Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
"I have always a slight feeling of pity for the man who has no knowledge of Chess" (Siegbert Tarrasch)
Vanilla 1.1.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
I heard that ESPN 2 carried a RPS tournament on TV. Well, I WILL get The IAGO World Tour on TV.
Want proof of this? Check out THESE videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ngAdeZQ0SU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfztTRoMR0Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I9gHVlXnm0&feature=related
I've seen hot dog eating competitions on TV a number of times. Are there any boundaries in this "TV at any cost" plan?
Mark, I look to remain true to the games for one thing. I will look to tweak the game clock, or points per match elements, but I will look to have it so that it is more welcoming to people who are new to a game.
I am also not looking to promote alcohol (getting wasted and play Dipole seem to be opposite end activities), and also would like to have players as players. They can come in costumes and be characters, to show their personalities, but their gender, orientations, beliefs, etc... aren't ways to separate them. I would also look to have a party atmosphere also, some band playing BEFORE playing. Maybe even get a beer company to sign on actually (to promote their non-alcoholic beer). I would even consider less complex games, like Connect 4. Player's personalities will come out during and after matches, and people be able to relate to them.
My "I WILL get the IAGO World Tour on TV" has far more with the TV presentation level, and pacing that works on TV, than gimmicks. I am not looking to have bikini women go around, and make it low brow. I am looking to make it a competition, and a battle of the minds, that is fun to watch, and captivates people. It isn't going to come off as nerdy.
That is what I meant by getting it on TV. Think about how poker is done on TV, and you get some idea (speaking of which, to get chess on TV, may end up with a battle of speed chess players, that then go on and play poker). Idea is to get chess on TV in some form, eventhough the core at this point is poker now. The reason? Well, poker is on TV, and can act as a bridge to get chess on TV. Chess for multiple players is their first love, so will see. Think of it as a high-stakes chess-poker hybrid match.
Now, in a perfect world, where abstract strategy games are respected and played a lot, would this be needed? Well, no. But we don't live in this world, so you try to advance things somehow.
richardhutnik wrote: "I am not looking to have bikini women go around..."
Well, let's not be rash here.
From my perspective games that are higher on the action end, in other words one that can be played with short clocks and that includes capturing which is something observers can easily relate with would be top candidates. These game also need simple rules and objectives so that someone can sit down and say hey what are you watching and have someone explain the games basic before the commercial comes on.
Mark, there are events which uses bikini women, which is why I said I am not looking to do that (I believe RPS goes there). Exactly what did you consider "out of line" for IAGO to do, in order to get abstract strategy games on TV and with good ratings? Also, I did mention boxing. What I was trying to differentiate here, is while I would go for a "Let's get ready to rumble" spin, and some Don King stuff, I am NOT looking to have bikini women walking around carrying cards that have rounds.
Dralius, abstract strategy games should work, because they have simple rules and objectives. IAGO has a sufficiently large pool of games to do that, and a sufficiently large list of games already have events.
A reason why I was looking to get chess on TV is that it is the most well known, and probably hardest game to get work. Do that, and get it to work, everything else falls into place.
RPS makes for better TV than Chess. Any sort of "reality TV", and I'm using this in the broadest sense to mean shows in which you are dealing with regular people, the draw is not the activity itself, but watching the people doing it. RPS dispenses with all that distracting "game" stuff, and lets the viewer focus on watching the people. Chess does exactly the opposite. When Chess books describe the game, there are board positions listed, but pictures are very rare.
You won't get good TV ratings by focusing on the game itself. There has to be some aspect of the meta-game that makes watching worthwhile. I think perhaps some sort of team competition angle might be able to work.
And there's always half-naked girls carrying signs. Never underestimate the allure of tits.
I think Meadmaker is hitting on an important point here. There is no end to chess competitions but you’ll be hard pressed to find TV coverage even with 180 channels to choose from. The world poker tour manages to get by grabbing peoples attention with huge cash prizes, flamboyant characters and the existing mystique of poker that comes from old west & riverboat mythology. Chess has a different draw which is certainly less visual and more elite while poker is a game of the people. If the poker players all dressed conservatively and didn’t speak or perform any of their antics the WPT may have never made it to TV.
So, multiple things need to be done:
1. The players need to project greater personalities that people can relate to.
2. The games have to be paced and packaged so that they can be followed easier, and enjoyable to watch, by people who don't play.
3. There has to be more than the game for people to grab on to and get interested in.
I do see all these as being part of what is needed. Also, it would be interested if people even think of the old west and riverboat mythology as to why they watch. I personally don't see that being all that much. They do see high stakes and surprise element here, but the whole background of poker? Where someone cheats and then a gunfight breaks out? This was on for YEARS and didn't result in poker getting on TV at all. This image was actually stronger in the past.
I've got an idea. Since in abstract games (I mean real abstract games) the focus is mainly on the game board, the game board has to become more interesting. Now this will work for some games better than others, but here's the idea: Use a giant board and use people as the playing pieces. I'm sure this has been done before, probably with Chess and with people dressed up in a very stylized manner to represent the various pieces. But picture a game like Crossway (basically Hex adapted to a Go board) where one side is represented by women and the other by men. A similar concept is used in Deal or No Deal, where, instead of having markers on a board on a wall, you have (yes, half naked) women standing there with briefcases. Much more interesting to watch than a board on a wall, or a board on a table, as would be the case here. If the nakedness is unappealing, for whatever reason, there could be a more conservative dress code, perhaps black evening gowns and tuxedos, or red evening gowns and tuxedos. Keep all of the people in view whether they're on the board or off the board.
It's just simple logic. 99 percent of people are not going to want to watch a board for an extended period of time. There has to be something interesting about the board that will hold their interest. Now you have beauty contests where the contestants are just standing there doing nothing for much of the time, but that holds peoples' interest. If you have men *and* women, that pretty much covers all the bases.
Mark, people want root for and follow the players. Because of this, I believe the players need to be built up, and the board is the play area to measure their skill. Therefore, I believe a focus needs to be on the people playing the game. The board is just the recording device of their skill.
However, you do touch on something regarding how they do live-action chess, which possibly could be converted into theater people watch, with the pieces being people who then interact, along the lines of Battle Chess. Perhaps in a gameshow format, this could be a possibility.
You can build the players up to the max and it won't be enough. Watching some nerdy guy stare at a board is just not interesting no matter how "built up" that guy is. It won't hold anyone's attention for two minutes, never mind a half hour or an hour. No TV producer in his right mind would go along with that. Why would he? Nobody would watch it.
I don't think the people acting as pieces should interact. That would be too distracting. The underlying game would disappear from view. Again think of Deal No Deal. I only watched that once but it was enough to see the principle at work. You have a bunch of models pretty much just standing there. If they were interacting you'd lose sight of the game being played.
Mark, explain to me then who people actually watch a bunch of overweight and nerdy looking individuals look at cards and push chips into the center table? If you want Nerdy, then why is Scrabble on TV? Dominos was on TV also. And backgammon was on TV in Europe. Also, do I have to mention the game show "Jeopardy". Please tell me what shows have more nerdy contestants than that show? How about a show where comic book nerds dress up like Superheroes?
Jeopardy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUDt31ccsFE&feature=related
The comic book nerds (Who wants to be a Superhero):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-hilSfpCrU&feature=related
They don't even have any super power, but look like out of shape comic book superheroes.
Oh, and there is "Magic: The Gathering" which did end up on ESPN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RnvGCgemZw
It isn't "nerdy guys staring at a board" that is the issue. People watch shows to watch people. Doesn't matter the activity really. It can be a nerdy vs another character.
As for Deal or No Deal, the hook there is the tough decision they have to make whether or not they will proceed. There is underlying game theory in it that is actually non-trivial. The women are part of it, but that isn't the only think.
Poker: cash, drama. It's not just that there's a huge cash prize for winning the tournament. A large amount of cash is actually on the table in the form of chips being pushed around and awarded to one player every round. There's the bluffing and the tension. This is *hugely* different from watching two nerdy guys stare at a game board.
Jeopardy: excitement. You have to pound the button in a big hurry, ahead of the other contestants and you have to have the right answer. Much more exciting than watching two nerdy guys stare at a game board.
People don't just watch shows to watch people. You're wrong about that. Nobody wants to watch two nerdy guys sitting there, motionless, staring at a game board.
Once again you're steamrolling over the intelligent opinions that people are giving you here. Look back at the posts by Dralius and Meadmaker. They're right and you're wrong.
As for Deal or No Deal? Replace the squad of models with a sign board and cut the ratings by a factor of ten, a very conservative estimate.
Mark, you are saying there is NO way to do abstract strategy games on TV, unless you somehow have beautiful women as pieces on a board. I happen to say that is wrong here.
You are right about cash and drama. I would expect any IAGO event on TV to have this. It is HUGELY different than nerdy guys sitting quiet, looking at a board. When did I ever say that IAGO TV events were just going to be two guys sitting quietly looking at a board?
I also have agreed that the metagame has to be interesting. I did state that poker has less to do with the mystique of old west, than it does other factors. The main one is Reality TV editing to make it drama. You can go to the World Series of Poker and watch it for free, and it is as dull as dirt.
As far as Deal or No Deal, yes the models are important, but the fact there is large stakes there, and people end up having to make a deal or not, means it gets good ratings. Also, the premise is simple to get through. The game has multiple levels. I would say you would lose 20% at most if you just had the board up there, and not the women.
And no, it isn't steamrolling Mark. I am disagreeing some. People should also speak up. People are free to pitch something they know would work. However, I don't want to hear that it is impossible to do.
Beautiful women as playing pieces is one way, the only way I've thought of so far, to make it interesting enough for people to watch it continuously for a long period of time. That's what you need for a TV show. You don't want people to watch for 3 seconds and change the channel. You want them to watch the whole thing. I haven't heard any other ideas here on this forum that would make it that interesting.
Fancy editing won't help. If you start with footage of two nerdy guys staring at a board for an hour, you can edit that all you want and it's still going to be a dreadfully boring spectator event. Garbage in, garbage out. As far as "building up" the contestants, that's just not going to work, especially if they're not world Chess champions and you don't have an unlimited budget.
I know you don't want to hear that it won't work, but would you rather go ahead and do something that's not going to work? Or would you rather develop a plan that could work, such as the one I suggested. A plan that will make it visually interesting enough for *everyone*. Interesting enough that they'll watch the *whole* show. Other than what I suggested, there hasn't been squat proposed here that will accomplish that except vague notions of "editing" and "building up".
Mark, reality TV editing is essential to make it work. I will leave it to the TV producers to work on the minutia. What also has to happen is related associations need to approve also. The right spot will be located. The contestants will end up being men and women, so that needs to be factored in. There is a lot of work that needs to be done here.
1. The players need to project greater personalities that people can relate to.
2. The games have to be paced and packaged so that they can be followed easier, and enjoyable to watch, by people who don't play.
3. There has to be more than the game for people to grab on to and get interested in.
I think that it does boil down to the above 3 points. Now to pick the game can be packaged as stated and will draw interesting characters. Coming up with a meta-game for the viewers does not need to be tied to a specific game but it might be best to put the horse(game) before the cart(viewer draw).