WORLD RAPID & BLITZ CH - DOHA 2016

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Would people here seriously turn that request down?!

No, but it does show that chess as a broadcast sport is still in its infancy.

Can you imagine major sports acceding to demands like that from broadcasters? The broadcasters can wield a lot of power, but the sign of a mature sport is being able to resist demands like that if they are unreasonable. Maybe in this case, it is not so unreasonable.

[Paolo Casaschi]

By the way - think of the comparative size of the markets.

When NRK broadcast the World Championship match, they had a more than 50% share of the TV audience, and about 750,000 viewers. This isn't quite the World Championship, so the audience will not be so great, but still measurable in the hundreds of thousands.

By contrast, about 20,000 viewers watched the online commentary earlier.

So now NRK, who give your product the largest public exposure out of any media platform - possibly even greater than all platforms combined - want you to fix Magnus to board 1 so that they can broadcast the event and his games specifically - even if it means the leader of the tournament is only on board 2.

Would people here seriously turn that request down?!

You forgot to mention that NRK is paying cash for broadcasting the games on Norwegian tv; instead people watching on the internet do so for free, with a good chunk of those crying out loud when Agon tried to charge a tenner for a chess broadcast.

[Alex Holowczak]

Would people here seriously turn that request down?!

No, but it does show that chess as a broadcast sport is still in its infancy.

Can you imagine major sports acceding to demands like that from broadcasters? The broadcasters can wield a lot of power, but the sign of a mature sport is being able to resist demands like that if they are unreasonable. Maybe in this case, it is not so unreasonable.

Clearly, this isn't an unreasonable case.

Going back to snooker, the BBC demanded that the UK Championship Semi Finals be reduced from 17 frames to 11 to better fit their schedule. So the WPBSA did it. Most of the other events are best of 7 frames now, rather than best of 9 frames, because that's what Eurosport wanted.

The World Grand Prix darts tournament was shortened from best of 11 sets to best of 9 sets at Sky's request; so was a limit to the number of extra legs in the World Matchplay if the match was tied with 1 leg to play.

The ICC have admitted to fixing the draw of major cricket tournaments to ensure as many India v Pakistan games as possible, because that game draws in the biggest audience. Why don't umpires hurry the players up between overs? Because that's when the broadcaster is likely to be on an advertising break, so the ICC don't particularly want the players to be hurried, and thus shorten the possible advertising time.

The NHL, NFL and NBA all have "TV timeouts" built into their games so that the broadcaster can sell advertising. MLB just has long gaps between each half an inning.

Formula One started the Australian and Malaysian Grands Prix at something like 5pm local time and ran the races in dusk, so that there was a chance of the European audience being able to wake up early to watch them - even though that meant starting a race in Malaysia when it was most likely to be a storm. (And there was one, and the race was called at something like half distance.)

Going back, the Rumble in the Jungle was 3am local time, so that it could be broadcast in prime time in the East Coast USA market.

So yes, I can imagine major sports acceding to demands like that from the broadcasters. Just about every sport I can think of has done things the Executives didn't really want to do for sporting reasons for 30-40 years, because the sport is kept alive by the broadcasters, and the people watching the broadcast.

[Roger de Coverly]

Can you imagine major sports acceding to demands like that from broadcasters?

Once upon a time, the English Football League played almost all its matches simultaneously on Saturday afternoons at 3pm. Now they spread them around the weekend. I rather suspect the requirements of worldwide television coverage had something to do with this.

Putting Carlsen on 1 is akin to putting top seeds and British players on the Centre Courts at Wimbledon. Actually it's really "the televised board".

Chess will be reaching maturity as a televised sport when it is required that tournament games be staggered over time as well.

[Alex Holowczak]

Once upon a time, the English Football League played almost all its matches simultaneously on Saturday afternoons at 3pm. Now they spread them around the weekend. I rather suspect the requirements of worldwide television coverage had something to do with this.

It's actually slightly worse than that - there's a Law that says TV isn't allowed to broadcast any game scheduled to start at 3pm on Saturday. Hence the prevalence of Final Score on the BBC and Soccer Saturday on Sky. So if you want to televise football, you have to move the kick-off time.

[JustinHorton]

Just about every sport I can think of has done things the Executives didn't really want to do for sporting reasons for 30-40 years, because the sport is kept alive by the broadcasters, and the people watching the broadcast.

Ah, cobblers. While the money that broadcasts bring in is very often welcome and even vital, it's absolutely not the difference betwen a sport living or dying. This depends on whether people are interested in playing it, and while that's often linked to whether the sport is seen on television, they ain't the same thing at all. All sorts of things are involved in determinging whether people play or watch individual sports (or indeed sport per se),

Moreover there's quite an extent to which the larticar demands of TV deals can be damaging to the future and structure of a sport: its role in cricket, for instance, has been highly controversial, since although by common consent the standard of TV coverage has improved, the fact that it's not on the BBC means kids who previously would have grown up watching it may no longer do so (so it works both ways).

There's a whole range of controversies involving the demands of TV on sport, any if which we could walk through if it helps the discussion, but the idea that you just say "thanks", take the money and do what they want is a silly one. The idea that the existence of a sport depends on doing so is sillier.

[JustinHorton]

Once upon a time, the English Football League played almost all its matches simultaneously on Saturday afternoons at 3pm. Now they spread them around the weekend. I rather suspect the requirements of worldwide television coverage had something to do with this.

Here in Spain, the fixtures in the top division (and to a lesser extent the second) are normally played, as it were, consecutively, starting with a Friday evening game which is live on freeview, resuming at noon on Saturday and continuing on to the Monday night game. Some games do coincide but not many. Another feature is that the kick-off times and even the days on which games are to be played are only decided with a couple of weeks to go. This arrangement is spectacularly unpopular with Spanish football fans.

Putting Carlsen on 1 is akin to putting top seeds and British players on the Centre Courts at Wimbledon. Actually it's really "the televised board".

Well kind of, but in this case it's as if the Centre Court was reserved for Andy Murray in advance for every round at the start of the fortnight, which I think might cause some issues.

I don't particularly have a problem with the Carlsen/Doha arrangement, by the way, though the Board One designation is unhelpful - I guess it can't be helped in the circumstances because the board numbers are fixed?

[Roger de Coverly]

I don't particularly have a problem with the Carlsen/Doha arrangement, by the way, though the Board One designation is unhelpful - I guess it can't be helped in the circumstances because the board numbers are fixed?

At the possible risk of about 10 seconds of confusion, it ought to be possible to renumber the boards so that the board with the television coverage is wherever Carlsen is playing. At a lower level, if organisers want to showcase a particular player or game for DGT coverage, they just have to move the board numbers around. I have this vague memory of the organisers at the British doing exactly this some years back. The idea was that every player got at least one live appearance.

[JustinHorton]

I don't particularly have a problem with the Carlsen/Doha arrangement, by the way, though the Board One designation is unhelpful - I guess it can't be helped in the circumstances because the board numbers are fixed?

At the possible risk of about 10 seconds of confusion, it ought to be possible to renumber the boards so that the board with the television coverage is wherever Carlsen is playing.

Maybe - I just wondered whether there would be technical issues that I don't know about and wouldn't understand if I did.

[Ian Thompson]

I don't particularly have a problem with the Carlsen/Doha arrangement, by the way, though the Board One designation is unhelpful - I guess it can't be helped in the circumstances because the board numbers are fixed?

It could easily have been fixed (although I don't think there's anything that needed fixing) - the board numbers in the row with cameras pointing at them could have been reversed from what they actually are, so he'd have been on fixed board number 6, I think.

[Alex Holowczak]

While the money that broadcasts bring in is very often welcome and even vital, it's absolutely not the difference betwen a sport living or dying.

I didn't say that it was. It's not the difference between chess living or dying, either.

This depends on whether people are interested in playing it, and while that's often linked to whether the sport is seen on television, they ain't the same thing at all. All sorts of things are involved in determinging whether people play or watch individual sports (or indeed sport per se),

Moreover there's quite an extent to which the larticar demands of TV deals can be damaging to the future and structure of a sport: its role in cricket, for instance, has been highly controversial, since although by common consent the standard of TV coverage has improved, the fact that it's not on the BBC means kids who previously would have grown up watching it may no longer do so (so it works both ways).

I'm probably one of the few people who disagree with the people who think the lack of cricket on terrestrial TV is affecting anything. For starters, the England team is more successful than it was in the 1990s and early 2000s. While it's almost certainly true that there is less recreational cricket now than there once was, according to the FA, RFU and ECF there's also less recreational football, rugby and chess - to name three activities - since the 1990s. I don't think the sport not being on TV is linked to this; I think it is more to do with a change in British culture that means people aren't joining clubs in all sports in the last 20 years. I think this is more likely to be because of the increased demands on both children preventing their involvement, and adults who have less time to volunteer to administer things.

However, with cricket this was simply a change of broadcaster; Sky didn't say Tests needed to have 4 days, or they needed to start at 10am, for example.

Besides, pretty much every sport is televised on pay-TV these days, terrestrial TV can't compete with their spending power. Wimbledon will probably about the only big annual sporting event left on terrestrial TV by 2020, with Formula One exclusively on Sky, The Open going to Sky, and probably the Six Nations - which only narrowly stayed on terrestrial TV in the last negotiations after the BBC and ITV put a joint bid in when they worked out they'd lose to Sky. Sky already broadcast the England Autumn Internationals. Even the sports that were on terrestrial have gone over to Sky over the years, because on balance they think the money from Sky will outweigh the benefits of terrestrial TV. But chess only has one TV broadcaster, so that argument doesn't apply.

There's a whole range of controversies involving the demands of TV on sport, any if which we could walk through if it helps the discussion, but the idea that you just say "thanks", take the money and do what they want is a silly one. The idea that the existence of a sport depends on doing so is sillier.

Again, I didn't say (or intend to convey) that it did. I'm saying if the largest broadcaster asks you to do something, you do it - I can't believe a broadcaster would ask something that's completely silly, because both the broadcaster and the organisers are going to be rational people, and even if they have different things they want to get out of the event, they both need the event to be a success to achieve those aims.

[JustinHorton]

While the money that broadcasts bring in is very often welcome and even vital, it's absolutely not the difference betwen a sport living or dying.

I didn't say that it was.

What does "kept alive" mean then?

I'm saying if the largest broadcaster asks you to do something, you do it - I can't believe a broadcaster would ask something that's completely silly

Well, let's for instance cite rugby league, where the broadcaster demanded that a number of club mergers take place. The clubs and their fans balked at this, quite rightly, and the plan was abandoned. It was silly and unnecessary and because people didn't take any notice of the absurd contentions that I quote above, several great rugby league clubs exist and thrive to this day,

"If X says something you do it" is rubbish. You think about it, because you're thinking people, and you negotiate, because you have something of value to negotiate about.

[John Moore]

Meanwhile back at the chess - if anyone else is interested, David Howell has beaten Dubov to move to 7/11. Very impressive. Oh and Magnus, showing the pressure of being on board 1 in every round, lost to Korobov with White in 23 moves.

[JustinHorton]

Could he still win from there, if he won the last four?

[LawrenceCooper]

Meanwhile back at the chess - if anyone else is interested, David Howell has beaten Dubov to move to 7/11. Very impressive. Oh and Magnus, showing the pressure of being on board 1 in every round, lost to Korobov with White in 23 moves.

From a rather good position too from the opening