Pussimatti wrote:
I hope next time is more pro.
agreed :) we learned a LOT about how to do that for next time.
chess.com got me shamed with Magnus match
Sort:
It seems 19% voted correctly on the official chess.com voting on the match.
Chess.com server errors will destroy the match (19%)
i wonder how many new unknown mebers chess.com got on this event 
Tricklev wrote:
It seems 19% voted correctly on the official chess.com voting on the match.
Chess.com server errors will destroy the match (19%)
like some people voted in the survey, chess.com errors would disturb the match a bit but I liked it more time would of been nice but I went off it when there was a complete shut down and everything went off-line, but apart from that everything was ok on chrome, good job erik
Well, I wish I could argue in this thread, but I wasn't there for the match 
Not that it would have mattered, with me on the team we would have lost even worse, but could you (if there will be another match like this) schedule some stuff that doesn't take place at 11:00 A.M. CST? Hopefully if there is a next time the servers will work better, from what I've heard here.
Sep 10, 2010
0
#27
KingChessGuy wrote:
In the year 1999 this total failure of execution would have been something we had to live with. In the year 2010 there is no legitimate excuses other than poor planning and the people involved are not at the "top of their game".
There are video games that 60 people can play against people on the other side of the world and have latency so small that the game will register faithfully whether a sniper actually shot the guy across a map in the head or missed while he was running.
This was:
1. a simple video feed
2. an animated chess board
3. a multiple choice A) B) C) area for viewers to choose from
None of these things in my opinion are acceptable to screw up in the year 2010.
The only issue that should even be relevant is the bandwith issue and the fact
that the companies involved screwed something like that up is just sad.
i COMPLETELY agree with that. however, those companies had more than 2 weeks to do it, a budget of 100x what we had, and experience doing it before.
look - i'm not saying i'm 100% happy with the outcome. but considering the constraints it was a miracle.
Two weeks?
It was more than two weeks ago that I signed for the game...
Sep 10, 2010
0
#30
heinzie wrote:
Two weeks?
we got technical specs, wireframes, and artwork 2 weeks ago. we worked literally through the night for those 2 weeks. and we're not some huge company like ubisoft with 20 years of online gaming behind us, 2 year development cycles, multi-million dollar budgets, and dozens of programmers - we're a handful of 20/30 year old kids working from home. :)
Sep 10, 2010
0
#31
Pussimatti wrote:
It was more than two weeks ago that I signed for the game...
they had a signup page LONG before they had anything else done.
I did like the interface. It was simple and understandable, and getting video, and audio stream separate was good idea (only that you couldn't turn audio off from video stream - to watch Magnus and listen chess.com-tv). I wouldn't change a thing (except audio off), but get the servers running...
Sep 10, 2010
0
#33
anyway, i'm done with the topic. it was a far from perfect event. we did our best given the inputs. i personally had a great experience.
complain if you like - but you know what they say about those who complain... ;)
erik wrote:
anyway, i'm done with the topic.
Okey, anyway, thank you for the event, and I hope my comments weren't just "trolling".
Sep 10, 2010
0
#35
I enjoyed the game and the experience very much. The comments of the IM at this website during the game were fun. It was a pitty that this guy did not have a good internet connection often.
Sep 10, 2010
0
#36
Pussimatti wrote:
erik wrote:
anyway, i'm done with the topic.
Okey, anyway, thank you for the event, and I hope my comments weren't just "trolling".
i didn't feel they were. they were an expression of disappointment (maybe a bit hastily fashioned). but i took it well. i'm usually my own toughest critic, so we're already talking about how we would do this differently in the future. thanks for your input!
Sep 10, 2010
0
#37
Speaking for me, I only experienced a small handful of moments when I was required to refresh the G-Star screen, far less than what some other fans across the world experienced.
My connection to the G-Star page, even streaming the video and audio, seemed more stable then IM Dannyville Renschtown's; my view of the G-Star game clock was usually 15 seconds ahead of DRs.
The opportunity for self-inflicted sensory overload was high for those who tried to divide their time between some or all of: (1) watching the G-Star live feed from the http://rwcc.g-star.com/, (2) watching the feed Chess.com had on www.chess.com/tv, while (3) participating at the same time in the chat room (that can only be described as the Chess.com Thunderdome), (4) pounding the refresh button, (5) listening to Kasparov occasionaly, and (6) chatting what move they liked.
I had a blast. It was fun to hear an IM analyzing moves outloud in a game with Carlsen. I wish I had paid more attention to that and less to the chat room.
Sep 10, 2010
0
#38
Ahh, Louis CK. Is that man ever not hysterically funny?
It was definitely cool for what it was; I enjoyed the overall experience. It'll also make for a good 'this is what we did/this is what I watched yesterday' type of story in retrospect.
I must say too that I liked the look and style of the playing board and pieces. They made all of Magnus's moves seem particularly fearsome. Anyone else feeling that vibe?
Naka is one of my favorite players. I thought I was going to be biased towards his suggestions, but I actually found myself going with Polgar's plans most often.
The event was m'eh.
Did it sell more jeans for G-star? When Liv Tyler appeared, maybe.
Still, I thought it was an interesting experiment. As PrawnEatsPrawn mentions, it was experience for the future, even if it is not used in another marketing ploy like this one.