If you want to know why poker is dynamic and exciting, and why chess is
perceived as not being either, just read through a few of the posts in this
newsgroup.

"Alberich" wrote in message
. ..
Explain this to me...poker matches are NEVER shown live...games are
EDITED for maximum effect to show only the "exciting" hands played. Now
games of poker can last for hours on end...yet with editing...these
games can be shortened down for managable bit sized one hour "events"
shown on cable.

Now turn to chess. Here's a game that can ALSO last for hours and hours.
But I don't see the kind of "excitement" that one associates with this
game...yet the chess format can accomodate TV by shortening the time
controls drastically to allow for "exciting" chess and therefore get the
chance to even be seen live on cable. But I've never seen this done. And
yet...even if chess events are held...you don't get TV producers
salivating at the chance to "edit" chess matches for maximum effect and
air these events on TV.

What is it about poker that's so attractive to the sponsors? Is it the
"gambling" aspect of the game that gets the attention? The fect that
players are not only displaying their skills at the table..but also
willing to put their money where their mouths are..and risk it all? This
is not seen in chess. Is there anything that can be done for chess to
"liven" up the game to the same level that poker is getting?

Like maybe allow "gambling" in high stakes chess where say...someone
like GM Peter Leko pushing in his chips during a critical juncture at a
chess match against World Champion Veselin Topalov...and Topalov would
be forced to either call the bet or decline and lose the game? Can
something like this be done to show that chess can be as "exciting" to
watch as poker on TV? Any thoughts on this? Thanks.