Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 16:40:32 12/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2003 at 19:16:07, Amir Ban wrote: >>>The internet is not a media. It's a channel where media can operate, the >>>equivalent of paper or radio. It's not about how many people can view the page, >>>but how many will. >> >>Agreed. >>I'm sure the www.x3d.com hitcount ran into the millions during that event. >> >>>If internet means cnn.com, that's big exposure. If it's >>>chessclub.com, it's not. >> >>Nobody says it couldn't get on cnn.com just because it takes place on >>chessclub.com. >> >>I think one of the reasons that the fritz, junior and deep blue matches got such >>a massive attention when playing Garry, was because people could tune in and >>follow the games live on the internet. >> > >You are putting the cart before the horse. Without the big media exposure these >events received, almost all of the people who followed the event would not have >known it was taking place, or if they had, why it was worth their attention. > >Getting a message across to millions of people is tremendously expensive. Yes I think that is true to some degree, but once the ball has started rolling it is going to get a lot bigger if it rolls on the internet. I think the reason is that people generally consider games in progress to be more interesting than a three inch note in tomorrows newspaper. But that debate is entirely academic because it applies only to the Garry/Kramnik vs. computer matches. The ICGA championship is in the same dilemma as the CCT. -S. >Amir
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.