Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Grandmaster Clash

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    eclipsechaser
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭eclipsechaser


    Rucking_Fetard wrote: »
    One of the most amazing feats in chess history just happened, and no one noticed.


    http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057280228/3/#post92092548


  • Options
    #3
    Rucking_Fetard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Rucking_Fetard


    eclipsechaser wrote: »
    http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057280228/3/#post92092548

    Ah, I didnt look past the first page


  • Options
    #4
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    In fairness, that's the newspaper's headline, not Rucking Fetard's comment!


  • Options
    #5
    eclipsechaser
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭eclipsechaser


    Rucking_Fetard wrote: »
    Ah, I didnt look past the first page

    I guessed not. Mind you, I completely missed that the quote was actually a link to an article! It was a really fantastic tournament.


    EDIT: I'm only half way through and it's already a really enjoyable article. (They are down-playing how many people watched it live though). Thanks for linking it.


  • Options
    #6
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    I guess the thing with how many people watched it live is that if you're considering this as a TV exec, it doesn't come close to stacking up.

    Poker on TV has worked for some reason; there's talk of trying to make chess on TV work in a similar way - maybe even through live blitz or rapid games. But with 75,000 viewers, the money won't stack up.

    Not a bad article, though it wanders rather a lot. I guess there's a big difference between chess articles written for chess people and those written for the general reader (which this clearly is), so it can't really be a criticism of the article.

    It mentions the Millionaire Chess Open actually, which I'd missed. Starts next month. Here's the entry list so far. Sounds interesting, even though it is (pretty much by necessity) broken into grading bands and so not really an Open. But I'll put it on my bucket list, I think. :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Sparks
    Registered Users Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    cdeb wrote: »
    It mentions the Millionaire Chess Open actually, which I'd missed.
    You just need to read this forum more ;):D


  • Options
    #8
    BenEadir
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭BenEadir


    cdeb wrote: »
    I guess the thing with how many people watched it live is that if you're considering this as a TV exec, it doesn't come close to stacking up.

    Poker on TV has worked for some reason

    For some reason???

    - Simple to understand game
    - A result every few minutes
    - Open gamesmanship/sledging
    - Everyone thinks they can play the game well


  • Options
    #9
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Well yeah, true. And I think your last point is the most important. But it just strikes me when I see it on TV as very repetitive. Maybe being able to see the cards takes away from it a bit. It also lacks the extra dimension that chess has.


  • Options
    #10
    BenEadir
    Registered Users Posts: 4,539 ✭✭✭BenEadir


    cdeb wrote: »
    Well yeah, true. And I think your last point is the most important. But it just strikes me when I see it on TV as very repetitive. Maybe being able to see the cards takes away from it a bit. It also lacks the extra dimension that chess has.

    The more challenging and nuanced a game is the less likely it is going to have mass market appeal and TV is all about maximising the audience for minimum production cost.

    Poker is chewing gum TV which is very cheap to produce yet has continuous action every few seconds (betting action, new cards, players sledging each other, bluffing etc) and there is a voyeurism element which appeals to people. We simply love watching someone with a weak hand walk straight into a trap set by the guy with the strong hand.


  • Options
    #11
    cdeb
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 7,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭cdeb


    Yeah, can't argue with any of that.

    Actually, I've just re-read the article and it's not poker which drew 32 million, but League of Legends. Bloody heck! I've never even heard of League of Legends.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I sat through the whole Caruana - Karjakin game today - all 101 moves. I now appreciate the vast gulf between patzers like myself and super GMs.


  • Options
    #13
    reunion
    Registered Users Posts: 1,334 ✭✭✭reunion


    BenEadir wrote: »
    For some reason???

    - Simple to understand game
    - A result every few minutes
    - Open gamesmanship/sledging
    - Everyone thinks they can play the game well

    I think the fact that you can see odds immediately on a hand and know that someone with a 2% chance just won adds to the excitement.
    cdeb wrote: »
    But it just strikes me when I see it on TV as very repetitive. Maybe being able to see the cards takes away from it a bit. It also lacks the extra dimension that chess has.

    Chess lacks talking in between moves, poker has banter and people making jabs at each other. The stream for the Carlsen v Anand match last year had some good coverage with commentary. It's just the audience for chess is hard to cater for. You either have high rated players going over the head of most chess players (let alone people who haven't played before) or you cater for people who haven't played before and alienate good players or you cater for the mid range player that goes over the heads of beginners/people who haven't played before (and annoys better players). Note: the mid range player should be the target market as most chess players consider themselves mid range or are mid range.

    The 11 year contract for rights has been signed over to Agon (Andrew Paulson and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov's company). So don't expect chess to change until maybe 11 years from now.

    What chess is missing is a "hail mary" type scenario. Most players know of scholar's mate or back rank mate but that rarely comes up in professional play. This results in a lack of media coverage as the games are typically long, with 1 person getting an advantage and grinding it out to win (or ending in a draw).
    cdeb wrote: »
    I've never even heard of League of Legends.

    League of Legends is an online multi-player game. The skill gap between the pros and the novices, while large, isn't knowledge based like chess so novices and pros can watch the same broadcast. It has the benefit of being broadcast like a sport with replays explaining what happened for the poorer players.


  • Options
    #14
    Lucena
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Lucena


    Well there are Hail Mary type situations, but they're just not very spectacular. Try to swap off all the pieces when behind so that you leave the opponent with wrong bishop and h-pawn (for example) is one way, but would require the viewer to have knowledge of that ending, or have the commentators spend a while explaining it.

    By the way, am I the only one who reads Grandmaster Flash every time I see the thread title? Maybe he's rapping about a h-pawn: "Don't push me, 'cos I'm close to the edge"!


Advertisement