I think it's a great idea as both events get more coverage as a result.
All tennis grand slam tournaments for men and women are played simultaneously. Track and field competitions for men and women are held in the same place and at the same time. Same for swimming. Cross country skiing. And multiple other sports.
I am glad chess is finally catching up!!!
I am glad chess is finally catching up!!!
I wasn't sure, but I feel like more people are paying attention this time than last time when the Womens' candidates were at a separate time.
@Frankieking7983 said in #1:
> Women's chess should have to stand on its own. Attempting to prop it up by tying it to chess is disastrous for both.
Bit of a Freudian slip there I think. Women ́s chess is basically not chess for you?
> Women's chess should have to stand on its own. Attempting to prop it up by tying it to chess is disastrous for both.
Bit of a Freudian slip there I think. Women ́s chess is basically not chess for you?
A the old force-feeding argument, don’t we just love it. I hope that being absolutely forced to watch the GMs in the women‘s section will leave no permanent mark.
By the way there are streams that exclusively focus on one of the sections.
By the way there are streams that exclusively focus on one of the sections.
@mkubecek said in #8:
> They do and out of the 8 participants in the tournament, 6 are higher rated than this range. (And in total, 12 women have rating higher than 2500.)
>
>
> This is snobish, nothing else. Neither me, nor you - or vast majority of the viewers, FWIW - are experts who would be able to recognize the nuances that differentiate the play of 2500 rated players from 2750+ ones. If I gave you 10 games without any annotation, 5 played by ~2500 rated players and 5 by 2750+ ones, would you be confident enough to recognize on your own which are which? Confident enough to bet money on your answer?
>
> Fun fact: 3 out of 8 participants of the open candidates tournament are below 2750 at the moment.
>
>
> I have no trouble to admit that for me, watching e.g. 2000 (FIDE) rated playes is a better experience than watching a GM level game where I would have no chance to understand what is going on without an expert commentary. Sure, I could be like many others and utter "wise" comments like "oh no, how could he miss that?" about engine lines that I would never see on my own but I guess I have too much common sense for that.
>
> And I'm not ashamed to watch even games of players of my level. It gives me some idea what to expect and it's a useful exercise to compare what I would play with what was played or to check if I can notice the opportunities that appeared in the game.
It's not elitist at all. The whole reason people watch sports is because of the drama. There has to be something that both players or teams are fighting for, and it has to be substantial or it's not very interesting.
The ratings for a superbowl, or a cricket championship, or a baseball championship are a lot higher than a regular season game. A celebrity golf tournanment is not going to outperform the masters. A WNBA game, unless a championship game, will not outperform an NBA game.
In Chess, most people want to watch the best players, and at the biggest tournanments, with the most substantial reward on the line. Like I said, Polgar is the exception. We all watched Polgar because she was at the very top of the sport. But most of us do not watch 2500 level players, or 2000 level players, because winning or losing, while it might it matter to the individual playing the game, doesn't have the same risk/reward as winning candidates, or playing for the title.
The fact that you enjoy watching the 2000 level players, only proves my point that there are obviously exceptions to the general rule. But the general rule still applies. Most people are not going to spend time watching that kind of tournanment because it's insignificant.
In short, it lacks drama.
> They do and out of the 8 participants in the tournament, 6 are higher rated than this range. (And in total, 12 women have rating higher than 2500.)
>
>
> This is snobish, nothing else. Neither me, nor you - or vast majority of the viewers, FWIW - are experts who would be able to recognize the nuances that differentiate the play of 2500 rated players from 2750+ ones. If I gave you 10 games without any annotation, 5 played by ~2500 rated players and 5 by 2750+ ones, would you be confident enough to recognize on your own which are which? Confident enough to bet money on your answer?
>
> Fun fact: 3 out of 8 participants of the open candidates tournament are below 2750 at the moment.
>
>
> I have no trouble to admit that for me, watching e.g. 2000 (FIDE) rated playes is a better experience than watching a GM level game where I would have no chance to understand what is going on without an expert commentary. Sure, I could be like many others and utter "wise" comments like "oh no, how could he miss that?" about engine lines that I would never see on my own but I guess I have too much common sense for that.
>
> And I'm not ashamed to watch even games of players of my level. It gives me some idea what to expect and it's a useful exercise to compare what I would play with what was played or to check if I can notice the opportunities that appeared in the game.
It's not elitist at all. The whole reason people watch sports is because of the drama. There has to be something that both players or teams are fighting for, and it has to be substantial or it's not very interesting.
The ratings for a superbowl, or a cricket championship, or a baseball championship are a lot higher than a regular season game. A celebrity golf tournanment is not going to outperform the masters. A WNBA game, unless a championship game, will not outperform an NBA game.
In Chess, most people want to watch the best players, and at the biggest tournanments, with the most substantial reward on the line. Like I said, Polgar is the exception. We all watched Polgar because she was at the very top of the sport. But most of us do not watch 2500 level players, or 2000 level players, because winning or losing, while it might it matter to the individual playing the game, doesn't have the same risk/reward as winning candidates, or playing for the title.
The fact that you enjoy watching the 2000 level players, only proves my point that there are obviously exceptions to the general rule. But the general rule still applies. Most people are not going to spend time watching that kind of tournanment because it's insignificant.
In short, it lacks drama.
In other words, you admit that this "I want the top event, everything else is rubbish" attitude is nothing but snobism of people who are not really interested in chess but want rather feel good that they are watching the "top stuff" even if they wouldn't be able to recognize it. (With some very rare exceptions.)
As for drama... A local football game can offer a lot of drama while a World Championship or Champions League finale can be completely boring at times. And it's the same with chess, I'm afraid. Actually, in chess, I would rather say that the higher you go, the better chance to see games with no actual drama to watch.
Make no mistake: I fully agree that way more people are willing to pay to watch the "top stuff" than "just the second league". But I find it kind of sad and want to call it what it is, without pretending there is something rational behind it.
As for drama... A local football game can offer a lot of drama while a World Championship or Champions League finale can be completely boring at times. And it's the same with chess, I'm afraid. Actually, in chess, I would rather say that the higher you go, the better chance to see games with no actual drama to watch.
Make no mistake: I fully agree that way more people are willing to pay to watch the "top stuff" than "just the second league". But I find it kind of sad and want to call it what it is, without pretending there is something rational behind it.
BtW, this is really funny whenever Olympic Games come. In small countries like mine, there are suddenly millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of "fans" of sports like judo, sport shooting or water slalom that they wouldn't even think of watching otherwise - and they probably couldn't even if they wanted to as no TV would broadcast it. But for a week or two, they love watching it and discuss it fervently just because someone from their country has a good chance to win an olympic medal.
Nothing wrong with it... I just refuse to pretend this has anything to do with an actual interest in those sports or that this "huge interest" in open candidates tournament and lack of interest in women's candidates tournament is somehow different.
Nothing wrong with it... I just refuse to pretend this has anything to do with an actual interest in those sports or that this "huge interest" in open candidates tournament and lack of interest in women's candidates tournament is somehow different.
I think it is a sad story, no matter how it is done.
The women are fabulous players for sure. But then, their rating is below the top-100 of men. Would you take a day off to watch top 101-108 play a double round robin tournament? Probably not!
And yes, I probably couldn't tell who is playing if you showed me a game without the players names. And without commentary or engine, I would often be completely lost.
But if we are saying women and men - all the same... then the point "why should I watch weaker players" (sic!) is pretty much valid. And if we say "women are not as strong" - well, there is obviously something to complain about this also.
From a chess "learner" perspective, watching games of 200-2300 range would be much better anyway. So we are here for the show of the best, and for the people we know from the media. And I guess even most chess players couldn't name any of the female participants. Which is kind of sad as well.
I have respect for all perspectives: women and men all the same, women and men different. I really do.
But it seems problematic to push both agendas at the same time. This just doesn't add up.
The women are fabulous players for sure. But then, their rating is below the top-100 of men. Would you take a day off to watch top 101-108 play a double round robin tournament? Probably not!
And yes, I probably couldn't tell who is playing if you showed me a game without the players names. And without commentary or engine, I would often be completely lost.
But if we are saying women and men - all the same... then the point "why should I watch weaker players" (sic!) is pretty much valid. And if we say "women are not as strong" - well, there is obviously something to complain about this also.
From a chess "learner" perspective, watching games of 200-2300 range would be much better anyway. So we are here for the show of the best, and for the people we know from the media. And I guess even most chess players couldn't name any of the female participants. Which is kind of sad as well.
I have respect for all perspectives: women and men all the same, women and men different. I really do.
But it seems problematic to push both agendas at the same time. This just doesn't add up.
@Frankieking7983 said in #1:
> Here is the thing... We already have four games to watch at once. Which would leave 25% coverage on average per game. Some will be more exciting and get more coverage obviously so each game shines less.
>
> When you add 4 more games at the same time the Women FIDE candidates that means you gotta watch 8 games at once. That 25% coverage drops to 12.5% on average coverage per game.
Didn ́t hear anyone complaining about the quality of the coverage of Tata Steel in January, with many of the best in the world playing on 7 boards. But if one more board ruins it for you, then you have my commiserations.
(Btw - Ju Wenjun, the current Women ́s World Chess Champion, beat Alireza Firouzja in that tournament and drew against Vidit, Gukesh, Nepo and Ding Liren, among others. Just saying.)
> Here is the thing... We already have four games to watch at once. Which would leave 25% coverage on average per game. Some will be more exciting and get more coverage obviously so each game shines less.
>
> When you add 4 more games at the same time the Women FIDE candidates that means you gotta watch 8 games at once. That 25% coverage drops to 12.5% on average coverage per game.
Didn ́t hear anyone complaining about the quality of the coverage of Tata Steel in January, with many of the best in the world playing on 7 boards. But if one more board ruins it for you, then you have my commiserations.
(Btw - Ju Wenjun, the current Women ́s World Chess Champion, beat Alireza Firouzja in that tournament and drew against Vidit, Gukesh, Nepo and Ding Liren, among others. Just saying.)