Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottTK
A few thoughts:
- Emphasis on engine eval during the game is pretty bad (especially in a fast game).
- Switching between blitz games as they happen is distracting (we don't follow either game too well).
- A third commentator could follow the other game(s) in the background and give a quick recap with the most interesting positions before the start of the following round.
- Use of the analysis board should be used only to illustrate main tactics and ideas for the audience. The game might be a dozen moves ahead if we spend too long looking at variations.
- At all times we should have the players/board visible - to me, seeing the players moving the pieces and their expressions is key.
yes to all of this.
curtains, i don't know how you can say the coverage of this was good. i had heard maurice ashley was bad, but wow. i watched the live stream replay of the immortal game, which could have been one of the coolest televised chess moments ever. instead it was just absolute chaos, and awful.
ashley was constantly screaming about the engine while variations being played out on the board while missing moves. it changed what could have been a very very cool moment with So (potentially) surprising the commentators at every turn, to simply a contest to see if he could match the engine analysis. i don't think engines should be featured whatsoever, and if there is only a single board on screen, then i don't think pieces should ever be moved to demonstrate ideas (feel free to spout moves or draw tons of arrows though).