Chess Masters: the Endgame

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Clearly not made for an audience of moderate-to-strong club chess players or higher level, but for a wider audience new to chess, and that is what was trailed and should have been expected. Very much Masterchef-style, where a group of amateurs go through a series of elimination rounds and bond along the way.

You get the obligatory group hugs, the ability to follow chess games down in the main hall from a long way away up on a balcony (really?), and the best moment of the program (surprised no-one has commented on this yet)...

At 26:26 we get a shot of the balcony where the winners from the previous rounds are observing the Eliminator game, and Caitlin ('The Smiling Assassin') says (while rubbing the top of her head):

This part of my head gets really warm when there's a checkmate. It starts like, vibrating, so then I just know that there's something.

This prompts full-on laughter (in a nice way) from Cai, who rubs the top of his head as well.

(Yes, this is the bonding I was talking about!)

I wonder if Caitlin should be renamed the 'Telepathic Assassin'? Or disqualified for some implant-mediated assistance?

Spotted in the credits:

With thanks: Lichess
Chess consultant: Matt Read
Junior chess consultant: Jasmine Paton
Composer: Erran Baron Cohen
Liveboard technician: Matthew Carr
Chess technician: Tadeas Kriebel

I wonder what Lichess contributed?

Good to see Matt Read and Matthew Carr credited.

Jasmine Paton:

https://kensallife.com/about/

Jasmine is a chess prodigy who reached an ELO level ranking (National Champion) in her teenage years.

She is an advocate for the Women in Chess Foundation and has recently been a consultant on a Chess Masters BBC programme that will air in 2025.

She is currently reading a Social Sciences (Psychology) degree.

Behind a sort-of paywall:

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/media/artic ... -qmv2xc8ql

How a troubled teenage girl inspired a new TV chess contest

Jasmine Paton turned to the game to combat her depression, posing as a man. Here's how she spun her problems into a superpower

There is a clip of her playing (facing) Sue Perkins over a chess board, so it looks like later programmes will feature segments on chess backstories, including the backstory of the programme's "junior chess consultant" (which to be fair, looks to be a genuinely inspiring story, even if the programme clearly did not need a junior chess consultant).

I did like the music! (By Sacha Baron Cohen's brother.)

Tadeáš Kriebel is an IM currently registered for CZE (Czechia). Presumably resident in the UK (not checked).

I do hope the games that were not shown in full are all recorded somewhere for posterity.

At the end of the credits, we are told the series was made for BBC Wales (Cymru Wales) which may give some insight into the politics around the funding for this. Situating it in Cardiff probably saved money and/or was a deliberate choice.

Ed Mospan above suggested:

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

That is an amazing proposal, but far more people and money would be needed to produce that. Maybe one day, after TV executives have got used to having chess on primetime (well, BBC2) TV. Maybe a crowd-funded version of that should be done anyway, absent the expensive presenters and top-end production values.

PREDICTION: The concept of a draw will never be explained and none of the games will end in a draw (not enough time for replays).

MAIN GRIPE: Allowing the players to talk to each other during the game. That would annoy me so much. There is a reason that is not allowed in serious chess. Casual chess, fine, but not when you are trying to actually win, even if there is a tradition of this online. I forget the actual term used for this ('trash talking'?). Obviously it will happen here for the cameras, but it instantly makes it entertainment only.

To end this post, I do share the concerns of some above that this series misrepresents some fundamentals, and that the public may come away from this with quite a number of incorrect impressions about chess in general and chess in the UK, but hopefully not so much that it can't be corrected when the expected influx to local chess clubs arises from people who have watched this programme and have followed the resources provided by the BBC for people to find a local chess club. Oh wait. Hmm.

(Please tell me either the BBC or the ECF have provided such a resource?)

[Robert Clegg]

I agree with Jon Mahoney.Thought it was very poor.Cant see new players being encouraged by that format.

[Paul Habershon]

A Guardian review of the programme, the title of which it would be difficult to argue with.

Carol Midgley, TV critic, is much kinder in The Times. Three stars out of five and she can be harsh. She doesn't play chess. The well worn six million UK players stuff gets a mention.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/a70616 ... b0c2f2dee3

I understand why the chess analysis is light to avoid boring the non-players, but I thought David Howell's demo board could have been better designed for clarity. Inevitably the camera view of the actual boards in play is from the side and I for one cannot effectively analyse from those brief shots. On a Bob Wade course for coaches I remember him warning against teaching pupils whose view is from the side.

All in all chess in this format is so difficult for TV if it wishes to please an audience with huge disparity in knowledge and expectations.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

A Guardian review of the programme, the title of which it would be difficult to argue with.

Carol Midgley, TV critic, is much kinder in The Times. Three stars out of five and she can be harsh. She doesn't play chess. The well worn six million UK players stuff gets a mention.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/a70616 ... b0c2f2dee3

Thank you for sharing the review from 'The Times', where we learn how Jasmine Paton inspired the show:

The show’s producer, Camilla Lewis, got the idea after watching her teenage daughter, Jasmine, emerge from her depression during lockdown by playing online chess (posing as a man).

[David Lettington]

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

Exactly. I would have thought the programme would have been universally lauded by chess players.

It clearly isn't intended to appeal to existing strong players and, if it was, it would get extremely low viewing figures. Good players can get plenty of appropriate content online already via streaming.

What chess is missing is a mass audience vehicle that drives people to take an interest in the game. The only other things that I can think of that would increase participation are a British challenger for the World Championship, or a second series of Queen's Gambit, neither of which seem likely.

[Ian Thompson]

Darts (Luke Littler's winnings in 2024 £1,000,000+), snooker and even bowls took off because of television coverage.

What sort of coverage though? I doubt it was covering darts players who play for fun in the pub and rarely hit treble 20s or doubles when they need it; nor was it snooker players who can't string together more than 3 or 4 pots before they miss. It would have been the best players so viewers could appreciate their skill.

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.

But what we got was one player who lost a piece after 7 moves, someone else who got mated in 15 moves, and commentators speculating on whether the players would spot mates in one. Who knows what else happened because we only saw snapshots of each game apart from the eliminator game.

I don't think it needs to be grandmasters playing. Good club level players would be sufficient, with ratings of say 1800 - 2000, so the standard of play is a bit better than it was.

[David Lettington]

...what we got was one player who lost a piece after 7 moves, someone else who got mated in 15 moves, and commentators speculating on whether the players would spot mates in one....

I don't think it needs to be grandmasters playing. Good club level players would be sufficient, with ratings of say 1800 - 2000, so the standard of play is a bit better than it was.

That's exactly what makes it interesting for non-players and absolute beginners. The concepts need to be simple, explicable, and relatable.

They aren't trying to create good chess games, but good television.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

...what we got was one player who lost a piece after 7 moves, someone else who got mated in 15 moves, and commentators speculating on whether the players would spot mates in one....

I don't think it needs to be grandmasters playing. Good club level players would be sufficient, with ratings of say 1800 - 2000, so the standard of play is a bit better than it was.

That's exactly what makes it interesting for non-players and absolute beginners. The concepts need to be simple, explicable, and relatable.

They aren't trying to create good chess games, but good television.

Ian is (rightly) saying that both is possible. You are (also rightly) saying that this may impact viewing figures.

The general public can tell when people are playing snooker and darts badly.

They can't tell that in chess. This operates on several levels.

To a GM like David Howell, watching good club level players with ratings of say 1800-2000, he would see the same wince-inducing errors that those players would see in the games broadcast, but that we (I am in that range) would not fully appreciate.

The question is how honest should you be about this?

Maybe the Masterchef comparison is a good one. Viewers only appreciate some aspects of cookery skills. Some of the judging comes from the smells and taste, and we rely on the judges for that. This is like Strictly and Dancing on Ice (subjective judgements). In a results-based game, there is not that element. So they lean heavily on the psychology.

I too would love to see a programme the 'next level' up. But it does need packaging to avoid losing the mass appeal. Snooker and darts don't need much packaging to explain the strategy and tactics. Chess does.

Try to imagine how you would package draughts or backgammon for a TV audience. Board games are difficult to present on TV.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

On a serious note, of the 6 players so far (no cheating and looking up any ratings), who look to be the best players?

[Matt Mackenzie]

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

Whilst its not exactly a main line, the position after Black's 5th has dozens of examples in databases - some involving master strength players.

[Roger de Coverly]

I wonder what Lichess contributed?

Perhaps it was a credit for supplying the display software used by David Howell.

[Ian Thompson]

On a serious note, of the 6 players so far (no cheating and looking up any ratings), who look to be the best players?

I think that's impossible to answer when we saw very little of most games. Navi played quite well in the eliminator game - every move was sensible, no bad moves and, when he got a winning position, he found a winning line. It's difficult to say how good Kai is because we only saw his game at the start, after a few moves, and at the end, when he was about to win. Did he outplay Navi to get a winning position, or did Navi blunder in a good position, or what? We don't know. It's similarly difficult to assess Caitlin when she won a piece after a few moves and we only saw the game again when she was about to checkmate her opponent.

[Nick Ivell]

From Karpov to patzers in 40 years... I do however take on board that the show is not made for me.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

On a serious note, of the 6 players so far (no cheating and looking up any ratings), who look to be the best players?

I think that's impossible to answer when we saw very little of most games. Navi played quite well in the eliminator game - every move was sensible, no bad moves and, when he got a winning position, he found a winning line. It's difficult to say how good Kai is because we only saw his game at the start, after a few moves, and at the end, when he was about to win. Did he outplay Navi to get a winning position, or did Navi blunder in a good position, or what? We don't know. It's similarly difficult to assess Caitlin when she won a piece after a few moves and we only saw the game again when she was about to checkmate her opponent.

I take your point. There were a few more glimpses than that, but unless someone wants to hit pause and put the positions up on the forum... Seems a bit pointless, but it might give a bit more insight. What is clear is that the editing was driven by the mass audience appeal, not the chess content. David Howell doing the editing would surely have included far more analysis that presumably got cut and left on the editing room floor.

[Paul McKeown]

I had been spammed by the producer before the show was broadcast, in an attempt to get me to publicise the show. I sent him my reply today, which was to tell him that it was the worst television I have ever seen, and I asked him never to repeat it.