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.

_
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.

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.

_
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.

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?

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.

And Football works very well with TV because of the excitement
involved. There are cheerleaders, shouting, laughing, and having fun.

No, what I like in football matches is play not popcorn. Eating popcorn, big
macs, fried chickens is unhealthy and one can easily become obese.

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?

_
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.
_
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.

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.

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.

I have not read Sam Sloan's book on 'Chinese Chess'
(xiangqi). I am disinclined to accept Sam Sloan as
any authority on Chinese culture(s) or language(s),
though I suppose that the more ignorant readers
in rec.games.chess.* may do otherwise.

Evidently, there was a lot of crowd participation.

In China one may observe xiangqi often being played
in the streets. These games tend to be considered
social gatherings at least as much as they may be
considered 'intellectual' competitions. And there's often
verbal interaction among the players and spectators.

Perhaps we need to be more like the Chinese.

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

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.

--Nick

Alberich writes:

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.

Actually, a few poker tournaments are shown live, the boring hands are
just that--boring.

The reason poker is so popular is because most average players think they
can beat the pros, and if their luck is good they can. In chess, it
becomes brutally clear to fish that the top players are going to prevail
99.99% of the time. I might be able to beat Doyle Brunson in a few hours
of hold-em every now and then, I don't stand a chance against a top GM.
--
Mike Nolan

(Mike Nolan) writes:
The reason poker is so popular is because most average players think they
can beat the pros, and if their luck is good they can. In chess, it
becomes brutally clear to fish that the top players are going to prevail
99.99% of the time. I might be able to beat Doyle Brunson in a few hours
of hold-em every now and then, I don't stand a chance against a top GM.

Ehhh, most people know they'd get crushed in an hour of one-on-one
basketball with Shaq O'Neal, but they still like watching basketball.

Unlike Chess or Football, Poker is a game where an amateur can rise to
the highest levels in practically no time and walk away with millions
of dollars. What attracts people to poker is the same thing that
attracts them to the lottery, the possibility that they could win a
very large sum of money via an activity that is largely luck based. .

Does that possibility exist in Chess or Football? Of course not. There
is 0% chance I'll be drafted in the NFL and there is a 0% chance that
I'll win the 2007 Wikj aan Zee. But with Poker, all it takes is $10,000
to purchase a seat at the World Series of Poker (WSOP) and give
yourself a shot at becoming an instant multi-millionaire. Just look at
who wins.

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.

When people watch Poker, they can realistically envision themselves up
there. The same is not true about any other sport.

Is sex considered a sport? It takes even less time to become a sex
expert. Have you read my cybersheets book?

pawnstormCA wrote:
Unlike Chess or Football, Poker is a game where an amateur can rise to
the highest levels in practically no time and walk away with millions
of dollars. What attracts people to poker is the same thing that
attracts them to the lottery, the possibility that they could win a
very large sum of money via an activity that is largely luck based. .

I disagree with the "largely luck based" statement. The reason
why poker is legal in California is because it's a game of skill.
It'll be illegal if it's largely luck based.

Does that possibility exist in Chess or Football? Of course not. There
is 0% chance I'll be drafted in the NFL and there is a 0% chance that
I'll win the 2007 Wikj aan Zee. But with Poker, all it takes is $10,000
to purchase a seat at the World Series of Poker (WSOP) and give
yourself a shot at becoming an instant multi-millionaire. Just look at
who wins.

There are satellite events with entry fees ranging from a dollar
to $200.00 to win the WSOP entry fee of $10,000.00. Moneymaker
did it in 2003 for $46.00.

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.

When people watch Poker, they can realistically envision themselves up
there. The same is not true about any other sport.

To me, the excitement of the game is the main reason why
Poker became a sport in TV that people watch. The shows
inspired more than 50 million Americans to play poker, whether
recreationally or for a living. Poker players can shout, dance,
sing, whatever, at the table and it's all part of the fun. Can we do
all of these in chess?