| |
Main
Date: 22 Dec 2006 07:02:02
From: Wilma
Subject: They did Scrabble, why not chess?
|
I just watched a game of Scrabble on TV, and they made it interesting. If
they can do it with Scrabble, the right folks could do it with chess. Who
are the right folks? How 'bout Susan Polgar and a revolving guest analyst?
Wilma
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 18:41:17
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: They did Scrabble, why not chess?
|
I still belive pay per view would work ....
People who want would get it and people who don't won't...
I still belive at least I0,000 people would order it....
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 19:20:28
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: They did Scrabble, why not chess?
|
SAT W-7 wrote:
> I still belive pay per view would work ....
>
> People who want would get it and people who don't won't...
>
> I still belive at least I0,000 people would order it....
>
There are 10000 people in addition to internet draw?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 07:20:51
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: They did Scrabble, why not chess?
|
I know but i am just saying i belive at the minimum I0,000 people would
by PPV
if it was a reasonable price ..I am sure more that that would want to
see some top games .
Kar vs Top
Kar vs Fritz
i would have gotten both ..So would have a few friends who like me would
like to watch it from the comfort of our homes....
But nothing has ever been offered like that because either people are
not st enough to try it or they just do not thin it would make
money..
I think they can make money off the big time games .....
I do not think Chess players like you and me would be bord with a 3 hour
game.....
+ even if i was not home i would just tape it..
PPV is the way to go and until some one does it and they make money
they would do it more.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 13:47:04
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: They did Scrabble, why not chess?
|
Wilma wrote:
> I just watched a game of Scrabble on TV, and they made it interesting. If
> they can do it with Scrabble, the right folks could do it with chess. Who
> are the right folks? How 'bout Susan Polgar and a revolving guest analyst?
>
Revolving as in pitching, rolling or yawing? Or a combination?
Sorry, I couldn't resist. This sounds like a good idea...
Pitch it to a TV executive. Several, even...
k
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 17:35:57
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: They did Scrabble, why not chess?
|
k Houlsby wrote:
> Wilma wrote:
>
>> I just watched a game of Scrabble on TV, and they made it interesting. If
>> they can do it with Scrabble, the right folks could do it with chess. Who
>> are the right folks? How 'bout Susan Polgar and a revolving guest analyst?
>>
The ketsize is too small. The key is that a viewer wants to either
be amazed, (like watching golf), Arm Chair Coach (most team events), or
compete at home (Jeapordy, Poker, or even scrabble).
The problem is that for chess, the audience for competing at home is
ridiculously small in tv terms. And amazement is just not visible to
the home guy. Scrabble is an attempt at capturing the Poker movement
which works very well for television because we can all make our
decision at home and compare it with the pros. And the drama is clearly
moved on a hand per hand basis, and everyone understands it.
Scrabble, we can all anagram, and some better than others, and we can
understand the anagrams, and we can be taught how to be significantly
better at home.
None of that exists in chess. If you don't know, you will not be able
to see how the grandmasters mind works. The tableau is too complicated
for the arm chair viewer, and you just cant get good enough watching tv
to make a dent.
It has been tried, it continues to be tried, and some places it works,
like in Iceland. But the failures are almost exactly as you would predict.
But it works well on the Internet, and Live. You can aggregate enough
people in either venue that it works out well. But TV blows.
|
|
