|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jun-25-08 | | mate2900s: You should chesk Ashleya site www.mauriceashley.com
|
|
| Jun-29-08 | | SetNoEscapeOn: Yup thanks. Unfortnately, it looks like they did not make a dvd for the final match. Here is a review for the first dvd which I agree with completely: http://www.chessville.com/reviews/S... |
|
Jul-09-08
 | | BishopBerkeley: Excellent CNN video of GM Maurice Ashley:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/li... or, if that link doesn't work, you may search for "maurice ashley" here: http://tinyurl.com/9v426
Bravo, GM Ashley!
(: ♗ Bishop Berkeley ♗ :)
|
|
| Jul-10-08 | | Augalv: Ashley on CNN: 'I just knew I would be a great chess player' Maurice Ashley is the first black chess grandmaster in history. He is also one of the games finest ambassadors, an ardent spokesman and advocate of the intellectual and character building effects in young people for over 15 years. In a short CNN report, part of the series on "Black in America", he speaks about the driving forces in his life and his career. We bring you Maurice unsquished. Click here:http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... to read the complete article. |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | Bobsterman3000: GM Ashley did one heck of a job teaming up with Yasser for commentary on the ESPN match between Kasparov and X3D Fritz. I wish that the Anand-Kramnik match could also be broadcast on ESPN with Yasser and Maurice in the same role as announcers... |
|
Jul-11-08
 | | JointheArmy: <Bobsterman3000> ESPN is a joke. They show bowling, spelling bee contests, hot dog competitions, but no chess or MMA. Chess had the chance to become the new bowling, but poker took that spot in 2003 I believe. |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | square dance: why is espn a joke? they obviously had a geniune interest in showing chess. <but>, as usual, the chess world didnt have its @#$% together. there were two world champions and neither one of them was the best player, kasparov. |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | Bobsterman3000: <JointheArmy> I think that your comments have some validity, but ESPN put Kasparov on TV because he played combative chess and had both a commanding presence, reputation and personality. (some might call him overbearing, lol) The state of chess is part of what keeps chess from being marketable on mainstream channels like ESPN. We have bland, unengaging "champions" that continually play short draws and beat the Petroff to death. |
|
| Jul-11-08 | | Bobsterman3000: <JointheArmy> Also, FIDE is partly to blame with their convoluted championship approach. When it comes to major competition in the USA, you always, always know who the champion is at the end of the season after the SuperBowl, NBA finals, or NCAA tournament. This helps make the product more marketable. FIDE's scattered nature doesn't make for good marketing through "regular" sports outlets. |
|
| Jul-12-08 | | hitman84: Yes as Hansel said in an interview Chess is behind other sports by at least twenty years. It's not just Fide's fault but also has a lot to do with the stereotypes associated with chess. Yes the schism didn't help the cause of chess promotion. I really admire Garry Kasparov for doing his best to promote chess. I'm really impressed by his book how life imitates chess. It's just what chess needed. Chess certainly helps improve your decision making. Also chess and war analogy is outdated. Yes war maybe the perfect platform for executing your strategic and tactical skills, but we have advanced to a stage where those skills are applied in the corporate field as well where there is healthy competition, and life in general. Not to mention his numerous lectures in universities etc. |
|
| Jul-12-08 | | blacksburg: in addition to the problem of draws, i think there is another problem for US chess popularity that i've never heard discussed. i'd like to hear your opinions on this.
the system of titles is a problem. in the US, if you walk around calling yourself "life master," you will not be taken seriously. if you go around expecting people to call you "grandmaster" so-and-so, people are gonna think you're talking about quidditch, and you will not be taken seriously. these titles are unnecessary and counterproductive. the PGA isn't going to call tiger woods a "grandmaster" of golf, this would be laughable, and would bring no benefit to golf or mr. woods. i understand that the grandmaster title is an honor to chessplayers, but to the average sports fan in the US, it sounds like something out of harry potter. if chess players want to popularize chess in america, one thing we can do is to abandon the anachronism of titles. |
|
| Aug-03-08 | | myschkin: . . .
"The Mind of a Grandmaster"
(Audio, Media Player required)
Part 1: http://tinyurl.com/6z8fnk
Part 2: http://tinyurl.com/6mtlrh
Part 3: http://tinyurl.com/6f8wwt
Part 4: http://tinyurl.com/6b9ny8
(Daaim Shabazz with GM Maurice Ashley, 2002)
|
|
| Jan-19-09 | | Lucid Faia: As for popularity in the United States, Chess merely has the same problem Soccer has; a lack of mainstream television exposure. Something like ten-minute blitz games would be the best hope for Chess in that regard. It would make it more exciting for the average American and would allow for television networks to get plenty of commercial breaks in. :P |
|
| Jan-20-09 | | SetNoEscapeOn: <Lucid Faia: As for popularity in the United States, Chess merely has the same problem Soccer has; a lack of mainstream television exposure.> I think that's putting backwards, confusing the cause with its effects. Soccer has little exposure in the USA because it is relatively unpopular; demand drives what is shown on TV, things don't become popular just because they happen to be on TV. The commercial breaks you mentioned are the key. Advertisers constantly research what it is that people want to watch, then the networks follow suit with their findings so that they can rake in the advertising revenue. The biggest reason that soccer (which is, btw, personally my favorite sport) is unpopular in the USA is that we have <four> other major sports that already have a huge following of loyal fans, with their own well established cultures and lore. The problem of trying to introduce soccer here is the same problem as trying to introduce, say, baseball in Europe; people are already caught up in something else (truth be told I also feel like soccer is just vastly superior to baseball but that is nothing but my opinion). As to why chess is not popular (and it should be noted that relative to sports, this is true all over the world), I think it's simple. In the first place I don't consider chess to be a sport; like Kramnik I feel it is a unique blend of art, sport, and science that can't be separated out into neat little compartments. As such, chess depends on an understanding of the game in a way that other sports don't. I knew an immigrant once, a very strong Russian chess player, who jumped right into American football a month or so after he arrived. He liked the passing game, the hits. His grasp of what was going on wasn't the greatest (he couldn't understand why a team would ever punt), but he was able to enjoy it- and conversations about it with many of us who have been fans for years. Go ask some of your friends who know nothing about chess to get a free trial on ICC and listen to Mig and the GM commentary on icc for a couple of hours. Ask them how they like it. I think that's the fundamental difference between chess and sports. Sports are a visual and emotional spectacle, chess is "Heavy Mental". This holds even for sports considered by many people to be "boring". There's no deep understanding needed to be entertained, or even electrified. I don't know what sports you watch- but judge for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLKX...
|
|
| Mar-23-09 | | Helios727: If they want to reduce the number of draws in tournaments, why not just make wins worth five points and draws worth two points? That way a draw is worth less than half a win. |
|
| Mar-23-09 | | cuendillar: If they want to reduce the number of draws in tournament, why not just reduce the total number of games played? That way nothing need to be changed about the system. |
|
| Mar-23-09 | | MaxxLange: Soccer in the US has an odd paradox, in that it is the most popular youth sport - millions of families spend their weekends at the kids' soccer games - but can't get a mass audience as a pro sport |
|
Mar-23-09
 | | perfidious: <MaxxLange> Think of this: if soccer were the type of game where one could see scores such as 35-31, as in American football, it would have a far greater chance of being popular. Many Americans, and I'm one of them, like the action, and I believe there are a lot of people who won't put out a lot of $$$ to watch games where the scores are routinely on the order of 1-0 and 2-1. As things are, soccer, as well as hockey, have little or no chance of the same type of mainstream acceptance that football and baseball have here in USA. |
|
| Mar-23-09 | | midknightblue: <SetNoEscapeOn> I believe you are partially correct. However, poker has been around for a long time. Only the neatly packaged World Series of Poker and other well Edited TV poker programs is what brought the poker crazy to a forefront.
One could even argue that Nascar racing isn't terribly exciting. Yet, they know how to grab your attention when they broadcast it on TV.
In fact, any competitive sport or activity (spelling Bee, ice skating, etc) can grab an audience when the TV programming finds a compelling storyline and keeps the format interesting.
I think the main reason we are not into soccer in the US is that
1) we dont feel we have a chance to win the world cup in any given year
2) other sports have captivaated our interest more.
As for chess, well edited programming and a US player with interesting personality and a chance to be the best player in the world ---would propel chess enough to make people want to watch. The problem is
1) noone is attempting to edit chess tournaments in a manner that would keep the American audience (i.e. needs action or channel will change) and no player currently fits the bill as the next guy to step forward as a serious threat to win a world championship (with an interesting personality to boot). |
|
| Jan-15-10 | | grasser: Hey Maurice: Come on "Chess Now". It's right here in Manhattan. Bring your students!
Best,
George
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCZD... |
|
| Jan-15-10 | | I play the Fred: <If they want to reduce the number of draws in tournaments, why not just make wins worth five points and draws worth two points? That way a draw is worth less than half a win.> How about:
White wins - White gains 0.9 points, Black gains 0.1 points
Black wins - Black gains 1 point, white gains 0 points
Draw - Black gains 0.6 points, White gains 0.4 points Applying this to Linares 2001: the original result was Kasparov 7.5, Grischuk, Karpov, Leko, Polgar, Shirov 4.5 points. The revised result based upon "1/0/0.9/0.1/0.6/0.4" system: Kasparov 7.4, Grischuk 5.4, Karpov, Leko, & Polgar 4.5, Shirov 3.5 points. What pros and cons do you all see with this system? |
|
| Mar-06-10 | | wordfunph: happy birthday Maurice! |
|
| Sep-04-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...
Very promising sample video from Ashley's new chessbase DVD. |
|
Nov-15-10
| | perfidious: <midknightblue> I've played professional poker, and can tell you the single driving force behind its explosion in recent years: the introduction of the camera enabling TV viewers to see players' hole cards. When this was first done in Britain, the idea was greeted with horror, but it took off and the game has never been the same. |
|
| Nov-16-10 | | SetNoEscapeOn: http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp...
Great interview of Maurice by Big Think. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 19 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
