I HOPE SO. I play that all the time
@Amanda_Nunes
The poker comparison doesn’t fit: the prize money comes from entry fees of a field of 5-10k players and not sponsors. Poker is less decisive because often times (especially late stages of a tournament) the chips wander in with equity for both sides and luck determines the winner unlike in chess. Poker is a game of missing information, chess positions are absolute.
The difference is that poker is much easier to understand. That is what brings the broad appeal. I played poker tournaments for several years, but compared to chess it’s boring. Even if there is money on the line with every hand it just boils down to being attentive, soaking up the little information you can get and then act close to the mathematical optimum. Online it became pretty pointless already coz everybody plays GTO (at least in cash games). Live play is more interesting, but I dropped it coz I felt sorry for my opponents. Exploiting addicts while paying a lions share to the house is not my cup of tea anymore.
The poker comparison doesn’t fit: the prize money comes from entry fees of a field of 5-10k players and not sponsors. Poker is less decisive because often times (especially late stages of a tournament) the chips wander in with equity for both sides and luck determines the winner unlike in chess. Poker is a game of missing information, chess positions are absolute.
The difference is that poker is much easier to understand. That is what brings the broad appeal. I played poker tournaments for several years, but compared to chess it’s boring. Even if there is money on the line with every hand it just boils down to being attentive, soaking up the little information you can get and then act close to the mathematical optimum. Online it became pretty pointless already coz everybody plays GTO (at least in cash games). Live play is more interesting, but I dropped it coz I felt sorry for my opponents. Exploiting addicts while paying a lions share to the house is not my cup of tea anymore.
@Amanda_Nunes said in #15:
> Poker
> 1 $8,000,000
> 2 $4,300,000
> 3 $3,000,000
> 4 $2,300,000
> 5 $1,800,000
> 6 $1,400,000
> 7 $1,225,000
> 8 $1,100,000
> 9 $1,000,000
> This is the payout of Poker championship, which has no clock, unless someone calls for time to start in case someone is stalling. I believe they get around three minutes if time is called.
>
> Chess
> 1 $2,000,000
>
> So, Poker makes four times the money why? Because its decisive, which makes it more fun to watch, which brings in revenue, and trash talk is allowed. A fighting draw after seven hours isn't going to attract new viewers. But if you play four exciting decisive games in one day, I bet the numbers quadruple.
Good point to compare Poker to Chess. The reason why there is more money in Poker than in Chess is that its easier to learn and then to follow. Especially on TV. The spectators know what all the cards are. The know who's got the upper hand. Its a better specator sport. In chess, its very hard to follow along and watch unless you're actually decent at the game. Poker is also a game of luck much more so than chess. As a beginner, you might still win a few hands against a pro. But in Chess, you have no chance as a beginner.
> Poker
> 1 $8,000,000
> 2 $4,300,000
> 3 $3,000,000
> 4 $2,300,000
> 5 $1,800,000
> 6 $1,400,000
> 7 $1,225,000
> 8 $1,100,000
> 9 $1,000,000
> This is the payout of Poker championship, which has no clock, unless someone calls for time to start in case someone is stalling. I believe they get around three minutes if time is called.
>
> Chess
> 1 $2,000,000
>
> So, Poker makes four times the money why? Because its decisive, which makes it more fun to watch, which brings in revenue, and trash talk is allowed. A fighting draw after seven hours isn't going to attract new viewers. But if you play four exciting decisive games in one day, I bet the numbers quadruple.
Good point to compare Poker to Chess. The reason why there is more money in Poker than in Chess is that its easier to learn and then to follow. Especially on TV. The spectators know what all the cards are. The know who's got the upper hand. Its a better specator sport. In chess, its very hard to follow along and watch unless you're actually decent at the game. Poker is also a game of luck much more so than chess. As a beginner, you might still win a few hands against a pro. But in Chess, you have no chance as a beginner.
In terms of marketing chess, they should focus on the people who actually care about chess. Chess players can appreciate the tradition and aren’t bored to tears watching a 60 move draw, whereas non chess players get bored so there is a push for faster time controls. But should chess have to change to satisfy people who don’t even care about chess or its history? My worry is that the powers that be will try to capitalize on The Queen’s Gambit Netflix series and make changes to appeal to a broader audience, but at what cost? People who find chess through the Queen’s Gambit will be one of two types.
1.) The people who develop a genuine interest in chess and its history and embrace it as it is.
2.) The people who latch onto it as a fad and then once something else comes along they’ll dump chess and move on to the latest Fidget Spinner or whatever the new fad is.
I really hope that drastic changes aren’t made to try and keep the fad chasers. They should respect the game and respect the people who genuinely care about it. Chess is in a good place right now. I see lots and lots of kids at local tournaments (and they are good little chess players). And thanks to Vishy, chess has seen a huge surge in popularity in India, which is now producing a lot of very very good grandmasters. I’m cool with the current format, of a classical championship, a rapid one and a blitz one. I do wish that they would keep the classical one exclusively classical though. Maybe play 15 games and if it’s tied after 15 games they can go into sudden death overtime situation, where the next player to score a win (in a classical game) will win the match.
1.) The people who develop a genuine interest in chess and its history and embrace it as it is.
2.) The people who latch onto it as a fad and then once something else comes along they’ll dump chess and move on to the latest Fidget Spinner or whatever the new fad is.
I really hope that drastic changes aren’t made to try and keep the fad chasers. They should respect the game and respect the people who genuinely care about it. Chess is in a good place right now. I see lots and lots of kids at local tournaments (and they are good little chess players). And thanks to Vishy, chess has seen a huge surge in popularity in India, which is now producing a lot of very very good grandmasters. I’m cool with the current format, of a classical championship, a rapid one and a blitz one. I do wish that they would keep the classical one exclusively classical though. Maybe play 15 games and if it’s tied after 15 games they can go into sudden death overtime situation, where the next player to score a win (in a classical game) will win the match.
@Anant06 said in #10:
> Classical should be the main time control.... Classical chess is the real chess.
Who are you to say what real chess is? You're just saying that because it's always been that way. That's called tradition. And humans typically have a hard time moving on from tradition.
If we want chess to be boring and not attract a crowd, FIDE should carry on doing what they're doing.
If we want chess to be more exciting and attract more people, FIDE should change the 'world champion' title to include rapid, blitz, and classical games, and do far better in their presentation. They do a terrible job of entertaining and haven't even worked out how to get a reliable 2D board up yet.
Carlsen showed more joy in a blitz tournament stream after the world championship than he did at any point during the world championship. Chess has evolved. And it's time that the tournaments reflected that.
> Classical should be the main time control.... Classical chess is the real chess.
Who are you to say what real chess is? You're just saying that because it's always been that way. That's called tradition. And humans typically have a hard time moving on from tradition.
If we want chess to be boring and not attract a crowd, FIDE should carry on doing what they're doing.
If we want chess to be more exciting and attract more people, FIDE should change the 'world champion' title to include rapid, blitz, and classical games, and do far better in their presentation. They do a terrible job of entertaining and haven't even worked out how to get a reliable 2D board up yet.
Carlsen showed more joy in a blitz tournament stream after the world championship than he did at any point during the world championship. Chess has evolved. And it's time that the tournaments reflected that.
don't think so
If blitz became norm chess would change completely. And out of all these time controls, classical is by far the most fun (at least for me). @Anant06 and @morphyms1817 is correct. I love classic, but that's just my opinion. I like rapid too, just not as much.
@SD_2709
I play alot of rapid/blitz due to schedule constraints. When I do have a block open for classical games its great to fully explore strategic possibilities.
I play alot of rapid/blitz due to schedule constraints. When I do have a block open for classical games its great to fully explore strategic possibilities.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.