at the mercy of the arbiter

[Keith Arkell]

Perhaps Tom,but you could also argue that this is about where you ply your trade,as opposed to where you happen to be based. Short and Conquest both made a not insignificant amount of income from UK events last year.Adamd,Lalic and myself play here there and everywhere[take a look at our FIDE histories].
Even a chunk of Mark Hebden's income has come from trips abroad coaching juniors,as well as his International tournaments.
I am not sure that there is anybody who makes a living through playing chess mostly in the UK. Sad but true.

I agree with your description of chessplayers as seen by none-players in America Nigel,and yes your analogy with poker is just about spot on.You gamble a big entry fee against a monster first prize. The point is that particularly in America,but here too to a lesser extent,chess is not looked upon as an art form,where patrons are prepared to pay to watch the artists perform. On the other hand,in eg the French team Championship,the club is a significant part of the town or city's culture,and often the club receives money from the mayor to pay the players fees and the teams expenses.

[Nigel_Davies]

The point is that particularly in America,but here too to a lesser extent,chess is not looked upon as an art form,where patrons are prepared to pay to watch the artists perform. On the other hand,in eg the French team Championship,the club is a significant part of the town or city's culture,and often the club receives money from the mayor to pay the players fees and the teams expenses.

Jeez, if we were to rely on gate receipts we'd really be stuffed! Of course there could be a few takers for Merseyside club games...My only experience of chess being a spectator sport was in the USSR, the only problem there being that some of the spectators were rather better than me!

I'd say that the motivation for sponsoring chess events generally comes people that want to be associated with chess for the good it can do their image, for example it used to be banks and insurance companies. Given the situation there right now (not to mention the hand that one NY 2300 player played in Deutsche Bank's losses) we might need a bit of rebranding. The best chance might be to have chess as a symbol of responsible government so they'll run a few quid off the presses for us..

[Keith Arkell]

No of course there's no chance of paying spectators - it's always been free to watch chess,and more so now that the games are live on the internet.

What I mean by a patron is a benefactor - a kind of ''Patron of the arts''.Someone rich who is prepared to suport chess players or events because he/she admires the art of chess. We see this from time to time in the UK,almost never in the USA,but much more so in eg the rest of Europe. I suppose that Melody Amber event,where the puppets dance to the tune of the patron, is a good example.

[Nigel_Davies]

Yes, patrons are great but not too common. The US actually had one very good one, Louis D Statham who sponsored the Lone Pine tournaments.

I've often felt that it would be nice if chess were to pay its own way in the world. Actually there are many remarkable qualities to the game from both an educational and health standpoint, but these are not being properly showcased right now.

Frankly I believe we should be getting away from the ratings/title circus which belongs to the idea of chess being a 'sport'. It's never going to be much of a sport because we can't get spectators; you need too much expertise to understand why player XYZ resigned against ABC. With snooker it's dead easy to follow the games, plus it's nice and green. That's why it was such a hit on television.

[Sean Hewitt]

With snooker it's dead easy to follow the games, plus it's nice and green. That's why it was such a hit on television.

Ditto Texas Hold'em Poker. A huge world wide hit, but had someone suggested televising a Hi Lo Omaha tournament, things would have been very different!!

Even Bridge is simple to follow for a non-player (hence the Bridge Olympiad being televised) although the intricacies of the bidding and tactics of the actual play are lost to the novice.

[JustinHorton]

It's never going to be much of a sport because we can't get spectators; you need too much expertise to understand why player XYZ resigned against ABC.

I'm far from sure that this is entirely true: one of my particular memories of The Master Game was that it was followed by numbers of people (my classmates, for instance) who either knew no more of chess than the rules, or not even that. Besides, how many people watching a poker tournament on telly understand any of it other than what hand won at the end? (I find TV poker particularly weird because you can go long stretches of time without even having anybody "see" anybody else, so what people are watching for escapes me.)

And then there's the Olympics, where millions will watch sports which they not only do not understand, but which they never previously knew existed.

I'm not glib about this, I understand that chess is different to the other things I've mentioned in some respects and I realise that if it were easy to get chess on TV, somebody would have done it recently. But I think chess has its own fascination and its own qualities and I think part of the problem is that currently it's not considered trendy, commissioning editors won't touch it. But such things can change. I recall when commissioning editors in publishing wouldn't touch football books, because they felt nobody would read them. And now look.

[Jonathan Rogers]

I fully agree with Justin. There were chess sets in my school when I was nine years old (I expect the school paid for them) and many played. When the Master game was showing, each boy would (when playing chess) pretend to "be" someone they had seen on TV. I still distinctly remember one boy indignantly saying "I'm not going to be Hort, Hort's crap!" (Hort finished bottom of his Master Game pool with 1/3, you see.)

Don't suppose that would happen today. But it did happen in the past, and there is no particular reason why it cannot in the future, even if it currently seems hard to find a way to make it happen.

[Matthew Turner]

Jonathan and Justin,
I completely agree with you. If you want something like the Master Game to happen again then you have to remember than Jonathan thought that Hort was c**p and not that Be2 might not have been the most accurate waiting move. I would suggest a five minute game between Ivanchuk and Mortazavi with both players having to down tequila slammers after every 5 moves should draw in the punters.

[Jonathan Rogers]

With Ivanchuk to be tested for excess alcohol immediately after his defeat, of course!

In the other semi-final, Kamsky v Short?.

[Ben Purton]

Id love to do Chess coaching as a job in Schools, but no schools in Reading/Berkshire need/want Chess teaching.

Hence I do Sales & Marketing. I do my Masters also.

Ben

[Keith Arkell]

Yes I think the Master Game worked because there was some nice wit from the characters(such as Julian and Miles),but mostly because the players explained in very simple terms what they were planning/threatening etc,and what they were afraid their opponents were up to;so that somehow the viewer could convince himself that he could follow it.

Also,if the Characters are vivid enough then it doesn't matter what activity they are indulging in becuse the human aspect will draw in the viewers.It was obviously the talk overs which made the programme work so well.

[IM Jack Rudd]

How much would it cost to do a Master Game demonstration tape, and send it in saying "we think the time is right for a resurrection of this series; here's an example of what it would be like"?

[Stewart Reuben]

If you want to get chess back on TV, then a campaign should be launched. People should write in, in their own words. 100 such message to any given stage would do the trick. A pedtition is useless.
A 25 minute high quality programme for boadcasting would probably cost £25,000 for the programme. There would also be the cost for the prize money and so on.
I was told one poker series on channel 5 paid the channel £50,000 to show the programmes they had spent the money on creating.
Stewart Reuben

[James Coleman]

In twenty five minutes pretty much any Jack Rudd game could be covered in its entirety, in real time, with commentary

[Stewart Reuben]

British Blitz Championship. Knockout.
Rate of play all the moves in 5 minutes.
In one programme one game would be shown in real time. There would also be highlights of the day's play. Also explanation of the state of the tournament. This takes 25 minutes.
Commentary can be done live or can be added in afterwards.
Work needs to be done. Split screen technique to show the players' actions plus the true clock times. This has never been done.
James has forgotten that Jack's opponents take thinking time as well. Jack could prepare the bulletin during the game when he got bored.
BMW were prepared for this in the early 1980s. FIDE agreed to our having the rights to the World Blitz Championship. But Channel 4 would not contribute to the pilot nor guarantee to show it once made. BMW lost interest. I was able to revisit this format so rapidly because it was worked out by a Sports Sponsorship company with my help.
Stewart