Roger de Coverly wrote:Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Perhaps not unconnected with it being so spectator-unfriendly??
I thought the idea of a fixed camera covering every game was a good one, particularly with a plain background and a screen to hide debris like bottles or cups. The problem with watching that coverage was that they didn't embed a board diagram so you could actually see the whole position. Also whilst you could see the clock, reflections from the lighting meant you couldn't read the times. Without the board position, a live or computer commentary, it was just two people sitting either side of a chess board and an on-line spectator with just that coverage would have no real idea of what they might be thinking about.
I think Roger and Matt are right and John Upham's reply does not take up the point that Andrew Paulson repeatedly claimed in interviews before the event that it would set new standards in interactive presentation. I made this point in my Guardian articles both before and during the event.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/ju ... ew-paulson
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/se ... grand-prix
Since there were no spectators, it should have been a chance to hone the online and video technology to the highest standards. In the event, there was no human or computer commentary, and no clock times nor current position on the live video. I feel the Moscow world championship, the Bundesliga, the Tal Memorial and Tata Steel Wijk all do these things much better and I was particularly disappointed at the absence of an online move- by-move computer evalutation which is something major events and sites now take for granted.
As I wrote in my second Guardian article, the online spectator numbers appeared to be a fraction of those at the top continental events. Judging by the low number of spectator comments on the online panels, far more people watched on chessbomb where you have to register to record your live comments but is otherwise free and has clear move-by-move computer coverage.
Again I repeat it is Andrew Paulson himself who claimed that Agon would set new high interactive standards, and I can only conclude that he failed. I just hope the Candidates will take all these lessons on board. It might be better if there were fewer marketing and more chess people involved in these decisions.