Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

anand gelfand wcc coverage is terrible!


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #1

    Monster_with_no_Name

    they put lots of LONNNNNNNG ads

    commentators do very light weight analysis and talk about anything but the game.

    people are talking loudly behind commentators.


    they ran a 30min!  doco on 15th Century icons and paintings about the museum the game is being held in (in the MIDDLE! of the game)

    the post analysis sessions are unprofessional...
    the whole translation is a joke everyone interupting everyone.

    Why are FIDE so bad at doing such simple things?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #2

    quadibloc

    What you are describing sounds like par for the course. Or at least it would be in coverage of the match for the general public. Coverage of chess itself would be limited because few people understand it, while paintings in a museum look pretty to everyone. Translations, however bad, would take precedence, at least in coverage in an English-speaking country, because of course hardly anyone understands anything but English.

     

    But if this is coverage by FIDE, intended directly for people knowledgeable and interested in chess, I agree that going to anything else during the game itself is surprising.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #3

    Vivinski

    I enjoy watching the coverage A LOT!!, I think the commentatotrs do a great job, I liked Nigel Short and Jan Timman.

     

    The half hour docu on religious russian art was way way too much though. pfff

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #4

    Saint-Paulia

    Nay. @ Monster, thanks for saying what I have been thinking. I think FIDE has shown that it is one of the best examples of a bureaucracy (other than governments in general). Nigel Short was tongue-tied half the time. He couldn't talk! And yes the comments have been pedestrian at best. The sidekick Netherlander commentator is also to blame for not being able to talk on the same level with the guest commentators. He often just says, "Um hmmm", or "I see", or ___________ fill in the blank.

    Also the tiny screen in the bottom right corner of the screen is pitiful. I prefer looking at the site http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/live?g=20120511 where I can see the moves, go back, etc. And avoid the amateurish commentators. They have added nothing to my understanding of this match.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #5

    Vivinski

    Saintpauliana wrote:

    Nay. @ Monster, thanks for saying what I have been thinking. I think FIDE has shown that it is one of the best examples of a bureaucracy (other than governments in general). Nigel Short was tongue-tied half the time. He couldn't talk! And yes the comments have been pedestrian at best. The sidekick Netherlander commentator is also to blame for not being able to talk on the same level with the guest commentators. He often just says, "Um hmmm", or "I see", or ___________ fill in the blank.

    Also the tiny screen in the bottom right corner of the screen is pitiful. I prefer looking at the site http://moscow2012.fide.com/en/live?g=20120511 where I can see the moves, go back, etc. And avoid the amateurish commentators. They have added nothing to my understanding of this match.

    notsureifserious.jpg.

    Surely, a former wold championship contender and a once very strong GM can't contribute to YOUR understanding of the game.

    It's a choice they make, I like that they're not constantly talking about technical stuff but give some background info and a personal view on the matter

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #6

    Monster_with_no_Name

    Timman missed many critical continuations.
    He also copped out of analysis saying things like:

    "Id need to concentrate and calculate to know whats going on..."

    Isnt that what he's there for. ?
    If he is just lazy then at least turn on the computer and explain the lines to the people in a human way.

    Short was hopeless and lazy as well. He only started working when Karajakin came in and made him look like a slouch.

    Shipovs commentry has been great compared to these lazy fide has beens.
    They belong in the 15C icon paintings in the museums.

    SaintPaulina: Yes right, that board is tiny! I dont want to see Timmans head and belly, I want to see the game and analysis!

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #7

    waffllemaster

    Yes, it was absolutely awful.  The art thing lasted over 30 minutes, after which there were... some more commercials.  Finally getting back to the game the analysis was very lazy.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #8

    Estragon

    The commercials were quite annoying.  I just turned down the sound and watched the game on the computer board.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #9

    Saint-Paulia

    @Monster: SaintPaulina Yes right, that board is tiny!.

    No doubt Paulina is a fine name, esp. for a female. It is not mine however. SaintpaulIANA. I know, it's a bit tricky, but not that bad! Many have asked, so I'll throw this in. Look at my avatar. It is a photo of an African Violet. Well the genus name is Saintpaulia. Which Chess.com would not let me use, so I added on the -na, which makes it 'akin to, in the style of'. OK?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #10

    Saint-Paulia

    AdvLegitimate wrote:

    the ICC coverage is good 

    Oh? how does one access this? It appears that I must join ICC to see any of these? If so, that's not exactly comparable to the broadcasts we have been discussing is it?

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #11

    RealDarren

    Well you should have watched it on chess.com TV it was great fun and the commentaters were very good. 

    The only slight complaint is, that it would have been nice to have a little corner of the screen devoted to permanently showing the current position. An aerial shot of a chess board with cut out cardboard pieces on it would have been good enough.

    Otherwise, great fun. Keep up the good work chess.com Cool


Back to Top

Post your reply: