Why do they allow Tania Sachdev to commentate?

She has the most annoying voice.

Why can't we have someone like Koneru Humpy or Harika Dronavalli instead?

Because India is the fastest growing market for chess and a lot of Indian men like her.

What happened to David Howell, Jovanka Houska, Simon Williams, Jan Gustaffson, and the American crew including Naroditsky and Hess? They could have at least rotated Fiona Steil-Antoni so we could get a few days without the screeching voice.

I don't see how the opinion is a minority when we never had a say so from the beginning.

A lot of non Indian men too. Just sayin.

Because literally the only problem with her commentary is that she's slightly too loud. They should fix that with production but otherwise you're wrong.

There's nothing like being certain your opinion is correct and dismissing all other people's preferences are wrong 😂

When trolls make bigoted and sexist comments that is the response they deserve.

I'm not a troll but hey whatever.

Why do they allow Tania Sachdev to commentate? Is clearly a troll title. I was not referring to you.

I have been watching some of the commentary and Tania seems very knowledgeable on the positions. Peter Leko agrees very much with her analysis. I don't understand the criticism of her. She doesn't seem arrogant to me.

I wasn't referring to her chess knowledge or even personality. Yes, she knows a lot. She should write a book. It's her annoying voice that destroys the live commentary and that destroys wanting to tune in. I would rather just watch the games and use Stockfish every so often.

I think they should rotate commentators, there are plenty of other commentators that don't have that irritating screeching voice. But if she is going to commentate on the WHOLE event, then I am out of there.

Everyone has different perspectives. I find Peter Leko's voice ... hard to listen to ... but I respect his chess knowledge. To each their own.

I hardly consider this a fight. In a forum you're supposed to exchange knowledge, impact knowledge. I don't have any issue with him not liking her based on the tone of her voice. The prompt literally reads, "why do they allow her to commentate," which is clearly inflammatory, not sexist concretely, but quite close. That tone should be met with this response because it's indicative of much larger issues. When you quietly allow those types of biases to persist without calling them out people never change.

"I don't have any issue with him not liking her based on the tone of her voice."

[The prompt literally reads, "why do they allow her to commentate," ]

Let's compare those two sentences. If the title referred to her commentary, how is that "not liking her"? If someone is told they look good in red, does that mean they don't look good in other colors, and does that also translate to not liking them as a person?

Next, if "her" was switched to "his" would that also be sexist? Perhaps if someone said she didn't talk ladylike, that might be construed as sexist at some base level. But it clearly isn't objectifying her just because she is a she.

How is this sexist the person did not go after the women because she is a women it is because of her voice not sex

It's not inherently sexist. You just have to assume it is, because the tables are so turned already. The average person saying such a thing is acting in bad faith, and even if they're not, they should be treated as if they are. That is the only way to make that type of bull- go away

I'm not cancelling you. I'm not firing you. I'm just telling you you're being an as-

I am sorry, I must apologize. I didn't mean to be sexist. Let's get an American commentator like Roseanne Barr to match the commentary style.