM would run through a 5-7 move variation showing why we would come out worse, and then reset the demo board to the current position.)
Obviously you couldn’t have the actual players providing commentary for a live event; however, if you showed games on a tape delay, it might be more interesting to be able to have the players explaining why they did what they did.
Best lecture, if you want to call it that, was by John Federowicz in explaining a game to a crowd one morning at a World Open several years ago. It was both instructive and hilarious. He has the the rare touch that teachers strive for in explaining material to their students. Unfortunately he looks like a terrorist, but that is ok by me. I tend to like chess terrorists. They are more fun than the usual chess instructors.
I’m sure Nakamura would be glad to be called a milqeutoast if being compared to Fischer.
I agree that the separate GM analysis rooms at the Millenium tournaments were a great show. I was in the Nakamura room when he played the Albin Counter Gambit against Susan Polgar. There were hundreds of people in each room. No exaggeration. Nakamura was great. He was willing to play almost anything that we suggested that was reasonable, including, the Albin Counter Gambit. In the other room, Susan Polgar was just as good and entertaining. There were hundreds of people in her room also. You could go back and forth between each room (I did).
It was a sad day when the Millenium tournaments ended. I don’t know all the details, but I think Tom Braunlich was the organizer; Mike Atkins and Ernie Schlich were the TDs. The playing site was perfect, and I didn’t mind the long drive to get there.
I’ll take a guess that he would understand and agree. Different times, different people. Fischer was nasty and crazy, Nakamura seems to be a normal guy, perhaps somewhat pushy and edgy, but nowhere near what would spark any interest among non-players.
The 2nd through 7th Millennium Chess Festivals were run by Chess House, which I believe is Ernie Schlich’s affiliate. The last one was run by the VCF. Ernie may have had to drop out of running them due to economic factors. (Also, his wife has had some health issues.) The last two drew fewer than 130 players, they may have lost money.
Streaming chess tournaments is an idea that works.
Mr. Nolan writes in post #242198, “Live chess is not very interesting for spectators.” I could not disagree more. Every year there is a demo board with the game on first board displayed at the Land of the Sky tournament in beautiful Asheville, NC. There are many chairs available for interested spectators, and most are taken. I know, because the organizer, Wilder Wadford, invited me to come man the demo board one year when the fellow who usually took care of it had to attend a cruise his wife had booked during the LOTS weekend.
The US Championship broadcast live from the St. Louis Chess Club is interesting to me, and to many others as well. I, and many others, also find many other live broadcasts from tournaments around the world interesting. I can only dream about what it could have been like if there had been live broadcasts over the internet as Bobby Fischer made his march toward the World Championship match with Boris Spassky forty years ago this year.
Far too often I have heard people tell me, “Chess is a boring game.” I always respond, “The only people who find chess boring are boring people.”
Armchair Warrior
Ah, but you’re an A player, which puts you in the top 10% among active USCF members, and probably in the top .01% among adults in the USA.
Are you (or ANY of us!) the type of ‘spectator’ this thread is dealing with? I don’t think so. It’s those people who tell you chess is boring (which we know it is not.)
And if you want to talk about positive PR, telling people that they are boring is not likely to give them a positive image of chess players or the USCF.
Chess players know that chess is (usually) not boring, but the non-playing public has a different opinion. It wasn’t very many years ago that the top 4 or 5 boards in the final round of the US championship were limp draws, 10 moves, 10 minutes, bla. Big show. The same thing still happens from time to time (World Open, for example). Most people, including chess players, would be bored by a few minutes of posturing followed by a happy faced handshake. At the opposite end of the spectrum would be players hunched over their boards, ears covered with hands, making all kinds of grimaces and sighs for 20 or 30 minutes as they ponder their next moves. That’s the image a lot of non-players have. Like the old cartoon of two long bearded guys half asleep with cobwebs all over the board and one of them says “Oh, I thought it was your move.”
Moderator Mode: Off
Wayne Zimmerle and I play often in public, usually at our local Barnes & Noble.
It is common for someone to stand by our table watching our play. However, it is not common to have many people really care either. I would say that we will have an onlooker to our game(s) once every 5 times we are out playing, not a lot.
Usually, it is a guy watching us while his wife or significant other shops. Every once in a great while it will be a child, but we usually know the kids from our clubs and scholastic tournaments.
Some times the fellow watching might even ask if he can play a game, and we agree. We also inevitably always invite the onlooker to our club on Monday evenings.
However, when presenting the game in the media, like television, having someone explain the game and position really is everything. I watched the latest US Championship online with Jennifer and Ben commenting. It was great. They explained the positions in a way that a novice could follow and understand, yet keep the more experienced players also entertained.
Shelby Lyman did a great job back in 1972 regarding the Fischer-Spassky match. Remember in this very thread where someone said that people would tune in Public Television instead of baseball or whatever to follow the games and commentary.
From this we had the Fischer Boom that many have talked about. Those people that joined the USCF did so from the commentary of Shelby and the other media publications about those games and Chess the game itself. They had to be interested, even though they weren’t veteran chess players, otherwise there would have been no boom.
So yes, we can have Chess presented for people to understand and enjoy even though they are not veteran chess players.
Having some GM, like Ben Finegold, present Chess to the public could very well be a successful action. I don’t know, but I could envision a 1/2 hour slot on public television with Jennifer and/or Ben presenting Chess. They could have a few minutes explaining some rules or tactics or even a strategical concept. They could comment on a game and explain the why’s and why not’s of the whole thing. They could have reports on tournaments with some footage showing the players and even have some brief interviews.
Yeah, we definitely could make Chess more interesting for spectators.
Ron - Some good ideas. They could work. I’d also consider putting microphones on the players so they could go to an area near the board and talk to the camera about the game and their opponent. “I’m going to try and bust up his pawn structure by playing f5, but I have to be careful because he’s no slouch. He’ll probably try to hold me back with knight to e7, but then I might be able to drop my rook onto b7. At least I’ll get him burning up his clock. Looks like he just moved. What the…? He played Q takes g3. Oh man, I missed that. Got to go back to the board, act like I saw it coming.”