This HAS to stop!!!
Sort:
I watch quite a bit of top-level chess, and I've witnessed over the past couple of years the term "win on demand" establish itself as a widely used and widely understood phrase that means "must win". WHY?????
The term "on demand" in any other context means, well, "on demand" ie. "when you want". It does not mean "must". in fact, it sort of implies the opposite of "must". So why on Earth has the chess world decided to use this phrase and give it a totally different meaning from the one everyone attached to it normally? I have my theories but I'm not going to get into that here.
What I do want to know is whether everyone is just ok with this, doesn't think about it, doesn't care because they know what everyone means now etc. etc. Or whether they also get annoyed by this super-weird and incorrect use of the phrase.
Seriously, what's wrong with just saying "it's a must-win situation etc?
And for anyone who thinks even thinking about Amy of this is petty and a waste
of time, I'd like to know why they're so ok with it. Is it just fine to say "night" when you mean "day"? While we're at it, what's wrong with just calling chess "draughts"?
Feb 18, 2024
0
#2
I agree it's nonsense but it's just like in other sports when they refer to the "winningest" team and things like that. It even happens when it's written reports. There's one posted in the news section on this website a few hours ago which contains "Dallas grows comeback" in the headline. Total nonsense but sports commentary isn't renowned for its correct grammar.
Greyflitworth wrote:
I agree it's nonsense but it's just like in other sports when they refer to the "winningest" team and things like that. It even happens when it's written reports. There's one posted in the news section on this website a few hours ago which contains "Dallas grows comeback" in the headline. Total nonsense but sports commentary isn't renowned for its correct grammar.
Fair point. I guess it's just that I assumed (probably wrongly) that chess players and commentators are more intelligent than your average sports pundit. The other point about that is that it's not an invented phrase like "winningest" - it already exists, and it has a clear and established meaning.
Agreed. This is one of the only things that annoy me.
Feb 27, 2024
0
#5
I've been playing longer than I should have and have never come across the phrase "win on demand". Any citations or links?
Feb 28, 2024
0
#6
llama_l wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:
I've been playing longer than I should have and have never come across the phrase "win on demand". Any citations or links?
I've heard it a lot in chess.com commentary. Maybe you could find it watching some Rober Hess stuff.
Dang. I never heard of Rober Hess either. This is getting complicated.
Yea I agree!
Mar 1, 2024
0
#8
The term has evolved within the chess lexicon to convey this specific high-pressure scenario.
Mar 1, 2024
0
#9
ChessMasteryOfficial wrote:
The term has evolved within the chess lexicon to convey this specific high-pressure scenario.
Just about every position feels like a high-pressure scenario to me. So now we've moved the search for what "win on demand" means to figuring out what that is all about. I'm thinking it's a dud metaphor.
countertheory wrote:
I watch quite a bit of top-level chess, and I've witnessed over the past couple of years the term "win on demand" establish itself as a widely used and widely understood phrase that means "must win". WHY????? The term "on demand" in any other context means, well, "on demand" ie. "when you want". It does not mean "must". in fact, it sort of implies the opposite of "must". So why on Earth has the chess world decided to use this phrase and give it a totally different meaning from the one everyone attached to it normally? I have my theories but I'm not going to get into that here. What I do want to know is whether everyone is just ok with this, doesn't think about it, doesn't care because they know what everyone means now etc. etc. Or whether they also get annoyed by this super-weird and incorrect use of the phrase. Seriously, what's wrong with just saying "it's a must-win situation etc? And for anyone who thinks even thinking about Amy of this is petty and a waste of time, I'd like to know why they're so ok with it. Is it just fine to say "night" when you mean "day"? While we're at it, what's wrong with just calling chess "draughts"?
You see this with a lot of stuff nowadays. For example, the word gay used to mean happy. Now it doesn't. 
Mar 1, 2024
0
#11
coffeelover14 wrote:
countertheory wrote:
I watch quite a bit of top-level chess, and I've witnessed over the past couple of years the term "win on demand" establish itself as a widely used and widely understood phrase that means "must win". WHY????? The term "on demand" in any other context means, well, "on demand" ie. "when you want". It does not mean "must". in fact, it sort of implies the opposite of "must". So why on Earth has the chess world decided to use this phrase and give it a totally different meaning from the one everyone attached to it normally? I have my theories but I'm not going to get into that here. What I do want to know is whether everyone is just ok with this, doesn't think about it, doesn't care because they know what everyone means now etc. etc. Or whether they also get annoyed by this super-weird and incorrect use of the phrase. Seriously, what's wrong with just saying "it's a must-win situation etc? And for anyone who thinks even thinking about Amy of this is petty and a waste of time, I'd like to know why they're so ok with it. Is it just fine to say "night" when you mean "day"? While we're at it, what's wrong with just calling chess "draughts"?
You see this with a lot of stuff nowadays. For example, the word gay used to mean happy. Now it doesn't.
It still means "happy" but you have to use it in the right context or social situation or you'll sow confusion.
Mar 1, 2024
0
#14
You know, I'd assumed that when I checked the OED, I'd find that this phrase has a long history and is used in lots of different contexts. But no. And google seems to suggest it really is chess-specific. I guess other games/sports have different ways of talking about such must-win situations because in, say, baseball, there aren't any draws. If you're down three games to two in the playoffs, you're in a must-win situation.
I can sort of understand wanting to have a different language for chess, since we're talking about situations where the the result, with correct play, will be a draw. The person who has to win on demand doesn't just have to play better -- they have to make something happen that, in some sense, shouldn't happen.
So I can't say he term bothers me enormously. The English language changes, etc, and this bothers me a lot less than "banalize," which I saw in a book proposal yesterday.
I wonder, though, if it originates from an error. Were people thinking of the phrase "on command"? I can imagine it coming about as a slight mangling of that phrase.
llama_l wrote:
countertheory wrote:
The term "on demand" in any other context means, well, "on demand" ie. "when you want".
If someone is demanding something of someone else, it's the opposite of "when you want." It's "when the other person wants" thus the demand.
There are two parties. For one it's "when they want" for the other it's the opposite.
If Hikaru has to "win on demand" against Carlsen, it's Carlsen (or rather, the match situation) who is demanding it, not Hikaru... this is all pretty obvious to most people which is why the term is widely used and accepted.
I don't want to be rude but this comes across as pretty muddled thinking to me. If Hikaru has to "win on demand", to take your example, Carlsen is not demanding anything. Hikaru is in a "must-win" situation. Sound familiar? That is because it is familiar. How's that as a clear and well-understood alternative?
By your explanation, how am I to make sense of video-on-demand services, for example? Does it mean that I have to have them? Please explain. Thanks.
bobby_max wrote:
You may want to seek professional psychological help if this is the sort of thing that upsets you to this degree. Help-on-demand, if you will.
Thanks for your contribution to the topic. Super helpful.
ChessMasteryOfficial wrote:
The term has evolved within the chess lexicon to convey this specific high-pressure scenario.
Spot on. It is used to mean a "must-win" situation, which is a really clear and well-known phrase. Oh, wait.....
Mar 11, 2024
0
#19
Winning on Demand just $14.99 per month for the first three months, then only 17.99 per month afterward. Or upgrade to Winning on Demand Plus (ad-free) for only 19.99 per month.