Chess is one of the most popular games / sports in the world. There are over 160 member federations under FIDE. There are hundreds of millions of people playing chess worldwide. So the question is:
– How come chess is not a more commercially viable game / sport?
– How come chess is not as big as it could be with the media?
Some said that chess could not be on TV because it is boring. Is it really more exciting to watch poker, billiards, fishing or the spelling bees? Both poker and billiards are heavily edited. I do not know about the spelling bees.
I spoke to dozens of high-level professional Marketing / PR in Fortune 500 companies as well as major Marketing / PR firms about this issue. Most of them gave me a similar answer. They said that the #1 problem of chess is not the game in itself. They said that chess as a game is very marketable from multiple angles. (These are not chess people. They are Marketing and PR people for large corporations, athletes, other sports and in entertainment, etc.)
The #1 problem, they said, is ….
What do you think are the problems?
The issue is not that it’s boring, but that it can’t be related to.
Things that are succesful on TV are generally activities that make viewers say, “Hey they aren’t all that. I could do better!”
I like to call this “The Game Show Effect”. Game shows are generally boring, but are popular because people can relate to them. Look at Deal or No Deal for example. How intriguing can opening briefcases be?
People don’t think they could ever be good at chess. Someone can pick up a pool stick or poker cards and start getting results quickly. People realize that it takes much effort to make equal advancements in chess.
VERY small number of people in US who know how to play, not to speak about those who know how to play well.
Jerry, excellent observation!
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
Actually, I thought it might be a matter of chess generally being seen as ‘nerdy’ and therefore people would want to stay away from it – who wants to be a nerd?
I’d be interested to hear what marketing folks believe is the #1 issue…will this be revealed?
Nice cliff hanger Susan!
Jerry, the Deal or No Deal is different. The only reason people watch the Deal or No Deal show is because one home viewer each show will win $10,000 for practically nothing.
I think it is not just about the actual game of chess but if our sport had some `colorful` characters and side stories then it could create some buzz. Also what could help is very energetic commentators such as Maurice Ashley or Yasser Seirawan to make it fun to liten to chess analysis.
I think sometimes its better to ask non-chess players these questions. But since that’s difficult, I will turn it around.
Think of something that has a rich culture, that you don’t partake in, nor watch, and ask yourself, “What would make me watch that?”
I’ll start off.
I’m thinking of bridge. What would make me watch bridge on TV? I think that bridge would have to have money involved. Bridge would have to be accesible to me to play at Buffolo Wild Wings on the NTN game box, or on a big Internet site. There would have to be stats involved, like how many bridge tournaments has this person won in row? I want to see underdogs win and arogant people lose. I would like to see national bridge events be in cool locations. I want to see rivalries between players, cities, or even countries.
Now can we apply any of these thoughts to chess?
when there is undersanding there will be interest–45 million players USA—when they understand it will be a wave of opportunity–the pieces come alive 🙂
I do not agree with the “chess is too difficult to understand or play” line of thinking. Because the reality is that at the elite level, sports like footbal, soccer, basketball, golf, tennis, etc. are also very difficult to understand and master.
Those sports have achieved commercial success because they have focused on promoting and highlighting the drama of their competitions, and the human-interest stories of the people involved in the game.
An example – golf is a very difficult game to master. How many spectators, in-person or via TV, really understand iron selection or green reading? And TV broadcasts are heavily edited to create a higher level of drama than would otherwise exist. The result is that millions of people are interested enough in pro golf to attract sponsors who flow significant money into the sport, and into the pockets of the top players.
I think more people know how to play than we think. I’m not sure that’s the issue. I can agree that most don’t know how to play well. I mean, I’m college educated, have played for over 3 years now seriously, and still am under 1200. It goes to show that intelligence has nothing to do with how good someone can become. I think it’s a double edged sword though. People who pride themsleves as being studious can totally fail at chess, but also those who didn’t get a 4.0 gpa at Harvard have hope of dominating.
I think this may also raise another point. All the chess news on Susan’s blog is broken into two categories.
The first is scholastics. We find that scholastic chess is booming.
The second is the elite chess players, and we find that chess amongst ‘nerds’ is booming.
Where are the stories and articles about people who just play to play? They are few and far between.
One of the reasons I got into chess was Jennifer Shahade. Up until 3 years ago I thought that chess was all about stuffy, eccentric, prodigies like Bobby Fischer. I honestly didn’t even know people under Fischer’s level even played in tournaments!
Jennifer Shahade showed me that chess was more than brain, it was also art, and even simple good old fashioned fun.
I don’t know what the “marketers” think the major problem is. I think it is a question of how to produce a chess show for television. I think it would have to feature an entertaining and informative host like Yasser Seirawan or yourself. It would need to be pre-produced segments, not live. Live chess doesn’t translate to television, but a highlight show would. The show topics are practically limitless. One week you could analyze a game or a key point in a game from some tournament. If the players are available to analyze or participate in the show so much the better. You would need to shoot the chessboard and then dissolve to computer graphics of Fritz or Chessbase to explain key points. The open should be flashy like a sports open, but dignified like a golf open or a champions league open with a powerful music bed. Each week you could choose something to profile, a player, a tactic a game etc… With the right host and production value the show might work. You could also have an e-mail us your questions segment where younger or more inexperienced player could ask questions and experts could answer. If you produced an impressive demo tape, you might get a response.
Human-interest stories is another good point. When Mario Franchetti won the Indy 500 last weekend, it was a story to remember because his wife is Ashley Judd. My question is, can TV producers dig up similar tidbits about top chess players – things that the general public can relate with? If so, that would be a good step in the right direction.
“If the person watching the TV could fully understand what was happening in the game, they won’t be watching, they’d be playing.”
I forget who told me that, but I believe it to be the single truest reason why chess just doesn’t work for TV. That being said, I do believe that it can be done.
Many times I’ve seen a crowd gathered around two people playing in a public area. Especially with two people playing blitz. Non-chess players are willing to watch a game if it’s all said and done in just a matter of minutes. While Blitz might not be the best chess ever played, it is exciting to a non-chess player. So if a tournament were to be televised, I would think that a quick, rapid, or blitz tournament would be best.
Secondly, those poker tournaments are not all that exciting on their own either. They are taped and edited to be watchable and exciting for the TV audience. The same can be done for a chess tournament. Get the video one weekend; pick the exciting moments, positions, and games; throw in some commentary or side stories; broadcast it the next weekend. I see no reason why it has to be a live match to be interesting.
– Enrique
I think it’s not just a question of being able to DO it as well as the pros . . . but also of being able to comprehend on more than a VERY superficial level what we see the pros doing.
Golfers may not be as good as Tiger Woods at iron selection or green reading, but they can often understand what he did AFTER they see him do it. Fans may not be able to design an intricate football (American) offense or read the defense or throw passes as well as Peyton Manning, but they can see how he avoided the pass rush and found the open receiver. I’m not a very good poker player, but I know that a full house beats two pairs.
I don’t understand chess anywhere near as well as the titled players and can’t anticipate or come up with the same moves . . . but I CAN understand (at least in part) what they’re trying to do AFTER I see it. I can see the broad outlines and themes, what the players may have to watch out for, the elementary tactics, etc. That’s enough to enjoy watching their games.
But most of the potential audience of a chess event may not understand much that is more sophisticated than the mate-in-one Kramnik missed in the computer match.
Doesn’t mean that chess can’t be marketed to an audience (as opposed to just a sponsor). Just that it isn’t as easy as for poker, billiards, football, soccer, basketball, bowling, etc.
Bob
Drama sells. And drama is about human interest. It is as simple as that.
I was fascinated by the Spelling Bee Competition because of the drama – not because I knew how to spell “Bewusstseinslage” and some kid didn’t.
Plus, I didn’t watch it because I want to spell better.
Have you seen the barbeque championship on tv? or Iron Chef? I can barely microwave but I find those entertaining – filled with human interest.
For chess to be “commercial” people have to realize that game of chess is much more than about the game on the board. If an audience can get appreciate the players themselves, their stories, the training, the disappointments, the joy, the frustration, then it can be big.
It is about drama. Drama comes from people not tense R+N+2P vs. R+2B endgames!
This is an interesting topic. I have two points to make.
First of all, many chess players don’t want to see the game changed and manipulated for the purpose of creating commercial success. I’d say most chess players are happy with having the most important tournaments be decided with long time controls, a format that doesn’t lend itself well to television and commercial rights. In other words, I think many chess players don’t want to see the game pre-packaged and miniaturized into bite-size proportions to bring the immediate gratification and addiction effects that would make it ideal for TV programming.
My second point is that chess can’t be enjoyed without a good deal of mental exertion, even for experienced players. I would consider myself a fairly experienced player (around 1700 USCF), but I don’t particularly enjoy watching a blitz game if I can’t take time to analyze what’s going on. We want chess to become a revenue-generating sport and distraction, but I would rather relax watching a football game than by subjecting myself to the travail of chess analysis. Without the mental stimulation required by strategic and tactical analysis, chess I think is just a dull game, duller than a colorful board game like Monopoly or Pictionary.
As people have suggested above, chess can become more marketable without changing the core values by which most chess players stand if we can create contemporary chess heroes to which people can relate. Chess will become more marketable when you can be a chess fan without being a chess player.
I think it’s probably because companies don’t want to be associated with a sport that could damage their reputations and there are too many stories about corruption, toiletgate etc etc
Who wan’t to sponsor a world championship and see the word’s toiletgate next to their name?
Chess is very marketable for companies that want to project an image of strategic thinking, clear analytical thought etc
We need to clean up the sport and then the champions will be easily marketable
Larry, UK
This question is too easy. NO doubt about the answer.
The #1 problem, they said, is ….
The image chess players project to the public…….
How about a tv program where kids play chess. Parents and kids will relate to that. This way the kids can blunder simple moves and the audience will project they can do better.
Or have kids play adults who lose to the kids. haha.
You get a lot of stories on this blog about real young chess players who are champions in 3 rd grade lets say. Well lets get some 3rd grade kids playing on TV.
The idea is to get people playing who do NOT know how to play so they do not play well. The commentator shows the simple mistakes and the audience thinks they would not blunder like that.
Imagine some 3rd grader has a mate in one opportunity. The audience hangs there and the kid makes the wrong move. The audience knew the right move. The commentator told them. But the kid missed it.
This should take some of the nerdiness out of it. Instead of showing the few elite that no one can beat. Show the beginners that everyone can beat.
One can build drama into the game by watching the computer evaluation of the position. This will allow the audience to feel superior and know the best move. Then the drama is finding out if the player makes the move or not.
Another thing TV seems to like is a lot of emotion surrounding the win or loss. In chess the end of the game is calm. No excitement at the end. The two players shake hands and it is over. TV likes the football dance and the hands pumping up and down when they win. The super dejection of the losers. The wild out of control emotions of the fans. TV feeds off that emotional ending. The fans go home after the Super Bowl and that emotion lasts for days and days.
Then the fans talk about the home run, the great catch of the ball etc. That kind of talk is not so easy in chess. When people say did you see that move 33. f4 and black responded with 33….f5 there is just no excitement. So the ability to verbally relive the game is not so easy.
But Susan, I know you are going to get a successful TV program going. Just keep working at it. I have total faith in you.
What about a sitcom about a chess player?
I agree with Jerry. You should put Jerry on your team as an advisor.
Fabio
sitcom won’t work because it will be filled with stereotypes
the real story will be a reality tv show with someone real (paging Mr. Nakamura!) he has it all: child prodigy, now going to college, some big successes, some disappointing losses, independent thinker, blitz god…
Marketing Chess is HARDER in a lot of respects:
Golf… the ball goes in the hole with few strokes as possible.
Baseball… people go around the bases.
Hockey… puck goes in the net.
Tennis… ball goes past the other player.
Football… Ball goes across the goal line.
Poker… Three Aces beat two Aces
Pool… Ball goes in the pocket.
Chess… after four hours the king is checkmated or the game is drawn. Furthermore, throughout the game the contest is evaluated on the basis of MATERIAL, POSITION and TEMPO. After a few years of study one just may be able to comprehend whether Kramnik or Topalov is winning a game before it is actually over.
I hate to say it, but I think Danailov was correct. Without “toilet gate” the World Chess Championship would have been a non-event as far as the media is concerned. The Cold War rivalry also fueled the Fischer-Spassky World Championship: the lone Americam against the entire Soviet Chess Machine.
Chess always seems to do better when it is selling a peripheral story, as opposed to Kasparov’s brilliant novelties in the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian Defense.
Given this observation, peripheral stories (about players and rivalries) and educational benefits seem to be crucial to marketing rather than the game itself.
IMHO
Why Susan Polgar Blog and Chessbase are the most popular internet sites?
How many chessgames you can view there? How many analysis are there there? Is this the main reason everyone is accesing them everyday? NO…
People that are no experts are more interested as some of you already said about human stories, conflicts between players, blunders, FIDE errors, etc. etc.
I agree with all that say that the “show of chess” is related to TELLING STORIES ABOUT CHESS OF ANYKIND, and when players, organizers, sponsors, etc. all undertand this…. Chess will be very popular…
I have never ever bought a book or a newspapare or a magazine, full of chessgames, variantes and so on, only the ones that tell stories about de incidents sourrounding the chess events…
>>
I do not agree with the “chess is too difficult to understand or play” line of thinking. Because the reality is that at the elite level, sports like footbal, soccer, basketball, golf, tennis, etc. are also very difficult to understand and master.
>>
“Understand” and “master” are two different things. I don’t have to be able to draw a straight line myself to be able to appreciate a painting. A person in a wheelchair can still appreciate a running back. But your ability to appreciate chess is directly related to your ability to play it.
You can tell when baseball is being played well without being able to play it well yourself, but not so with chess. Now, really good colour commentators can help bridge the gap a bit, but some gap will remain.
I believe that in the USA the number one problem is that chess has a stigma attached to it as a game for geeks, nerds and the super smart. The type of person that the average American does not want to be associated with or have other people thinking they are.
This is a sad result from 50 years of TV and movies in the USA selling the idea of always being young, carefree, fun seeking, money seeking, sexy and irresponsible as a cool thing and the type of person everyone should aspire to be.
Chess does not fit into this concept of “La Dolce Vida”.
————————
Do you want to put chess on TV to provide entertainment to the masses, to fill a need for people who already play chess or to attract people to start playing chess? The way chess for TV is structured depends on the answer.
For Entertainment get sexy, young, cool people playing blitz chess in a knockout format and winning lots of $ and prizes. Make more chess movies or serial TV show such as “Kings of New York” and of course include a romantic subplot. The “Numbers” TV show this year attracted a lot of viewers and it was about geek type mathematicians.
For those who already play put on tutorials,edited tournament replays, and talk shows.
To attract new chess players and change the stigma is much harder.
People unfamiliar with the game need to have a lot of explanation of the rules and fundamental principles of how to play. This requires that complimentary shows must be broadcast. One that is a tutorial show such as a food show, or how to draw/paint show, or golf swing fundamentals show. The other that shows the fun of the game. This show could be like “Guess the Move” or Pandolfini’s Solitaire Chess with explanation being given by some entertaining personality. Celebrity Chess would be good (people relate here) and again with explanation of moves. Sex Sells – so show edited games between high rated young, attractive women (and men) chess players with accompanying biography, human interest slants.
Anyhow a few ideas – Susan, we’re counting on you to find the right formula for popularizing our Sport in this intellectual hinterland called the USA.
Rich in Phoenix
there are no good spokes figures for the sport of chess. This is my guess, for what the marketing professionals declared.
A few years back National Public TV did a series with Bill Moyers on Joseph Campbell and the Power of the Myth. These 6 hours of TV are available at many libraries across the country.
Watch the TV series and understand that Joseph Campbell is talking about what captivates people. The mythical story of the hero.
Now George Lucas met Joe Campbell before the series and Campbell had George base his Star Wars on the ideas presented in the book THE POWER OF THE MYTH.
This is much more powerful than most people realize. Just apply the book to chess and you are pretty much guaranteed success.
Now I go back and think about it. Fischer’s story is the same as the power of the myth and of star wars. Bobby was the hero against the evil empire and he went out into the unknown of Iceland and he won and came back the hero of the myth able to tell the story of what happened in the forbidden land against the evil empire.
How can we do this. well.
we might have the dark forces cheating at the game. The hero can play fair and square but he has problems. Somehow the good must triumph over the evil.
The beginning battle can be fierce and unfair. Bobby lost the first 2 games. He lost the first game. the second he forfit. OMG. the evil empire was winning. Surely we are all doomed to loose. But he came back and won because he was the hero.
If you need some games you might look at the kramnik leko game of Marshall gambit in their match. Leko was losing horribly or so the computers said. But Leko saw farther and suddenly he was winning. A very good hero game.
I want to ask a question that may be relevant here. Why is chess so popular on a national level, in countries like India, Bulgaria, Chile, and Armenia ( just mentioning a few countries but there are more), and in the U.S it kind of refuses to take the next step or even slides backwards ? I have some heretical thoughts of my own but I am holding them back at the moment. What do you people out there think?
I’m detecting a lot of arrogance in some of these posts. Perhaps that’s the reason.
>>
Now I go back and think about it. Fischer’s story is the same as the power of the myth and of star wars. Bobby was the hero against the evil empire and he went out into the unknown of Iceland and he won and came back the hero of the myth able to tell the story of what happened in the forbidden land against the evil empire.
>>
That’s the way it should have played out, but it was spoiled somewhat by the fact that Spassky personally behaved so much more graciously and sportingly than Fischer did. If Spassky had behaved like Fischer and vice versa, then Fischer’s victory would have been sweet indeed.
>>
The beginning battle can be fierce and unfair. Bobby lost the first 2 games. He lost the first game. the second he forfit. OMG. the evil empire was winning.
>>
Actually, Fischer forfeited the first game too. Spassky gave him that game back in exchange for a written apology.
>>
Surely we are all doomed to loose. But he came back and won because he was the hero.
>>
Yes, but *why* was he the hero? Really, because he was one guy going up against
>>
If you need some games you might look at the kramnik leko game of Marshall gambit in their match. Leko was losing horribly or so the computers said. But Leko saw farther and suddenly he was winning. A very good hero game.
>>
If you want to look at individual games, then almost the reverse is the case for most of 1872. If you look at the big picture (Fischer vs. The Soviet Chess Machine), then Fischer is the hero. If you look at the little picture (each individual game), then it’s almost the opposite. Throughout the match, Spassky is Saint George fighting desperately against the Dragon, and usually coming up short in a Greek Tragedy kind of way. Blundering back the pawn in Game 14, pitching away the draw at the last minute in Game 13, et cetera.
Fighting the impossible battle is what makes something heroic. That’s why in the big picture, Fischer is the heroic one, and in the little picture, Spassky is. Ask yourself, what are the two most famous moves from that match? Bxh2 and Nb1. I don’t even have to tell you any more than that, you know immediately what I’m talking about. They’re both, not coincidentally, from games where Spassky actually beat the unbeatable foe.
Sure there are lots of players. But, the central problem is that most people don’t know how to play.
By way of comparison, do you really need to know the rules in order to understand enough about golf, football, cricket, tennis or bingo to have fun. In other words, only in chess do you NEED to understand the rules.
Everything is market driven.
The other sports’ advantage over chess is that they are violent. For some strange reason, people like to watch violent stuff.
This is a very good post. I believe a lot of chessplayers wish to see chess as a sport/game on TV someday.
There may be many problems, but if these are identifiable problems, then perhaps the solutions are not too far away. And it looks like many of your blog readers are ready to contribute solutions.
“We are chessplayers we are good at thinking and coming out with solutions!” 🙂
I think it’s not a bad idea to start a section/forum listing out problems and let the community help, with the final goal (checkmate) being successfully getting a sponsor for a chess TV channel. Everyone will have a piece of glory!
Lots of great comments! One more point to bring into the discussion. Marketing and promotion are trying to attract interest. Chess like some games and sports are lots of fun to play but the non-fan may have a tough time following it as a spectator. Poker is currently quite popular; the money and gambling has something to do with it but nearly everyone agreed that televising the hole cards made it possible for the viewers to understand what is happening. For chess to work as a spectator sport for the large mass of casual fans, it will need something like that to help the viewer understand what is happening.
The biggest problem that faces the marketing folks is probably that many people within organized chess don’t really think anything is wrong in their current way of doing things. They gripe about a lack of sponsorship and money but won’t entertain for a moment that some of the reason why there isn’t any money or sponsorship lies within. As the comic strip Pogo once noted, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
A little of topic, but has anyone toyed with the idea of having a “Hollywood” celebrity chess tournament. I am sure you could find enough celebrities who can play (ihave heard Bono & Madonna play).
And I think that if the prize fund was to go to the charity of the winners choosing you could get them involved. This would defeinately get some major publicity.
>>By way of comparison, do you really need to know the rules in order to understand enough about golf, football, cricket, tennis or bingo to have fun. In other words, only in chess do you NEED to understand the rules.>>
Look how many people watch soccer without knowning what offsides means.
In Chile, there is a GM (Ivan Morovic) who interview politics and other prominent people playing chess. At the same time he explain what is the best move and why. He teaches also some rules of the game, so everyone who is whatching the interview can learn chess easily. By the way, some of them are really good.
TV Format:
Have 2 celebrities, they move by selecting from a list of Fritz generated moves, moves that range from good-to-best.
Have 2 announcers, each as an advocate for either White or Black. Advocate one-sidely (and a bit theatrically) argues/debates that his celebrity is winning.
GeneM
I will state what I think most people think but are afraid to articulate: the U.S. is a culture of stupidity. Take the “hip hop chess” story on the USCf website. Are you freaking kidding me?!?! Why try to drag chess into such garbage? One of the great appeals of chess is that it takes participants far way from that kind of thing. It is pointless to make chess something that it is not, nor will ever be…a commercially viable option to a nation of idiots.
Hmmmm – let’s see. Josh Waitzkin, who is both a chess IM, and a martial arts champion, participated in the chess hip-hop summitt. And your condemning hip-hop culture in general, for some unstated reasons, demonstrates to me where the real lack of thinking lies. I applaud the holding of the summitt, and the motives of those who organized it. And I agree with their premise, that embracing chess and its concepts of critical thinking, responsibility for your actions, sportmanship, goal setting, etc. is a good thing for our young people to do.