Chess Masters: the Endgame

[Kevin O'Connell]

The complete final game is on iPlayer here. It shows that they were playing with a 5 seconds increment which I don't think was mentioned on the programme.

The game:

[Event "BBC Chess Masters Eliminator"] [Date "2025.03.10"] [White "Nick"] [Black "Navi"] [Result "0-1"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Bb5+ Bd7 5. Bxd7+ Nxd7 6. exd5 exd5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Nb3 Bb6 9. Qxd5 Ngf6 10. Qxb7 O-O 11. Ne2 Re8 12. Qf3 Ne5 13. Qh3 Nfg4 14. O-O Nxf2 15. Rxf2 Qd1# 0-1

I suppose it would have been inappropriate to say that White is not forced to play 15 Rf1xf2? and that, for example, 15 Qh3-h5 would have avoided the mate, with fun and games (too complicated for the target viewer) after, for example 15...Ne5-g4 16 Bc1-g5 Nf2-h3+ 17 Kg1-h1 Ng4-f2+ 18 Rf1xf2 Nh3xf2+ 19 Kh1-g1 Nf2-e4+ 20 Kg1-h1 Ne4xg5

[Neil_Hickman]

The regular WCM title would require a 2000 rating.

Yes, but hers is a direct title, obtained by performance in a specified event, and in that situation a WCM title only requires 1800

[Jon Mahony]

The complete final game is on iPlayer here. It shows that they were playing with a 5 seconds increment which I don't think was mentioned on the programme.

The game:

[Event "BBC Chess Masters Eliminator"] [Date "2025.03.10"] [White "Nick"] [Black "Navi"] [Result "0-1"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Bb5+ Bd7 5. Bxd7+ Nxd7 6. exd5 exd5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. Nb3 Bb6 9. Qxd5 Ngf6 10. Qxb7 O-O 11. Ne2 Re8 12. Qf3 Ne5 13. Qh3 Nfg4 14. O-O Nxf2 15. Rxf2 Qd1# 0-1

I suppose it would have been inappropriate to say that White is not forced to play 15 Rf1xf2? and that, for example, 15 Qh3-h5 would have avoided the mate, with fun and games (too complicated for the target viewer) after, for example 15...Ne5-g4 16 Bc1-g5 Nf2-h3+ 17 Kg1-h1 Ng4-f2+ 18 Rf1xf2 Nh3xf2+ 19 Kh1-g1 Nf2-e4+ 20 Kg1-h1 Ne4xg5

Yes, I noticed this - very much put me in mind of the Kronsteen / MacAdams game in “From Russia with Love” - for the none chess playing viewers, a move of genius only a master is capable of finding, for anyone who plays a bit of chess, the only move to consider.

Also, both players have basically gone totally wrong in the French defence by move 5.

[Ian Thompson]

The regular WCM title would require a 2000 rating.

Yes, but hers is a direct title, obtained by performance in a specified event, and in that situation a WCM title only requires 1800

Except that she has never reached 1800. Her highest ever published rating is 1688. Even if you bumped up her previous high of 1566 using the uplift that took place a year ago for players under 2000, the peak would still only be 1740. It's not clear to me why her title isn't still conditional upon her reaching 1800.

[LawrenceCooper]

Lula does have a title though, achieved whilst playing board one in the Olympiad.

I believe it’s a conditional title; to actually be awarded it she has to attain a rating of 1800 against her current 1650

It's not conditional, she already has the title. See https://ratings.fide.com/profile/15600572

[LawrenceCooper]

The regular WCM title would require a 2000 rating.

Yes, but hers is a direct title, obtained by performance in a specified event, and in that situation a WCM title only requires 1800

Except that she has never reached 1800. Her highest ever published rating is 1688. Even if you bumped up her previous high of 1566 using the uplift that took place a year ago for players under 2000, the peak would still only be 1740. It's not clear to me why her title isn't still conditional upon her reaching 1800.

To quote the regulations: "This requirement does not apply to direct CM/WCM titles earned at the Open and Women’s Chess Olympiads" https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/B012024

[Mick Norris]

Personally I think it deserves a thumbs up. Yes, there were bits I found a bit irritating but these were probably the ones most likely to appeal to the non player. In some ways it was a bit rushed - it might have been better spaced across an hour with more detailed analysis of some of the games. Ultimately it's an experiment and if it takes off the producers might tweak it to keep what works and discard what doesn't.

It WILL drive new players into our clubs and that can only be a good thing.

I can also now make claim to fame having played on a neighbouring board to Anthony Mathurin at a 4NCL Congress (he kicked up a right ruckus as well - he may have had the rights of it).

Thought best to wait before commentating. I agree with Andrew.

Not sure what people were expecting, as we knew before that the players were not chosen for their strength, but all seem to be roughly the same sort of level (within about 200 to 300 points difference I would estimate).

Chosen a level where the players are below a strong club player seems a sensible decision, as this allows a wider choice of players to be selected and allows new players not to be overwhelmed by not understanding the games being played.

I enjoyed watching the full play-off game on I-Player as there was some additional commentary and a perfect example of a player taking material and being punished. I thought Nick played well in this game, especially as he must have been very nervous with it being an eliminator.

Yes, it is not perfect and probably not suitable for strong chess players, but if they revamped the old series with GM's it would probably not be suitable for many. I have recently watched Magnus Carlson Titled Tuesday videos and recommend them if you wish to watch top level chess. Not sure I understand half of what he is doing though!

I have found a level of chess snobbery in my 35 years of playing (I started late), with a level of smugness when watching weaker players play. Trying to grow the game so that other players can enjoy it as much as we do seems a great opportunity. I will continue to watch it and hope it is a success.

BTW for those that think titles are important deserved or not Tallulah Roberts is a WCM.
https://rating.englishchess.org.uk/v2/n ... de=342465A

FWIW, I agree too

100% of the non-chessplayers I have spoken to who watched the program thought it was worth watching again next week

[Roland Kensdale]

Chess consultant Matt Read
3 losing players tackled a puzzle set by David Howell. 2 players who did worst played off. Loser eliminated from the competition (game above).

Can't work out how to post a non-standard position, the FEN is:

3p1B2/6p1/1p1p4/2p1p3/1p6/6p1/8/4p3 w

Every move must capture a pawn, capture as many as possible, in the quickest time.

Navi surprisingly didn't solve the puzzle, perhaps rushing to be the quickest. Seems a useful exercise for inexperienced players.

People won't be buying (streaming?) copies of the programme in 40 years as they do with the Master Game. What motivates people new to the game or playing casually is different to the motivations of people who have spent hours (years) struggling to improve, trying to overcome their limitations, or have seen the beauty of the game. If 1% of the viewers are interested enough to find out more, chess will benefit.

[Roger de Coverly]

It's not clear to me why her title isn't still conditional upon her reaching 1800.

That's what it says on the chess.com site
https://www.chess.com/players/tallulah-roberts

Her most significant achievement as a chess player came when she participated in the 44th Chess Olympiad in Chennai, India. She played board one for the Jersey women's team, scoring 4/10 with a performance that granted her a conditional WCM title, which she earns when she attains an 1800 classical rating.

The FIDE rating site doesn't say anything about "conditional".
https://ratings.fide.com/profile/15600572

FIDE title

Woman Candidate Master

The ECF site also awards her the title, but I presume it just takes the FIDE data.
https://rating.englishchess.org.uk/v2/n ... de=342465A

[Roger de Coverly]

Also, both players have basically gone totally wrong in the French defence by move 5.

Yes and no. At move 9 they reached a position played in Ivanchuk-Cabrilo (Serbia) from the 1990 Manila Interzonal. Ivanchuk thought better of 10. Qxb7, retreating the Queen back to d3 and went on to win.

The usual move order to reach similar positions is to first play exd5 and if .. exd5 in reply, to then throw in the check on b5. A point is that rather than the capture on d7, that Qe2 check can be played.

[Jon Mahony]

People won't be buying (streaming?) copies of the programme in 40 years as they do with the Master Game. What motivates people new to the game or playing casually is different to the motivations of people who have spent hours (years) struggling to improve, trying to overcome their limitations, or have seen the beauty of the game. If 1% of the viewers are interested enough to find out more, chess will benefit.

Personally I would have much preferred a straight recreation of the Master Game (Even if it meant we had bloody Ginger GM starring in it “Let’s push ‘Arry up the board, wayyyyyy back of the net my son! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!”). But there is truth in what you are saying, it may increase new memberships to clubs.

I know this much, the chances of staying a law abiding citizen have just increased for me - nothing like the prospect of “The Swashbuckler`” turning up to inflict chess lessons on me, while in clink

[Paul McKeown]

I don't know which was worse: the chess, or the dialogue. 1/10.

[Neil Graham]

Ah a chess forum full of strong chess players criticising the first chess on primetime television for 30 years.

Darts (Luke Littler's winnings in 2024 £1,000,000+), snooker and even bowls took off because of television coverage. So instead of a series showing grandmasters grinding down the opposition after 100+ moves, we have a group of normal people with appropriate pseudonyms (think Gladiators) facing off over the board with a show hosted by a well known television personality.

So hats off to the Beeb - a contemporary look, a few tactical points, a grandmaster commentator - let's hope it's a success.

[EdwardMospan]

This program follows the standard reality format, flicking between participants and presenters, I was expecting more of a chess focus, something entertaining and also educational, got neither, program did improve in the playoff section. if entertainment was required should have had a chess personality someone like Simon Williams, funny, a bit unpredictable but very knowledgeable alongside David. The BBC would have been better having a series of programs based on one day real tournaments a 7 Up series, following participants on their ups and downs and showing a documentary style on why people play chess and what motivated them to play. Plus an educational section. Then they could follow up a series with UK chess clubs and film real locations where chess players congregate for games and matches, I don't think many can enjoy the benefit of a corn exchange venue. As to giving players nicknames , very childish not Marvel DC superheros but chess players. Also no sign of any juniors in the lineup. If this were on tape it would best have be accidentally wiped. Definitely no where near the "Master Game", I think the best chess content is on youtube and the BBC need to learn from that and up their game.

[Mick Norris]

Ah a chess forum full of strong chess players criticising the first chess on primetime television for 30 years.

Darts (Luke Littler's winnings in 2024 £1,000,000+), snooker and even bowls took off because of television coverage. So instead of a series showing grandmasters grinding down the opposition after 100+ moves, we have a group of normal people with appropriate pseudonyms (think Gladiators) facing off over the board with a show hosted by a well known television personality.

So hats off to the Beeb - a contemporary look, a few tactical points, a grandmaster commentator - let's hope it's a success.

Indeed; if the BBC think it works, there's no reason why they won't decide to try something else