Extreme Chess Championship

[curtains]

Hello everyone,

Check out a screening of the Extreme Chess Championship at the Marshall Chess Club at 7 PM, December 16th. We will be showing the complete first episode which contains two of the quarterfinal matches. Here is a trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH22yba0Zr4


If you live in NYC please come by and check it out! It's basically chess WPT style. The event contains 7/8 USCF masters and some of the top young players in the country (including the top 2 U21 girls in the United States). The Marshall Chess Club is on 10th street in between 5th+6th avenue.

- Greg

[airwave16]

abby too old for this already?

[curtains]

Actually she was invited and had to cancel at the last minute, so we had to find a replacement

[smilingbill]

Originally Posted by curtains

basically chess WPT style

ehh what
Big for doing pr/youth work like this even though the intro left me very confused

[curtains]

I will explain more about the project:

It's basically an 8 player knockout chess tournament with commentary throughout. It's filmed in advance and therefore edited to make it as exciting as possible for the viewer. It's also intended to be as entertaining as possible for someone who is a casual/beginner chessplayer and is at it's core an attempt at bringing chess more into the mainstream. The first episode will be posted on the web sometime a bit after the premiere in New York (probably a few weeks).

[BobJoeJim]

I'm definitely interested in seeing what the commentary is like, and whether the effort to make it interesting to non/casual/beginner chessplayers results in something that is relatively worthless to more experienced chessplayers (like WSOP announcing is for an experienced poker player), or whether you managed (or even tried?) to bridge the gap and offer something for everyone.

Will definitely watch the premiere (once it's posted on the web) to find out

[curtains]

Well most good poker players watched the WPT/WSOP coverage anyway . Honestly I think that putting any analysis in the video that would be enlightening for a 2200 player would be a big mistake for this type of thing, since that comprises far less than 1% of all chess players (I think it's 1% of tournament players).

The one difference between the WSOP is that the announcers actually know how to play chess, so unlike the WSOP hosts, they won't repeatedly say things that are flat out ridiculous. If you are 1400-1800 level I imagine there will be a few relatively useful moments where some key chess themes are highlighted. It will depend on the game/situation. But there is a greater focus on making it entertaining.

[BobJoeJim]

I completely agree that putting any 2200+ level analysis in would be a mistake, given the goals. That would lose any hint of accessibility to the target audience. And I didn't really think there was much chance you'd be going that route. I guess what I was asking (which you answered) was where that level does fall. Can an 1800 appreciate the commentary, or are they better off watching on mute and just studying the positions themselves? How about a 1400? In any case, it sounds like a Class D guy like myself will probably be well able to actually come away with some useful information beyond the entertainment. So yay!

As for the "making it entertaining" part, I'm curious how you're planning to do that. Not to imply that I doubt it can be done, mind you, just I'm looking forward to seeing the approach you take and the techniques you use to get there

[jenium]

The first episode is now online:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwxTu...layer_embedded

A lot of fun to watch the feedback on http://blog.chess.com/ACEChess/x-tre...-and-i-like-it, https://www.facebook.com/XChessChamps, etc.

[Do it Right]

This seems like it's almost there but not quite. A few random thoughts.

1. Jenium, your voice and style of commentary a very far from mainstream when you're obviously trying to bring chess to the mainstream. You obviously have a ton of enthusiasm for what you're doing, but I would consider replacing yourself. Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way.

2. When the focus of the show is as much on the players as the game then consider picking somebody slightly less stereotypical than the quiet introverted Asian kid who plays the clarinet in his spare time. In general for a show done like this I think interesting players would be more relevant than the players' actual credentials.

3. The chess is so tangential to the show that it's not too interesting to watch as a decent chess player for the chess material. Again perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way but it seems unwise to alienate actual chess players from your audience on a chess based show. Maybe if you just included the board and all moves in a side window at all times - so people more interested in the chess could at least follow the games.

4. Feature adults. Require they down 4 beers before the games begin. Chess + alcohol always leads to great things.

5. Place the players in two separate rooms. Require they comment on each of their opponent's moves and their own plan before playing their move. Actually this idea would probably create some great content, dwarfed perhaps only by suggestion #4.

[smilingbill]

#4 I was fine with jenium () but I felt got a slightly awkward "trying too hard to make chess look cool" vibe, worried whether target audience feels the same dont underestimate your customer

edit add: I enjoyed everything from the 10 min point onwards

[feedmykids]

Originally Posted by smilingbill

edit add: I enjoyed everything from the 10 min point onwards

This, I think I am likely your target audience, I have never played a chess tournament, and am basically a novice, but I have played chess with family and friends and love playing games. I really enjoyed 10 min onwards.

I know it was a function of the game, the guy was down early in both material and time, and then he made a comeback, compared to the first game where the guy just blundered a rook and got pwned. However, it is worth noting that the part I enjoyed was all exciting chess content.

I think a lot of the non-chess stuff was simply not interesting to me. I would be more interested in the backstory if it related to chess, for instance, what are the peoples ratings? It makes it more interesting to know those numbers and know who is an underdog and by how much...that's who I'd be rooting for. Or maybe their chess achievements if they have any. I liked hearing that Justus was the youngest black master, and that they were 12, and also hearing that one guy was the highest rated player. I think you can play up that a little more, instead of talking about them playing the clarinet or dancing, which I didn't care about.

As far as what you were discussing when the actual chess was going on, I thought it was great. It was on a level I could understand. I have tried watching youtube videos or curtains videos and it simply goes too fast and is too complicated for me. The way you described stuff was great for me as a casual player.

Also, I liked jeniums enthusiasm during the matches, I thought it added to the excitement.

I think the post-game interviews should be a longer part of the segment. Hearing their thoughts on the game should be one of the most interesting parts of the show imo. Even something like "Were you disappointed with your play?" or w/e to the loser.

[mc4chess]

show more of the games, less about the boring people. Also something about editing seemed absolutely awful, didn't flow right at all.. The commentary was also really bad. You guys weren't even really saying anything at all it seemed because you were worried about beginners not understanding or something, but you still have to make statements about the position and critique the players etc.

The next episode will at least have more interesting people, but you need to definitely change the format on a lot of things.

[meekrab]

I'm not your target audience, but the chess analysis was sort of boring and the players didn't seem to have any personality compared to the loud and overly enthusiastic commentators. Jen, you do great commentary on the US Chess Championship etc where you can really dig into variations and candidate moves, but these are twelve year old kids playing exhibition games, have a couple less Red Bulls before the next round and show more interview footage of the players, get them to loosen up and project their voices a little more.

[Do it Right]

I just saw this article on the BBC: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7787

It goes over the BBC Master Games series. I'd never even heard of this before, but watching - it is actually quite amazing. They do an excellent job of conveying the tension and conflict of ideas that make chess so exciting and fun. The commentary, while probably too English to put it one way, was also very nice.

The analysis by the GMs was also great. I think it was a much clearer example of how the commentary can be very simple without insulting the intelligence or assumed lack thereof of your viewers. Even some of the longer variations likely have some main stream appeal. What's the first question anybody asks you when they find out you're a strong chess player? Oh cool! How many moves do you see ahead? People have some strange fascination with that and seeing a GM spout of some 4 or 5 move variation that 99% of viewers won't follow may not necessarily be a bad thing, even more so with some pretty graphics to display the variation without necessarily moving the pieces as done in the BBC show.

I'm curious how other people of different chess backgrounds and strengths would compare/contrast the two series.