at the mercy of the arbiter

[John Upham]

I'll repost an item (of mine) from 2007 under "Chess on TV".....

Having watched the various late night poker TV shows, I wonder if late night chess might be of interest?

Does late night poker appeal to those who might like to take up poker but haven't yet? Maybe Stewart Rueben could comment authoritatively on this?

Provided it was tightly edited and presented (a Steve Davis / Andrew Martin double act) then chess could work provided that :

The games were Blitz or bullet with a commentary.

There was some focus on the individual players and that those chosen were socially acceptable to Joe Public.

There was interactive betting functionality on the blitz games

There was a beginners feature of around 5 minutes

There was a glamour element maybe with Kostenuik comparing the show.

Perhaps a feature on a recent exotically located tournament by Judith Chalmers (!)

In short, with enough variety and not too much technical chess (nothing on Q vs R endings for example) it could be made to work.

John

[Matt Harrison]

I happen to know that if a good format/idea could be pitched at the BBC there is a potential appetite in BBC Sport for a programme. It helps them defend their spending of hundreds of millions on football/F1/rugby/golf if they can also say that they are supporting minority interests like chess. It's unlikely they could find broadcasting time on one of the main channels for it, but remember they could use BBCi or their online presence to show it. The trick will be to connect it with their other themes (like youth and London 2012) - and then recognising that they won't put up a big budget for it.

[E Michael White]

If you want something like the Master Game to happen again .....

For reality chess TV it would be necessary to arrange for a mobile phone to go off during the game and it would add interest to have the arbiters thought process as commentary. It might go:-

1. Now let me see is a GM playing ?
2. How do I avoid defaulting him ?
3. Is there any ECF guidance on this matter ? - er no
4. I know the new rules say "If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game." and I have to default him.
5. Thats the answer! : It beeped and the case vibrated. Technically it emitted more than one sound - how brilliant is that ?
6. Play on, no default ! Two minute penalty for a trivial claim.

[Sean Hewitt]

If you want something like the Master Game to happen again .....

For reality chess TV it would be necessary to arrange for a mobile phone to go off during the game and it would add interest to have the arbiters thought process as commentary. It might go:-

1. Now let me see is a GM playing ?
2. How do I avoid defaulting him ?
3. Is there any ECF guidance on this matter ? - er no
4. I know the new rules say "If any such device produces a sound, the player shall lose the game." and I have to default him.
5. Thats the answer! : It beeped and the case vibrated. Technically it emitted more than one sound - how brilliant is that ?
6. Play on, no default ! Two minute penalty for a trivial claim.

That's good Michael, but its not quite right. You missed out the two most important thoughts - What time am I having dinner, and where am I having dinner?!!

[Stewart Reuben]

When chess was on TV, it had a substantial effect on the numbers playing and taking the game seriously.
Poker has taken off for two reasons. Playing on the internet and viewing the game on TV. Playing on the internet has not popularised over the board chess.

You have forgotten the main thoughts of the arbiter. It is, of course, how much am I being paid?

If there really is a possibility on the minority BBC channels, let us have more concrete thoughts and who to contact. If we have to produce a pilot at our own cost, so be it.
Another format would be consultation games. They would have to be heavily edited.
Stewart

[Matt Harrison]

I shall have a conversation with my contact at the BBC and see what needs to be done to get their interest.

[Greg Breed]

Another format would be consultation games. They would have to be heavily edited.

I think the best format would be to cover a proper GM level game at proper time controls. The video coverage of the game would be clipped to show just the moves or anything interesting happening. A commentator would explain moves and reasons behind them.
Some historical games could be thrown in.
Some blitz and lightning games could also be shown just for fun.
Maybe coverage of a simul or blindfold chess.
Some tournament games.
The list is endless...

Naturally, the quality of a programme lies not only in the content but also in the way it is edited so as to hold the attention of the viewer.

[Keith Arkell]

Hi Greg,

1st one yes definitely; historic games - what's the point they are rubbish by todays standards. Blitz and lightning -yes great entertainment.Take a look at any blitz stuff on u tube.It's all grear fun to watch,and how much more fun if it is accompanied with quality commentary!

[Matt Mackenzie]

Historic games are "rubbish" by today's standards?

Really?? *All* of them???

[Keith Arkell]

Some pretty patterns I guess,but resistance was usualy zero. The problem was that the best players were about 200 strength and the opponents were somewhere between beginner strength and average club player by todays standard ( said he trying to provoke a whole new debate about the relative strength of the old ''masters'' compared to todays players)

[Neill Cooper]

It would depend on what you meant by 'historic games'.
I think it could include anything from the 20th centuary - e.g. Fischer - Spassky

[Matt Mackenzie]

Well yes, Keith. Alekhine, Lasker, Capa "200 BCF strength"? Really??

I am well aware that the GENERAL standard of play back then was lower - John Nunn has written some good stuff proving *that* point pretty conclusively. I still think, however, that if we could somehow magic up the above via a time machine (plus maybe a crash course in modern opening theory, of course ) they - and maybe a few others of their time too? - could easily hold their own with the best today has to offer........

[Sean Hewitt]

Well yes, Keith. Alekhine, Lasker, Capa "200 BCF strength"? Really??

I am well aware that the GENERAL standard of play back then was lower - John Nunn has written some good stuff proving *that* point pretty conclusively. I still think, however, that if we could somehow magic up the above via a time machine (plus maybe a crash course in modern opening theory, of course ) they - and maybe a few others of their time too? - could easily hold their own with the best today has to offer........

If I had a time machine, I could think of much better uses than dragging 19th century chess players to the present day and teaching them opening theory!!

[Keith Arkell]

I don't think it's only opening theory which continues to evolve with each generation.I think that the understanding of how to play every kind of position improves with time,at all grading levels.
This in no way detracts from the achievements of the earlier pioneers of the game.Lots of people know how to build aroplanes today,and students can absorb all there is to know about relativity,but that doesn't mean that there wasn't something special about the Wright Brothers or Einstein!
However,if you had to ELO rate the quality of the Wright Brother's aeroplanes then they might only be 2200 compared to todays 2700 rated jumbo jets.

Furthermore you can't say with total confidence that,were you to bring the brothers back today,to this very different environment,and update their education,they would again be designing the best aircraft. Neither would Roger Bannister speed up and again be the best miler,or Rod Laver compete
with Nadal if you gave him a 2009 Racket - well, not Fred Perry anyway.

Nobody can dispute that the great names from the past were highly talented,but chess inevitably evolves,develops,progresses continually,as of course it has to,as we climb on the shoulders of each previous generation and add to the sum total of knowledge and understanding.

Perhaps somone can help me with this one? How many chess players were there on the planet in eg the days of Capablanca? And how many serious as opposed to casual players were there? I suspect that there was a considerably smaller number in both categories than there are today,and so perhaps being the most talented player in the World in 1926 may numerically be about the equivalence of being the most talented player in Australasia today. The game that Alekhine was talented at in 1930 was so underdeveloped that it bears little resemblance to the sophistigated game that Topalov and Anand play today,so much so that even if you gave Alekhine 10 years to grasp all the modern concepts,it may in any case be beyond him to calculate as well as Topalov and Anand,who have forged their way to the top in a climate in which more than a million players strive hard to play as well as they can.
Surely nobody can deny that,back then,outside the top few players,the standards fell away very quickly. The standard in depth today is phenomenal by comparrison. Ok I will cede the point that Capablanca and Alekhine were a fair bit stronger that 2200 even by today's standard of measurement,but I suspect that,by the same measurements,the world number 100 today and in 1930 would rate at something like ELO 2635 : ELO 2050.

And this leads me to my final point: I am constantly reading about ''ratings inflation''. I guess it can be proved mathematically that there is a bit of inflation in the system - eg 0.5 is always rounded up,stronger players benefit from the 350 point rule,unrated players come and go thus feeding points into the system,etc etc... There is however no inbuilt mechanism in the rating system to recognise the overall rising standard of play throughout the world.

Let me explain what I mean by this: Imagine that the entire chess world consisted of 10 talented ambitious young players who each had a rating of 1800.Month in month out they would play tournaments against themselves,and work out their new ratings after each tournament.A player's rating would always be rounded up or down to the nearest 10 points,but If a player's rating came to exactly eg 1845 then it would be rounded up to 1850.Ten years went by until they had played about 100 tournaments together.The average rating of the players had crept up to 1850.People began whingeing about ratings inflation,and how 1900 didn't mean what it used to mean. Mathematically this is quite correct of course, but after fiercely competing together for 10 years they had EACH GAINED an average of 400 POINTS in playing strength! This invisible truth didn't show in their ratings of course.

This is how I see ''ratings inflation'' in the context of the average overall rising standard of play throughout the chess world,aided by computers,internet chess,easy access to new and old information,growing numbers of active players(eg from the old Soviet Union and China) and so on.

[Leonard Barden]

Keith seems to be unaware of the much respected Jeff Sonas www.chessmetrics.com site, whose historical ratings include monthly lists dating back over 100 years.

Reading Keith's unsupported claim that the world No 100 in 1930 must have been around Fide 2050, I consulted Sonas's list for April 1930 and found No 100 was actually rated 2446. In 84th place was TH Tylor at 2469 and in 95th Imre Konig at 2452, both of whom I played in their later years when they were past their best but still in my opinion 2350-2400.

One could argue that Sonas may overestimate the bottom of the 1930s group by say 50-100 points, but this is offset by the fact that 1930s list contained hardly anvbody from the then USSR. As was shown in the mid-1930s when Capablanca and Flohr had a terrible time in simuls in Moscow (compare the GM simuls of the 1970s in which Keith himself played which revealed the strength of unknown English juniors) there would have been plenty of IM strength Russians in 1930 with no measurable competitive opportunities.

Such players only started to come on to the international radar after 1945, while of course in the last 20 years the number of such players, who effectively dominate current in-depth ranking lists, has expanded hugely. I think the East Europeans were always there in numbers, even back in 1930, though barred from international chess.

It is really a pity that Keith didn't do any research before putting forward these exaggerated claims.