I couldn’t agree more, Martin. I was so disappointed when Chesscom bought up Chess24, simply because of the loss of choice. I’m really not a fan of the over-the-top American e-sports commentary employed by Chesscom. It works for Titled Tuesday but not a classical tournament. During the Candidates coverage, this commentary style has been typified by IM Tania Sachdev; she can barely contain herself, getting hugely over-excited at the slightest thing and looking for drama everywhere.
Unfortunately Chesscom now have a monopoly and can happily ignore any complaints as no other site has their level of access to the official camera feeds and interviews. I really wish that Chesscom would take into consideration that they have a global audience - that one size does not fit all - and provide people with the same sort of choice that we used to have between a US-style approach and a European one.
One final thing I’d like to point out is that Chess24 understood the importance of giving people choice in match coverage. They used to stream on Chess24 with an eval bar and on Chess24GM without an eval bar, letting people choose which they wanted to watch. With that in mind, it would be wonderful if Chesscom streamed with an eval bar on their original channel and provided a calmer, more sedate experience without an eval bar on Chess24 streams.
Good point with the Chess24GM. Really miss the diversity. And in regards to Tania Sachdev I have a feeling that she can be more down to earth, but she is going all-in on this drama intensive presenting style, which is a shame in my opinion.
I believe broadcasters in general have done it to many games/sports over time. Politics and current affairs too. Ad revenue is so fundamental to the bottom line. I think if enough people were prepared to pay for a more meditative approach then it might be (re)introduced as a sideline option. Hard to see how this will happen without prestigious individuals with connections reaching out and championing it though. I’m for the quieter (even slower!) approach with less bites. I am old though. Just thoughts.
I fall on the side of less eval bar. I love listening to GMs try and figure out the board. It’s nice to know I’m not alone when I don’t know everything going on.
But sometimes I can’t follow all the games in a tournament so I end up looking at the eval bars of games that are live but not covered.
But live coverage is still being figured out. I’m glad we don’t have the same ads like in basketball. Imagine: This knight fork brought to you by Joe’s dinner. Eat at Joes.
I’m reminded how much I made fun of John Madden but now I miss the familiar voice.
I like hearing all the different voices so I agree with more options, and I hope to see lots of tournament coverage in the future
It’s not that as if it is not okay it’s exciting, but if it is being broadcasted as if it’s exciting all the time then we don’t notice the real moments
Whats the reason why chess.com has such a monopoly?
Meaning granted the bought chess24. But whats to stop random GMs doing there own commentary on twitch or youtube to compete?
And if that is happening maybe we just need someone to compile a comprehensve list of all the places to watch commentary for each match with links. To make it eassier to find chess.com's competition. It was frustrating that durring the candidiates searching "chess candidates" on youtube only showed chess.com's coverage. But is that an issue with "noone else covering the games" or with youtube having a bad algorithm?
I think the main reason is that it’s really hard to run a successful chess platform. Covering the games is likely not what’s bringing in revenue, but instead the monthly subscriptions. So I think it’s a really hard challenge competing against a platform with over 100 million users
I mean I'm not talking about building a full chess platform like chess.com.
I'm talking about just doing live coverage of the games.
Like why can't Levy Rosman or Andras Toth or Ben Fiengold do there own live chess coverage on twitch or something?
Sure they want revenue but these people make chess content on twitch anyway. So presumably whatever money they get from doing that in general, they would get just as much, if not more, if they did live coverage of tournaments.
Is there some reason why live coverage of tournaments is harder or more expensive to produce then regular chess content (hence they need to "bring in revenue" like you said?)
Or is there some other reason they aren't doing it?
Or maybe they are and it's just not publicized enough for us to know about it.
I couldn’t agree more, Martin. I was so disappointed when Chesscom bought up Chess24, simply because of the loss of choice. I’m really not a fan of the over-the-top American e-sports commentary employed by Chesscom. It works for Titled Tuesday but not a classical tournament. During the Candidates coverage, this commentary style has been typified by IM Tania Sachdev; she can barely contain herself, getting hugely over-excited at the slightest thing and looking for drama everywhere.
Unfortunately Chesscom now have a monopoly and can happily ignore any complaints as no other site has their level of access to the official camera feeds and interviews. I really wish that Chesscom would take into consideration that they have a global audience - that one size does not fit all - and provide people with the same sort of choice that we used to have between a US-style approach and a European one.
One final thing I’d like to point out is that Chess24 understood the importance of giving people choice in match coverage. They used to stream on Chess24 with an eval bar and on Chess24GM without an eval bar, letting people choose which they wanted to watch. With that in mind, it would be wonderful if Chesscom streamed with an eval bar on their original channel and provided a calmer, more sedate experience without an eval bar on Chess24 streams.
Good point with the Chess24GM. Really miss the diversity. And in regards to Tania Sachdev I have a feeling that she can be more down to earth, but she is going all-in on this drama intensive presenting style, which is a shame in my opinion.
I believe broadcasters in general have done it to many games/sports over time. Politics and current affairs too. Ad revenue is so fundamental to the bottom line. I think if enough people were prepared to pay for a more meditative approach then it might be (re)introduced as a sideline option. Hard to see how this will happen without prestigious individuals with connections reaching out and championing it though. I’m for the quieter (even slower!) approach with less bites. I am old though. Just thoughts.
I would love to see such an option on the market, but I’m not optimistic about the chances of it happening
I fall on the side of less eval bar. I love listening to GMs try and figure out the board. It’s nice to know I’m not alone when I don’t know everything going on.
But sometimes I can’t follow all the games in a tournament so I end up looking at the eval bars of games that are live but not covered.
But live coverage is still being figured out. I’m glad we don’t have the same ads like in basketball. Imagine: This knight fork brought to you by Joe’s dinner. Eat at Joes.
I’m reminded how much I made fun of John Madden but now I miss the familiar voice.
I like hearing all the different voices so I agree with more options, and I hope to see lots of tournament coverage in the future
I also would appreciate less excited commentary, and I preferred Chess24 commentary when it was available.
It’s not that as if it is not okay it’s exciting, but if it is being broadcasted as if it’s exciting all the time then we don’t notice the real moments
ChessDojo has been fun to watch with no eval bar.
Whats the reason why chess.com has such a monopoly?
Meaning granted the bought chess24. But whats to stop random GMs doing there own commentary on twitch or youtube to compete?
And if that is happening maybe we just need someone to compile a comprehensve list of all the places to watch commentary for each match with links. To make it eassier to find chess.com's competition. It was frustrating that durring the candidiates searching "chess candidates" on youtube only showed chess.com's coverage. But is that an issue with "noone else covering the games" or with youtube having a bad algorithm?
I think the main reason is that it’s really hard to run a successful chess platform. Covering the games is likely not what’s bringing in revenue, but instead the monthly subscriptions. So I think it’s a really hard challenge competing against a platform with over 100 million users
Why do they need revenue?
I mean I'm not talking about building a full chess platform like chess.com.
I'm talking about just doing live coverage of the games.
Like why can't Levy Rosman or Andras Toth or Ben Fiengold do there own live chess coverage on twitch or something?
Sure they want revenue but these people make chess content on twitch anyway. So presumably whatever money they get from doing that in general, they would get just as much, if not more, if they did live coverage of tournaments.
Is there some reason why live coverage of tournaments is harder or more expensive to produce then regular chess content (hence they need to "bring in revenue" like you said?)
Or is there some other reason they aren't doing it?
Or maybe they are and it's just not publicized enough for us to know about it.
That's what I'm asking.