We're still probably at the trial and error stage, but in the end, the market will decide.
chess24 / chesscom broadcasts, 50k viewers
all the rest don't come close.
chess24 / chesscom broadcasts, 50k viewers
all the rest don't come close.
I totally agree with @MillenniumBug , although I think this time in particular Fide do have the bar always on for the commentators (but not the moves), unlike in previous events. Even though I was mostly following the Fide stream while Anand was there, I think the Lichess broadcast got this point even better by really only looking on occasion.
Another great thing about the team that Lichess got is that they don't have the "sport announcer" style that over-hype things, but neither they go too far on the other direction, of being way too cold and strictly technical (like I see in a few European events' streams). They are very chill and relaxed, which is great and make us feel welcome. There's also the crucial point of the chat being moderated, it's unbelievable to me that Fide doesn't have official mods on their events.
About @GnocchiPup argument, one needs to have a lot of reservations when using viewership as a sign of preference, chesscom pours a lot of money on marketing and that plays a massive role on their userbase numbers and on their streams having much more visibility on YouTube and Twitch. Meanwhile, at times we need to actively search for the Fide or Lichess streams to find them.
off-topic: I love the captcha I got lol lichess.org/xqog73wa the knight mate would've been much cooler in that game XD
Another great thing about the team that Lichess got is that they don't have the "sport announcer" style that over-hype things, but neither they go too far on the other direction, of being way too cold and strictly technical (like I see in a few European events' streams). They are very chill and relaxed, which is great and make us feel welcome. There's also the crucial point of the chat being moderated, it's unbelievable to me that Fide doesn't have official mods on their events.
About @GnocchiPup argument, one needs to have a lot of reservations when using viewership as a sign of preference, chesscom pours a lot of money on marketing and that plays a massive role on their userbase numbers and on their streams having much more visibility on YouTube and Twitch. Meanwhile, at times we need to actively search for the Fide or Lichess streams to find them.
off-topic: I love the captcha I got lol lichess.org/xqog73wa the knight mate would've been much cooler in that game XD
@brianch
considering that we both know chess dojo eval off broadcast, seems like we both don't watch it?
I mean, I am familiar with the existence of all the various broadcasts, I have the option of choosing fide official vs chess24, etc. For some reason c24 with Naroditsky and Hess is what I'm drawn to. Fide official is very similar, 2 commentators, with eval bars, Aman and Irina, considering that I enjoy Aman commentary I'm still going with c24. Chesscom / chess24 is doing something right, at least for me.
I'm inclined to agree with Hammer, there's more to chess broadcasts than the presence or absence of the eval bars.
P.S.
I also tried incognito mode, youtube, search term: candidates, filter: live.
fide official - 3rd result - 2.1k
Chess dojo is the 5th result - 438 viewers
Fide Gukesh v Alireza 6th result - 529 viewers (this one doesn't have commentary, just the video of those two players plus a 2d board)
P.P.S.
Whatever the market decides isn't necessarily the best thing, considering a lot of garbage movies becoming box office hits, and seriously good movies flopping. But it is what is. Whatever the people go for, that's what producers will produce.
considering that we both know chess dojo eval off broadcast, seems like we both don't watch it?
I mean, I am familiar with the existence of all the various broadcasts, I have the option of choosing fide official vs chess24, etc. For some reason c24 with Naroditsky and Hess is what I'm drawn to. Fide official is very similar, 2 commentators, with eval bars, Aman and Irina, considering that I enjoy Aman commentary I'm still going with c24. Chesscom / chess24 is doing something right, at least for me.
I'm inclined to agree with Hammer, there's more to chess broadcasts than the presence or absence of the eval bars.
P.S.
I also tried incognito mode, youtube, search term: candidates, filter: live.
fide official - 3rd result - 2.1k
Chess dojo is the 5th result - 438 viewers
Fide Gukesh v Alireza 6th result - 529 viewers (this one doesn't have commentary, just the video of those two players plus a 2d board)
P.P.S.
Whatever the market decides isn't necessarily the best thing, considering a lot of garbage movies becoming box office hits, and seriously good movies flopping. But it is what is. Whatever the people go for, that's what producers will produce.
A few opinions:
- I'm 100% sure, that eval bar comes handy to all viewers, no matter what their chess skills are. The tournament lasts over week, and people with jobs, families, and hobbies simply lack time to spend an hour on analyzing positions to see who's doing great and who has a losing position. There are four games and commentators can only help you one game at a time. If you have taken a week off from work and family to watch the tournament, that's another story.
- I think the eval bar is the only way(!!) for audience to see instantly, how players are doing. Of course you have to understand (and 99% of the viewers do), that 0,00.. doesn't mean that game ends in a draw, like +2,5 doesn't mean, that white will win. Is there something wrong, if random viewer doesn't care how complex/simple/chaotic/beautiful the positions really are, and simply wants an update on how his/her favourite player/closest rivals are doing?
- All of us have our favourite commentators. Still it sounds a bit dubious argument root for Leko and Polgar, because they provide a deeper analysis and understanding for the positions. All of the commentators in chessdotcom are high level professionals and high level players. For viewer like me (1800-2000 elo), Danya and Hess provide 100% satisfaction. If you are a chess master yourself, that's another story. Players below master level don't need a former world champion to commentate, because they simply can't see the difference.
- I'm 100% sure, that eval bar comes handy to all viewers, no matter what their chess skills are. The tournament lasts over week, and people with jobs, families, and hobbies simply lack time to spend an hour on analyzing positions to see who's doing great and who has a losing position. There are four games and commentators can only help you one game at a time. If you have taken a week off from work and family to watch the tournament, that's another story.
- I think the eval bar is the only way(!!) for audience to see instantly, how players are doing. Of course you have to understand (and 99% of the viewers do), that 0,00.. doesn't mean that game ends in a draw, like +2,5 doesn't mean, that white will win. Is there something wrong, if random viewer doesn't care how complex/simple/chaotic/beautiful the positions really are, and simply wants an update on how his/her favourite player/closest rivals are doing?
- All of us have our favourite commentators. Still it sounds a bit dubious argument root for Leko and Polgar, because they provide a deeper analysis and understanding for the positions. All of the commentators in chessdotcom are high level professionals and high level players. For viewer like me (1800-2000 elo), Danya and Hess provide 100% satisfaction. If you are a chess master yourself, that's another story. Players below master level don't need a former world champion to commentate, because they simply can't see the difference.
The article doesn't discuss the pros and cons of using an eval bar and is more of a personal complaint that the author preferred Chess24 to Chess.com's broadcasts. Personally I like them both, and think the Chess.com team do an excellent job. Yes it was a shame to lose Chess24 but saying we've got less choice simply isn't true - there are at least 4 streams with professional (i.e. titled) commentators on Youtube covering the candidates - Chess.com, Lichess, Fide and St Louis, let alone all the other streams on twitch. I grew up in an age without the internet and chess was never on tv and I'd never have imagined having such high quality coverage, let alone choice of multiple options. We're living in a chess golden age and should appreciate how lucky we are. In terms of the title bar, I think both approaches are fine - it's good to see the commentators trying to work things out by themselves to get a human view of a position, but it's also good to see the eval bar and know if anyone has made a mistake or missed a win.
@Tempestuous :
-------The article starts with
"The Great Eval Bar Debate: Chess.com's Broadcasting Style.
Should chess tournament broadcast feature an eval bar or not?",
so i'd say it isn't even near the whole story, but the bar and computers in general are in center of things because without them, we wouldn't have reason to argue here. Two people commentating without computers, is what the author misses.
Everything else you wrote, i agree.
I forgot the comment on the commercial breaks, which the author mentions twice. First of all, we should be grateful, that money is brought on the table. It is the very thing (money) that enables top notch content we get to enjoy. Professionals from many fields are needed to make this happen.
Second: Yesterday i watched a whole commercial-commentary cyckle. I would say the time between commercials isn't that short. For me it was close to perfect, since i couldn't have concentrated longer anyway. I'm sure it is also needed for commentators to have a clear mind towards the long games.
All credit to the author, but reading the article reminds about the fact, that people are never satisfied with anything, still enjoy top notch content.
-------The article starts with
"The Great Eval Bar Debate: Chess.com's Broadcasting Style.
Should chess tournament broadcast feature an eval bar or not?",
so i'd say it isn't even near the whole story, but the bar and computers in general are in center of things because without them, we wouldn't have reason to argue here. Two people commentating without computers, is what the author misses.
Everything else you wrote, i agree.
I forgot the comment on the commercial breaks, which the author mentions twice. First of all, we should be grateful, that money is brought on the table. It is the very thing (money) that enables top notch content we get to enjoy. Professionals from many fields are needed to make this happen.
Second: Yesterday i watched a whole commercial-commentary cyckle. I would say the time between commercials isn't that short. For me it was close to perfect, since i couldn't have concentrated longer anyway. I'm sure it is also needed for commentators to have a clear mind towards the long games.
All credit to the author, but reading the article reminds about the fact, that people are never satisfied with anything, still enjoy top notch content.
@Tempestuous said in #25:
I grew up in an age without the internet and chess was never on tv and I'd never have imagined having such high quality coverage, let alone choice of multiple options.
I remember watching at the BBC the worldchampionship between Kasparov and Short in 1993. It was for hours quality see e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB9sD3wpUSc
I grew up in an age without the internet and chess was never on tv and I'd never have imagined having such high quality coverage, let alone choice of multiple options.
I remember watching at the BBC the worldchampionship between Kasparov and Short in 1993. It was for hours quality see e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB9sD3wpUSc
@Bortvinik said in #15:
> When the author mention the Polgar/Leko commentary that got me. I loved those two, they took the time to explain Super GM thinking and strategy in a way that 1500 players like me can understand them. No eval bar, just 2 of the best to ever do it talking about chess.
I'm a huge fan of GM Matthew Sadler as well. He explains the "big idea" behind moves and openings in a way that tactical engine lines simply don't elucidate. He also has a great engine games analysis series which features absolutely surreal engine games.
> When the author mention the Polgar/Leko commentary that got me. I loved those two, they took the time to explain Super GM thinking and strategy in a way that 1500 players like me can understand them. No eval bar, just 2 of the best to ever do it talking about chess.
I'm a huge fan of GM Matthew Sadler as well. He explains the "big idea" behind moves and openings in a way that tactical engine lines simply don't elucidate. He also has a great engine games analysis series which features absolutely surreal engine games.
There's no real point debating the topic without first specifying how many (different) broadcasts we're allowed to have. If it were the case of only one broadcast, yes, that'd be tricky.
Depending on each game's position or stage in the tournament, I'm happy to switch between different broadcasts. Perhaps the bigger issue is for broadcasters to be able to have access to reliable video feeds and live position updates.
Depending on each game's position or stage in the tournament, I'm happy to switch between different broadcasts. Perhaps the bigger issue is for broadcasters to be able to have access to reliable video feeds and live position updates.
@mvhk said in #27:
>
> I remember watching at the BBC the worldchampionship between Kasparov and Short in 1993. It was for hours quality see e.g.
Yep, I remember watching this too - was one of the only times I'd seen chess on tv when I grew up. I still remember Daniel King's awesome commentary for it.
>
> I remember watching at the BBC the worldchampionship between Kasparov and Short in 1993. It was for hours quality see e.g.
Yep, I remember watching this too - was one of the only times I'd seen chess on tv when I grew up. I still remember Daniel King's awesome commentary for it.