Only provide entertainment? Is providing entertainment through playing chess not a good way to show that chess is a fun game? And therefore adding value to chess, not cheapening it?
Hikaru ,Chessbrah and Alexandra are the leading chess streamers by subscriber count. Most of the successful streamers offer the right balance of knowledge and entertainment.
It's time to accept that chess is simply entertainment to 99% of people who play. Sure you want to improve, but for serious training and pushing towards gaining a title you are not looking for YouTube videos or twitch streams.
Thank you JB and Simon for having integrity and producing quality content. Shame on the others.
- All chess content is good
- Watching a GM play blitz and commenting can in fact be educational
- Botez rating of 2000 means she is good enough to teach chess to most of the members here.
- Stuff on youtube with questionable educational value? I am shocked!
- People trying to monetize something they love and or are good at makes perfect sense.
- We live in an age where EVERYTHING is available on line. Pick what you want and quit whining.
Watching various "Masters" play Game in 3/0 can be helpful, IF you know a bit of opening, middle game, and endgame theory yourself. If not, maybe you should buy a few relevant books and study them. Simple.
You Tube is for Cat Videos, so why not a useful Ted Talk for Chess? On balance, too many people want to be a Celebrity. Even more people want to watch them. End of Story.
The chessbrahs and most other streamers do have educational videos, just less than other streamers like the ones you mentioned (gingergm, jb). Even gingergm made a video titled "trying to catch a penguin". He wasn't trying to catch a penguin. He was trying to beat Andrew Tang in a bullet game. They are not "cheapening the game", they are just being entertaining for their average viewers who watch them for enjoyment rather than improving. Just my opinion. 
I'm not sure what I think of those specific streams, but to put it bluntly: Chess is not a whatever entertainment! Chess is about how human beings have 'thought' and 'think' about conflict. I agree with OP that trivializing this specific game may not be a good idea. This is obviously debatable. Maybe it is.
I'm not sure what I think of those specific streams, but to put it bluntly: Chess is not a whatever entertainment! Chess is about how human beings have 'thought' and 'think' about conflict. I agree with OP that trivializing this specific game may not be a good idea. This is obviously debatable. Maybe it is.
That's a load of crap. Chess is no more or less about "thought" and conflict than Stratego. It's a well designed game that really has nothing to do with war, etc. except by relatively arbitrary presentation of the piece names. War on the ground is more about logistics and there are a myriad of better games to illustrate the principles.
And "the meaning of chess" opens the door to this endless navel gazing, as per above? Surely you guys can come up with a more sensible discussion topic? Perhaps not.
Movies about Fischer (et. al.) are not a "load of crap." When did they last make a movie about STRATEGO ??
I think the question could be extended to "Is chess.com cheapening the game?".
Frankly I am not a fan of chess.com's new found obsession with Twitch. I remember one could previously tune into watch some of the top tournament broadcasts on chess.com, but now-a-days not so much. They prefer to broadcast patzers over top level tournaments on their tv website.
Even with twitch streams, they have killed their own chat, and no one cares about chess.com chats on those streams. Its all about the twitch chat.
Substandard players being given preferance over top level super gm tournaments makes no sense. Its almost as if they want to ruin their own website.
No. If it wasn't for IM Rosen i'd probably be playing half the chess I am now.
I'm not sure what I think of those specific streams, but to put it bluntly: Chess is not a whatever entertainment! Chess is about how human beings have 'thought' and 'think' about conflict. I agree with OP that trivializing this specific game may not be a good idea. This is obviously debatable. Maybe it is.
That's a load of crap. Chess is no more or less about "thought" and conflict than Stratego. It's a well designed game that really has nothing to do with war, etc. except by relatively arbitrary presentation of the piece names. War on the ground is more about logistics and there are a myriad of better games to illustrate the principles.
It is not a load of crap. The fact is you ignore the history of chess and its deep cultural significance. 
I am not saying chess is load of crap, I'm saying your arguments are a load of crap . An important distinction that seems to be lost on you (and Zborg).
Although this Botez person is pretty funny... a wiki page and a FIDE title, but only a 2000 rating.
Oh, that's right, how could I forget that cleavage is a thing.
Jesus ladies, if you want to be treated as equals go after people like this who (apparently) have no self respect.
Although this Botez person is pretty funny... a wiki page and a FIDE title, but only a 2000 rating.
Oh, that's right, how could I forget that cleavage is a thing.
Jesus ladies, if you want to be treated as equals go after people like this who (apparently) have no self respect.
Thanks for saving the bunny some time.
Only provide entertainment? Is providing entertainment through playing chess not a good way to show that chess is a fun game? And therefore adding value to chess, not cheapening it?