Ending Broadcast Early iGame 11 of Anand/Topalovn

 Here we go again! Did you guys not learn anything from the outcry of protest when you ended a world championship broadcast prematurely the last time? It bothers me that it is now becoming commonplace at chess.com to just walk off and end the broadcast because the position is becoming "boring." No guys, the position isn't boring, YOU'RE boring! (Tough love) Please don't tell me there wasn't objection because I was there both times urging you not to end the broadcast. What kind of example are you setting? When you're work isn't done, that's ok! Just leave and justify it, even if others get angry and feel ripped off.  Who does that? You guys apparently. You're really setting the bar at an all time low. It doesn't matter if the game turns out to be a draw. The point is you don't walk off and end the broadcast when the game is still in progress. You just don't! Maybe the sign by your name should say "Live!!!!... until I get bored then I'm leaving."

they ended it early again? lol yeah that is quite annoying...

It's not over yet, actually.

 The actual game 11 between Anand and Topalov is not over yet, but the Chess.com broadcast coverage of the game IS over.  That is the whole point of the original post.

(I tend to agree that the decision by chess.com to end their coverage of a World Championship Game so early was a bad one. Why even bother if you are not committed to covering the ENTIRE game??)

and I'm saying that the coverage is, in fact, not over yet. Or I'm schizophrenic and just staring at a blank screen.

Ok, my mistake. They started to broadcast live coverage of the game again.

Yeah they're back. Good. Now if they can STAY back until the game is concluded that would be nice.

They came back with anand's pawn sac and the lag has been pretty acceptable since.

we have nowhere and never said that we would cover every move of the games. nor do we have any responsibility to do so.

the broadcast is a present to you, gbidari, and it's not very nice to complain about it not being all you want.

i was fighting a fever and sore throat, getting up at 5 am to try to entertain; then contending with unreasonable lag from livestream, which would have usually caused the cancellation of any broadcast. under the circumstances, we tried to provide some entertainment for some people.

and yes, out of 200 people watching, there was one person who yelled at us not to stop, when we took a break in the middle of a lag-storm. but there were far more people who thanked us for our work.

It's amazing on how rude some people are! Just be grateful chess.com tv is even broadcasting the games.

I think it was good to end early  and I am grateful for the broadcast thingy. =) Great job guys

They are doing their best, there is no need to be harsh about it. It seems to me these broadcasting thing is more an experimental attempt for chess.com, more like a beta than a professional service. As long as they are aware of it, and use these attempts to figure out how chess tv can become a better service in the future, it is all good, and encouraging them may work better. 

We appreciate the great job you guys do...and it was great for you to return and finish the broadcast...even with all the lagging problems today.

For me personally, I follow the games simultaneously on three/four sites...so it really does not bug me.

No responsibility to cover the whole game? You guys advertised it saying live coverage of the world championship, diamond and platinum members only. How about some truth in advertising? If in your advertisment you said "Partial coverage of game 11" then you'd have a valid point. Putting the way it was promoted aside for the moment, how about the responsibility of finishing what you start? Or don't you think that's an important concept? You are in front of the camera as an announcer of game 11 with many chess fans tuning in and you think anything you say is a gift and that you can stop whenever you want and we should all be thankful? Well that's pretty arrogant don't you think? The live coverage is a present? That's a bit of a stretch. I see it more as a perk from a membership that I paid good money for. I have never seen an announcer take that attitude except until recently at chess.com and it's pretty obnoxious frankly. Now you say my complaining is not very nice. I thought what you did was so egregious that I had to say something. Speaking of presents, people wishing to improve pay good money for this kind of honest feedback and so perhaps you can think of it as a present to you.

I observe that gbidari values these chess.com TV transmissions very highly

I agree that the chess.com coverage on these World Championship games is great and has big value! Very instructive analysis showing so many lines and thoughts that do not appear on the board of Anand and Topalov, but in their heads and on the chess.com TV analysis board. Many instructive lines that they may not even have calculated, but which are very instructive for the viewers to see and understand. All that in an entertaining way, with chat interactivity, and with video.

And I am impressed to see how they manage to keep up this quality during so long transmission times, dealing well with technical problems such as lag. Well-chosen breaks at the right points of time can be very well suited to fight and lessen lag problems while improving the commentators' energy for the late stages of such marathon games. I am observing that chess.com uses considerably less time for breaks than other excellent sites I know of that are covering these world championship match games.

gbidari, you seem to have created a misunderstanding for some people that I think should be clarified at this point:

chess.com TV coverage of this game 11 between Anand and Topalov did not stop early. It covered this game until the very last move.

I do value the broadcasts highly and I'm a fan of the game and the analysis. I actually like IM Pruess's commentary a lot. I just became enraged when he bolted LOL.  As to your comment about the coverage not stopping early, say what?? I was there. They said they were stopping and should it get interesting again, they might come back, and it went dark. Even IM Pruess in this thread tried to justify the departure saying " we have nowhere and never said we would cover every move of the games, nor do we have any responsibility to do so". You think he would have mentioned they never stopped as you claim if this were true.

Sorry that a paying member complained about something and offered a suggestion to fix it, which would thereby increase his loyalty and likelihood of continuing as a paying member.

Gratitude and criticism need not be mutually exclusive. I am thankful for the service I get for having to look at ads, but if something is amiss I should have a right to express my opinion according to the degree of its importance. Gbidari values the live coverage highly, hence his reaction. The staff can either take this personally or can use this criticism constructively to generate ideas for improvement, such as Ilmago's suggestion of more breaks.

If all we do is talk about how grateful we are that chess.com exists, erik will certainly feel good, but he will have to guess about what he should invest his hard work into next.

Chess.com is not some exercise in back-slapping (though many would prefer it that way), it's a business. When a customer feels he's been gyped he has to say something and that business should listen without becoming overly defensive.

Hm, that's a really bad reaction from Pruess. I didn't follow this particular broadcast (I did follow the previously cut one), but it sounds like you guys evaluated the game as a dead draw at some point and, to cut bandwith costs, decided to put an end to it. When Anand valiantly sacrificed his pawn, you must have thought "oh man, we can't declare a draw again on a game that proves to be decisive" and then decided to bring back the show. Wheter this is the case or not, I'd like to make some remarks:

1.

That's a quite audacious justification and I was surprised to see you resorting to it. When a service like this is announced, common sense says that you can take for granted it will be covered in its entirety because that's the rule when such events are covered, not the exception. Similarly, it's nowhere explicitly written that Chess.com will never overcharge members, but in case it somehow accidently happens, I doubt anyone will say "hey, we've nowhere said that we will be extra-careful when issuing monthly payment requests". Some things don't need to be said.

2.

I really didn't understand that. If the broadcast was closed to paying members and Chess TV is among the membership benefits, how can it be considered a present? And why take such a defensive stance against a reasonable criticism? You may not agree with his tone, but the point he makes is valid and dind't deserve a "it's not very nice to complain about presents" response.

3.

I believe we all appreciate your effort, and I hope you can straight things out with the livestream provider (or whoever the responsible for the lag was). But please consider that when a service is announced it creates expectations and reactions should be expected when things don't happen according to plans, even if they are not under your control. Again you sound like if you were doing a personal favour when you were in fact keeping a promise made to the site's members. Recognizing the problems the site (and your health) had and apologizing for any inconveniences might have been a more professional way of handling these reactions, in my unsolicited opinion.

That's it. I agree with Imago that the broadcasts are great (at least the ones I have followed) and I really hope you can take this post as a respectful way of pointing out some perceived mistakes at the site's reaction to criticism. If I didn't think you guys can do a good job, I wouldn't bother to write that much. And yes, I'm not a member, not yet. The haters can bring theirs stones, I've got a thick skin.

I think Pruess et al does a great job.  I prefer him to ICC, which seems to have an enormous number of idiots watching.  I don't know when he abandoned the game because i abandoned it much earlier as a draw.  You can't please everybody and i'm sure chess.com will improve over time.  This is an experiment and i appreciate the coverage.