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.

Alberich writes:
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?

No that's not enough. A subtle, sharp chess position is too
complicated for a TV audience to be excited by. The position in the
board when the bet is offered has to be "mate-in-one", like in poker,
where both players show their cards and the higher one wins. There's
tension in that kind of poker position because until the "move"
(revealing the cards) is actually played, the players don't know what
the position is. Other than that unknown factor, it's pure simplicity.

Chess has the disadvantage that all the pieces are on the board "face
up" where everyone can see them. Instead of getting tension from an
unknown but simple position, chess has to get it from positions that
are too complicated for anyone to understand. That doesn't play too
well on TV.

No that's not enough. A subtle, sharp chess position is too
complicated for a TV audience to be excited by. The position in the
board when the bet is offered has to be "mate-in-one", like in poker,
where both players show their cards and the higher one wins. There's
tension in that kind of poker position because until the "move"
(revealing the cards) is actually played, the players don't know what
the position is. Other than that unknown factor, it's pure simplicity.

Chess has the disadvantage that all the pieces are on the board "face
up" where everyone can see them. Instead of getting tension from an
unknown but simple position, chess has to get it from positions that
are too complicated for anyone to understand. That doesn't play too
well on TV.

It`s not about the complication of the game - of course chess is more
complicated than poker even from psychological point of view - but it`s
about money involved : even when they are smaller sums they are more
visible. The money is usually on the table and every kibitz is excited even
if poker players play for small sums. Poker is like one of those
brainwashing TV competitions when one wins visible money.

Alberich wrote:
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.

Chessplayers don't like the attention. I was playing at the National
Open in Las Vegas, a million years ago and ESPN was there. However,
chessplayers don't want the cameras inside the playing room, so ESPN
left.

If the time comes when chessplayers will no longer be distracted by the
cameras, then I would say that chess is ready to be advertised.

Chessplayers don't like the attention. I was playing at the National
Open in Las Vegas, a million years ago and ESPN was there. However,
chessplayers don't want the cameras inside the playing room, so ESPN
left.

If the time comes when chessplayers will no longer be distracted by the
cameras, then I would say that chess is ready to be advertised.

TV cameras don`t distract majority of players. Only idiots claim that
cameras disturb them.

Organized chess has never had mainstream visibility. Most people see chess
as a nice, good pastime and are not interested beyond the occasional quick
game.

Poker is going through a period of some visibility (mostly the midnight run
with limited audiences) that is being bankrolled by the gambling industry.
I'm not sure it will be on TV for long or that it will grow beyond what it
is today. Time will tell, I guess.



--
Irvin
-------------------------
http://www.pixel69.com


"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.

"Jerzy" writes:
It`s not about the complication of the game - of course chess is more
complicated than poker even from psychological point of view - but it`s
about money involved : even when they are smaller sums they are more
visible. The money is usually on the table and every kibitz is excited even
if poker players play for small sums. Poker is like one of those
brainwashing TV competitions when one wins visible money.

I don't think that matters much. There's no visible money in
football, for example.

Jerzy wrote:
Chessplayers don't like the attention. I was playing at the National
Open in Las Vegas, a million years ago and ESPN was there. However,
chessplayers don't want the cameras inside the playing room, so ESPN
left.

If the time comes when chessplayers will no longer be distracted by the
cameras, then I would say that chess is ready to be advertised.

TV cameras don`t distract majority of players. Only idiots claim that
cameras disturb them.

And these idiots are the most vocal in complaining to the TD about
noises. Chessplayers are not ready for the excitement of the game like
poker. In poker, we can shout out loud, maybe even dance, when showing
our emotions especially when we hit the one outer.

Chessplayers who became poker players, are some of the most successful
players in the sport because they can apply the mental dexterity part.
Chess is more complex, but the tactics are almost the same mentally.

irvin wrote:
Organized chess has never had mainstream visibility. Most people see chess
as a nice, good pastime and are not interested beyond the occasional quick
game.

Poker is going through a period of some visibility (mostly the midnight run
with limited audiences) that is being bankrolled by the gambling industry.
I'm not sure it will be on TV for long or that it will grow beyond what it
is today. Time will tell, I guess.
--
Irvin

Time will tell indeed. But for now, poker is at its heyday. I remember
when the World Series of poker is played by less than 20 people. Now
it's in the thousands. Celebrities like Ben Affleck, Toby Mcguire,
Jmaes Woods, and the owner of the LA Lakers, Jerry Buss are some of the
avid poker players.

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.

It's not about the entry fee. The 2003 WSOP champion invested only
$46.00 and won 2.5 million dollars. Recently, I entered with $11.00 and
won 3rd place for a prize of a couple of thousand dollars.

Poker is like one of those
brainwashing TV competitions when one wins visible money.

I don't think that matters much. There's no visible money in
football, for example.

We are comparing mind games like poker and chess. Football involves mostly
muscles and of course it gives no intellectual entertainment like chess or
even poker.