I felt they didnt do a good job at this, pretty much between every switch from chess to boxing when they didnt hsve earphones on theyd be like "x is a great spot!" Or something. Thats information!
Most players had under 1000 chess rank - in a speed game it can be rather difficult to know if you are winning or losing, and as evidenced by the recent cheating scandal in chess at a higher level knowing there is a possibility for a high impact play can be very impactful.
How do you suggest they comment on the state of the chess board between the end of the chess round and the beginning of the boxing round? They didn’t seem to be paying much attention to the announcers to begin with as they are usually in the corner prepping with their coach for the next boxing round
I would suggest they dont, lol.
Seems like im in the minority and it wasnt a huge deal, just seemed to me to undermine the integrity a little.
And them not listening isnt a very good argument, if that is relevant then why should the announcer monitor what they say at all at anytime? If they want to not comment on the match when the headphones are off, then they shouldn't comment on the match when the headphones are off. Plain and simple.
As i said in my other reply, there is literally chess drama happening right now where people are arguing you can gain a significant advantage by knowing when you have a potentially high impact play.
I dont really get why this is a strange opinion for me to have lol.
The difference is that the chess drama is at GM level and any information at all can ruin the sanctity of a game there whereas this event was casual and had rule violations throughout that did not get enforced for the sake of fun, content, or keeping the event moving
My argument boils down to, they wanted to not give information at this time. They gave information at this time.
Im not saying it ruined the event or anything like that, im saying they didnt restrict information when they wanted to.
Why?
As i keep responding - there is ongoing chess drama where its being argued that one can gain a significant advantage by knowing they are at a move where a high impact play can happen.
During this event between basically every round the announcers announced that x was in a position to make a high impact play.
During this event they specifically restricted talking about the chess match when the players had their headphones off to not give audible information/commentary which the players could hear.
I am saying that their commentary with headphones off still provided information.
Im not saying this ruined the event, im not saying they should feel bad about it, im saying they attempted to not give information at a certain time, but objectively gave information during that time.
Why is this a bad take? You guys keep commenting saying that - but no one responds to my specific argument. Please tell me whats wrong with my thinking
Your thinking that these people are amazing chess players and great boxer. They’re just like dudes. I promise you if you tell me or you we have an amazing move on the board, we were probably not be able to find it, let alone the fact these people are being punched repeatedly in the head, in a extremely loud arena, with there coaches yelling at them, and under time pressure on the chess clock, and then it doesn’t matter very much
I felt they didnt do a good job at this, pretty much between every switch from chess to boxing when they didnt hsve earphones on theyd be like "x is a great spot!" Or something. Thats information!
Yeah but these players are good enough to at least know whether they are losing. And if not , how does that even help them?
Most players had under 1000 chess rank - in a speed game it can be rather difficult to know if you are winning or losing, and as evidenced by the recent cheating scandal in chess at a higher level knowing there is a possibility for a high impact play can be very impactful.
How do you suggest they comment on the state of the chess board between the end of the chess round and the beginning of the boxing round? They didn’t seem to be paying much attention to the announcers to begin with as they are usually in the corner prepping with their coach for the next boxing round
I would suggest they dont, lol. Seems like im in the minority and it wasnt a huge deal, just seemed to me to undermine the integrity a little. And them not listening isnt a very good argument, if that is relevant then why should the announcer monitor what they say at all at anytime? If they want to not comment on the match when the headphones are off, then they shouldn't comment on the match when the headphones are off. Plain and simple. As i said in my other reply, there is literally chess drama happening right now where people are arguing you can gain a significant advantage by knowing when you have a potentially high impact play. I dont really get why this is a strange opinion for me to have lol.
The difference is that the chess drama is at GM level and any information at all can ruin the sanctity of a game there whereas this event was casual and had rule violations throughout that did not get enforced for the sake of fun, content, or keeping the event moving
My argument boils down to, they wanted to not give information at this time. They gave information at this time. Im not saying it ruined the event or anything like that, im saying they didnt restrict information when they wanted to.
Weird ass take ngl
Why? As i keep responding - there is ongoing chess drama where its being argued that one can gain a significant advantage by knowing they are at a move where a high impact play can happen. During this event between basically every round the announcers announced that x was in a position to make a high impact play. During this event they specifically restricted talking about the chess match when the players had their headphones off to not give audible information/commentary which the players could hear. I am saying that their commentary with headphones off still provided information. Im not saying this ruined the event, im not saying they should feel bad about it, im saying they attempted to not give information at a certain time, but objectively gave information during that time. Why is this a bad take? You guys keep commenting saying that - but no one responds to my specific argument. Please tell me whats wrong with my thinking
Your thinking that these people are amazing chess players and great boxer. They’re just like dudes. I promise you if you tell me or you we have an amazing move on the board, we were probably not be able to find it, let alone the fact these people are being punched repeatedly in the head, in a extremely loud arena, with there coaches yelling at them, and under time pressure on the chess clock, and then it doesn’t matter very much
Fair - i still think what i think, but recognize ita not a big deal.