If sports coverage is anything to go by (and it might not be), having some surprises is more interesting than having none.
To be fair, I'd probably prefer the sedate tweed-jacket style commentary, so you can safely ignore anything I say.
Why Maurice Ashley is a competant commentator (pro/anti engine fans)
Sort:
After watching dozens of St Louis events with Yasser, Jen, & Maurice, I have become a fan of both the trio's chemistry and and how the combination creates a synergy that has something to offer for everyone (and also something to complain about for some). In all however, I think the combination creates an entertaining product.
But this thread is focused on Maurice specifically. I think Maurice brings an ESPN-like quality to chess that no other commentator can quite match. Is it overly dramatic sometimes? Sure. But I'd rather have that than monotone, low energy commentating.
The other aspect I'd like to touch on is the benefit/con of him manning the engine most of the time. In my opinion it's 100% beneficial. The reason why is best explained by a quote from Robert Hess in a recent podcast on Perpetual Chess when he said that using and engine as a commentator is critical because it's better for the audience is the commentator knows if a killer blow is possible than to go on for several minutes and then be surprised 5 mins later when the player makes a winning move that surprises the entire panel because they didn't see it. They key is what makes a better product for the watching audience.
I know some will agree and disagree so I thought I'd start a thread and have a civil discussion. I think there will be some great arguments for both Maurice's style and separately for the use/non-use of an engine during commentator for classical and rapid games.
As a last note, I'm sure many of use would like commentators to not entertain too many lines in a blitz game because it's way too confusing for the audience.