English Chess Forum

I suppose that Chess figures like statistics. What do people think of this sort of marketing?

chess players now make up one of the largest communities in the world: 605 million adults play chess regularly – a number comparable to regular users of Facebook. <snip> These findings from YouGov and TGI were commissioned by AGON

It reminds me of this sort of thing "Twenty one year old Wang Feng, a history student from Wuhan University, Hubei in China was watched by 1.5 billion television viewers in China as he achieved the highest ever score of 9486 in a World Memory Championships, beating 128 other competitors from over 20 countries." What is the population of China again...

IanDavis wrote:I suppose that Chess figures like statistics. What do people think of this sort of marketing?

chess players now make up one of the largest communities in the world: 605 million adults play chess regularly – a number comparable to regular users of Facebook.

The survey is pitched as marketing for the Agon proposition, namely that there's a vast untapped audience for chess. I'd be inclined to say "perhaps". You need to include everyone who spends the odd minute or two playing against an engine on their smartphone. But if they are right, you could get the Master Game effect, that there was an audience not of people who would instantly join their local chess club, but who appreciated the drama of the contest and had some vague idea what was going on. The popularity of the Olympic coverage can illustrate the power of "drama" even if most of the audience don't have a clue what the rules are.

"The popularity of the Olympic coverage can illustrate the power of "drama" even if most of the audience don't have a clue what the rules are."

And neither do a lot of the hockey umpires.

If you can actually get TV coverage, non-players will watch, and if there are interesting personalities (e.g. Fischer, Kasparov) or a heroic British player up against the odds (Nigel Short), and the odd massive time-scramble, non-players will watch, and even ask their chessplaying friends what's going on.

But getting the TV coverage in the first place is difficult.

IanDavis wrote:605 million adults play chess regularly

Good Lord, it's gone up

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"The popularity of the Olympic coverage can illustrate the power of "drama" even if most of the audience don't have a clue what the rules are."

And neither do a lot of the hockey umpires.

Given some of the stupid rules in field hockey:
(1) You can't use the back of the stick. Why not?
(2) A player can flick the ball aerially, but not hit it aerially, because that's dangerous.
(3) If a player flicks the ball towards the top corner of the net, and the goalie saves it, and the ball goes straight upwards, it's a penalty corner because it's deemed to be dangerous.
(4) The new shoot-out rules give players 8 seconds to have as many goes at scoring as possible. (They basically pinched the shoot-outs from ice hockey, where the player skates from centre ice, the puck must never travel backwards, and as soon as the goalie touches it, the player can't touch it again.) In field hockey's shoot-out, if the goalie makes a great save, the attacking player can still score on the rebound, so long as it's within 8 seconds. (But not 8.1 seconds. That would be ridiculous.)*
(5) You have to play the game right-handed.
(6) Most sports have time limits that are a simple fraction of an hour. Football has two, 3/4 hour periods. Handball has two 1/2 hour periods. Ice hockey has 3, 1/3 hour periods. American Football has 4, 1/4 hour periods. Basketball has 4 1/5 hour periods in the NBA, or 4 1/6 hour periods in the Olympics. Rugby has two 2/3 hour periods. Field hockey has two 35-minute periods, i.e. 7/12 hour. Why 35? Why not 30? The result of this is 7 1/2 minute periods of extra time...
(7) You can only score within the D around the goals. Why?

* They also pinched ice hockey's substitution rule - unlimited substitutions made on a rolling basis. And the idea of a surface with low friction to make controlling the ball easier. When asked "How do we make our sport better?", field hockey's rulemakers routinely answer it with "By copying ice hockey, then adding some unnecessary arbitrary restriction (e.g. 8 seconds in the shoot-out) to it."

So don't blame the field hockey referees. They're given a bundle of stupid rules, and rules stolen from other sports that haven't been implemented properly. Field hockey is, to my eyes, a very strange game indeed.

Not a field hockey fan Alex?

Sean Hewitt wrote:Not a field hockey fan Alex?

Ice hockey is a far superior game.

"(1) You can't use the back of the stick. Why not?

So don't blame the field hockey referees. They're given a bundle of stupid rules, and rules stolen from other sports that haven't been implemented properly. Field hockey is, to my eyes, a very strange game indeed."

It's called hockey, as ice-hockey was a copy of hockey.

A British girl did score with the back of the stick and it was allowed (one of my grievances).

An umpire correctly gave a penalty corner against Australia for a series of bad tackles, and it was overturned on appeal by the video umpire, who said there was no offence, when the slow-motion replay shows there should have been a card as well. But Australia are one of the favourites and they were only 1-0 up with 5 minutes to go.

Sometimes lifting the ball was allowed and sometimes not.

I used to umpire hockey, but got fed up with the obnoxious players and clubs, and the poor organisation by the Umpires Association and the hockey governing body (who kept changing the laws every year). So I took up arbiting chess tournaments to get away from all that.

Oh, I've just realised something.

Kevin Thurlow wrote:"(1) You can't use the back of the stick. Why not?

So don't blame the field hockey referees. They're given a bundle of stupid rules, and rules stolen from other sports that haven't been implemented properly. Field hockey is, to my eyes, a very strange game indeed."

It's called hockey, as ice-hockey was a copy of hockey.

I thought hockey was an umbrella term. You've got field hockey, ice hockey, roller hockey, inline hockey, air hockey...

Kevin Thurlow wrote:... and the hockey governing body (who kept changing the laws every year).

Well, FIDE only change the Laws of Chess every four years.

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Given some of the stupid rules in field hockey...

Sounds like Shinty's your game - you can use both sides of the stick, play ambidextrously, score from anywhere. It's even got penalty shoot-outs and a sensible 45 minutes each way.

I think the big difference is the interpretation of what constitutes dangerous play - in hockey, almost everything, in shinty, almost nothing

Alistair Campbell wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Given some of the stupid rules in field hockey...

Sounds like Shinty's your game - you can use both sides of the stick, play ambidextrously, score from anywhere. It's even got penalty shoot-outs and a sensible 45 minutes each way.

I think the big difference is the interpretation of what constitutes dangerous play - in hockey, almost everything, in shinty, almost nothing

These are features in common with ice hockey!

I just searched for "Shinty" on YouTube, and found the 1985 Camanach Cup Final, complete with 1980s STV ident, Rocky intro music, and a bearded Scot introducing it. It does look a better game than field hockey, albeit the surrounds are a bit too amateur; the crowd having to hastily dive out of the way of wayward shots perhaps needs to be thought about...