"irvin" wrote in message
...
True, Paul. Mike's was just a bad analogy.

Mike made an excellent point.
Long before poker was on TV,
professional poker players made
a good living by beating amateurs
who thought they were good. This
is a revenue stream that barely exists
in chess.

Chess is just something people don't fond interesting, largely
because they
don't understand it. A good analogy would be a math competition. How
many
people would find advance math competitions interesting? Very few, I
guess.

Yet Go is harder to understand
than chess but has a bigger
following. Poker has a following
big enough that it assuredly includes
many terrible players. In fact,
"celebrity poker" proves that even
terribly played poker can find
an audience.

My guess is that the level of
understanding required to
appreciate chess at the game
level as a fan is pretty low -
1000 ELO or so. The problem
is that the chess world has
been too arrogant/clueless
to evaluate the appeal of its
product and make appropriate
changes.

Something worth pointing out:

In any park where chess is being played, the blitz games are the
only ones
that attract spectators. I'll let others interpret that any way they
want...

The obvious interpretation is that
games at slower time controls
don't have sufficient drama to
warrant the time investment for
real time spectatorship. That's what
editing is for.

DK

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
I wonder if there's a Chinese poker?

Mahjongg.

I think I've seen this played at the movie, Joy Luck Club, little tiles
with sticks, characters, flowers, etc. Interesting way to play poker.

Tyrone Slothrop wrote:
I suggest both pokerstars and partypoker. These are both now
billion-dollar enterprises that have a strong incentive ($$$) to keep
the game as clean as possible so as to keep player confidence up.

You can play with the last 3 WSOP champions at pokerstars, but at Full
Tilt, you can play with the most pros, who are WPT and WSOP champions
like Ivey, Lederer, Gowen, Ferguson, Gordon, Flack, Harman, to name
just a few, and me.

Full Tilt is pretty decent also in keeping the integrity of the game.

Louis Blair wrote:
I wrote:
In Sam Sloan's book on Chinese Chess, he described
the atmosphere of the game as being quite different
from that at a European chess event. Evidently, there
was a lot of crowd participation. Perhaps we need to
be more like the Chinese.

Nick wrote (31 Jan 2006 19:15:46 -0800):

Some of my context was snipped by Louis Blair.

If 'you' were perceived as 'more like the Chinese',
then 'you' would experience more racist stereotyping,
condescension, prejudice, and hatred in the West.

In the interest of clarity, I have not noticed any racist
comments by Louis Blair in rec.games.chess.*
What I wrote was not intended as a personal criticism
of Louis Blair, and I regret it if Louis Blair got the
impression that it was such a personal criticism.

I have noticed racist comments (not necessarily against
the Chinese) from at least several American writers
in rec.games.chess.*. I also have noticed that
most writers in rec.games.chess.* tend to write
of the Chinese in terms of ignorant stereotypes.

But *it's true* that Chinese people have often, if not
usually, experienced racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, or hatred in the West. There's ample
evidence (including that cited in books by some
Western scholars) to support that statement.

I do not know to what extent Louis Blair
may or may not be aware of those facts.

Until a few years ago, I would hear some Western
chess players saying (with varying degrees of
euphemism) that it must be impossible for any
Chinese players ever to play chess as well as
strong Western GMs.

By the way, Chinese teams have dominated the
recent International Mathematical Olympiads.

Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?

I suspect that I understand more about 'the existence
of differences of custom and culture between Europe
and China' than Louis Blair does.

To what extent is Louis Blair aware of the existence
of anti-Chinese racism in the West, particularly in
the United States (where Louis Blair lives)?

If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

In fact, 'racist stereotyping, condescension, prejudice,
(or) hatred' have been common experiences of Chinese
people in Western societies. In fact, anti-Chinese
racism was long written into US laws (such as the
Chinese Exclusion Act).

A good general book about this subject is
"Chinese America: The Untold Story of America's
Oldest New Community" (2005)
by Peter Kwong and Dusanka Miscevic.
(Dusanka Miscevic is Peter Kwong's wife/partner).

--Nick

"pawnstormCA" writes:
The 2004 WSOP Champion is a middle-aged, balding, overweight patent
attorney who walked away with $5,000,000 from a single event. The 2003
WSOP Champion is a 20-something CPA named Moneymaker whose only
previous experience was playing Poker on the Internet, and he won
around $2,500,000.

You describe those guys as if their experience meant nothing. In fact
they are both very good players. Moneymaker winning the WSOP after
getting started on the internet is sort of as if someone won Wijk aan
Zee after first spending years on ICC, studying chess and gradually
getting stronger until he could consistently beat grandmasters online,
but not playing in any OTB events. That would be surprising but not
inconceivable.

Louis Blair wrote:
Liam Too wrote (31 Jan 2006 07:56:01 -0800):
It's the excitement of the game that differs poker
from chess. If chessplayers will be able to overcome
the presence of some noises, then chess is ready
for TV.

I wrote (31 Jan 2006 13:54:42 -0800):
In Sam Sloan's book on Chinese Chess, he described
the atmosphere of the game as being quite different
from that at a European chess event. Evidently, there
was a lot of crowd participation. Perhaps we need to
be more like the Chinese.

Liam Too wrote (31 Jan 2006 14:09:12 -0800):

But that is Chinese chess. I thought that it's different
from the regular chess. We need to learn Chinese
chess first and then go to China and participate.
I wonder if there's a Chinese poker?

Ask Johnny Chan. :-)

The Chinese Chess game is certainly very different
from the European game, but there are a lot of
similarities, too. Offhand, I can not think of
anything in the essential rules of the games
themselves that would dictate that one could
be played with crowd participation and the other
could not be played with crowd pariticipation.
The possibility that I was raising (for discussion)
was that (for purposes of television) European
chess be played in an atmosphere like that of
a Chinese Chess game.

In my view, Louis Blair's choice of term,
'European chess', is unfortunate.

1) Was 'European chess' invented by Europeans?
2) Are only Europeans the top players in 'European chess'?
3) Is there an International Federation of 'European Chess'?

By the way, according to a source whom I consider reliable,
a chess club (now defunct) in England excluded (at least)
one player from membership only because he's black.

My suggestion is that we refer to 'European chess' simply
as 'chess'. I doubt that any reader in rec.games.chess.*
will be confused by that term. We should also refer to
'Chinese chess' as 'xiangqi' and to 'Japanese chess' as
'shogi'. If necessary to insure clarity, we may write of
"xiangqi ('Chinese chess')" or of "shogi ('Japanese chess')".

If we did decide to change the game itself, my
guess is that the best version of chess (in terms
of potential for the future) is Japanese Chess
(Shogi) because of the low probability of a
drawn outcome.

By the way, GM Robert Huebner has played xiangqi.

--Nick

I wrote (31 Jan 2006 13:54:42 -0800):
In Sam Sloan's book on Chinese Chess, he described
the atmosphere of the game as being quite different
from that at a European chess event. Evidently, there
was a lot of crowd participation. Perhaps we need to
be more like the Chinese.
_
Nick wrote (31 Jan 2006 19:15:46 -0800):
If 'you' were perceived as 'more like the Chinese',
then 'you' would experience more racist stereotyping,
condescension, prejudice, and hatred in the West.
_
I wrote (1 Feb 2006 09:45:57 -0800):
Does Nick deny the existence of differences of
custom and culture between Europe and China?
If not, is there a way to refer to such differences
without someone feeling obliged to start talking
about "racist stereotyping, condescension,
prejudice, and hatred"?

_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 15:53:44 -0800):

... To what extent is Louis Blair aware of the
existence of anti-Chinese racism in the West,
particularly in the United States (where Louis
Blair lives)? ...

_
My questions to Nick were based on his action:
reacting to my note, quoting my note, and
putting comments in his reaction about "racist
stereotyping, condescension, prejudice, and
hatred". Since Nick did not answer my questions
and HIS question is, as far as I can tell, unrelated
to my actions, I see no reason why I should bother
with his question.

I wrote (31 Jan 2006 15:53:51 -0800):
The possibility that I was raising (for discussion)
was that (for purposes of television) European
chess be played in an atmosphere like that of
a Chinese Chess game.

_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

In my view, Louis Blair's choice of term,
'European chess', is unfortunate.
_
1) Was 'European chess' invented by
Europeans?

_
In a discussion where reference is made
to both European and Chinese chess, it
strikes me as inappropriate for anyone
to take these as references to the invention
of chess.

_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

2) Are only Europeans the top players
in 'European chess'?

_
It strikes me as inappropriate for anyone
to take these "term"s as references to
the exclusive location of top players.

_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

3) Is there an International Federation
of 'European Chess'?

_
It strikes me as inappropriate for anyone
to take these "term"s as references to
any "Federation".

_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

My suggestion is that we refer to 'European
chess' simply as 'chess'. I doubt that any
reader in rec.games.chess.* will be confused
by that term.

_
If it is a discussion where several versions of
the game are being considered, it seems to
me that such confusion is possible.

_
Nick wrote (1 Feb 2006 17:39:25 -0800):

We should also refer to 'Chinese chess' as
'xiangqi' and to 'Japanese chess' as 'shogi'.
If necessary to insure clarity, we may write
of "xiangqi ('Chinese chess')" or of "shogi
('Japanese chess')".

_
I will consider these suggestions, but I do
not see Nick as having any authority to
decree how I "should" write.

Paul Rubin wrote:
"pawnstormCA" writes:
The 2004 WSOP Champion is a middle-aged, balding, overweight patent
attorney who walked away with $5,000,000 from a single event. The 2003
WSOP Champion is a 20-something CPA named Moneymaker whose only
previous experience was playing Poker on the Internet, and he won
around $2,500,000.

You describe those guys as if their experience meant nothing. In fact
they are both very good players. Moneymaker winning the WSOP after
getting started on the internet is sort of as if someone won Wijk aan
Zee after first spending years on ICC, studying chess and gradually
getting stronger until he could consistently beat grandmasters online,
but not playing in any OTB events. That would be surprising but not
inconceivable.

I totally agree. A year of experience in the internet is comparable to
a player with 5 years of experience solely in a B&M casino. The games
in the net are way faster, so Raymer and Moneymaker have seen quite a
few hands and situations, which were more than enough to win the big
event.

Nick wrote:
Ask Johnny Chan. :-)

So Nick knows poker. Johnny Chan became famous in the late 1980s,
winning the championship event of the World Series of Poker (WSOP) in
two consecutive years (1987 and 1988). He almost won a third
consecutive title, but finished in 2nd place in 1989 to Phil Hellmuth.

Jerry Buss, an avid poker player and owner of the Los Angeles Lakers,
promised Chan an NBA championship ring if he could win three in a row.