London Chess Classic FIDE Open

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I kind of agree with Jonathan, in that even if not appearing on camera it is distracting.

But I do enjoying watching such streams, so wish it could be done less obtrusively.

I do remember being surprised at how open organisers have been to the idea - are they benefitting from the publicity?

It should be announced in the T&Cs and organised properly well in advance.

[Roger de Coverly]

As far as I know, it's never forced, the opponent can choose not to appear on stream.

I see it as positive, it's helping to promote chess and female players. It's certainly something I would like to have in some of my events in the future.

It may be different in an invitational event, but in a normal Swiss, can opponents insist on playing normally with no coverage of the game beyond the DGT board?

[Jonathan Rogers]

But it is still entertainment for others, the profits/benefits going to one player only, and not appearing on the stream makes no difference to that (though it is at least something). And surely it is a distraction, for the player who does effectively have the conditions forced upon them?

Which is another way of saying that the promotion of chess is all well and good, but not at the expense of distracting people who have no part (or say) in it.

[Ian Thompson]

As far as I know, it's never forced, the opponent can choose not to appear on stream.

The Sunway Sitges event does not give opponents of streamers a choice:

• Streamers are authorized to film the games inside the area enabled for this purpose, using mobile devices supervised by the arbiters.
• The participation in the tournament implies the acceptance that, in case of being paired with a streamer, the game can be recorded.

[LawrenceCooper]

As far as I know, it's never forced, the opponent can choose not to appear on stream.

The Sunway Sitges event does not give opponents of streamers a choice:

• Streamers are authorized to film the games inside the area enabled for this purpose, using mobile devices supervised by the arbiters.
• The participation in the tournament implies the acceptance that, in case of being paired with a streamer, the game can be recorded.

Good for them. I approve. Please note the part about mobile devices supervised by the arbiters.

[Ian Thompson]

Please note the part about mobile devices supervised by the arbiters.

I did note that there's a risk of the arbiters adjusting the equipment while the game's in progress and likely causing a distraction whilst doing so.

[LawrenceCooper]

Please note the part about mobile devices supervised by the arbiters.

I did note that there's a risk of the arbiters adjusting the equipment while the game's in progress and likely causing a distraction whilst doing so.

So it's not just streamers but also arbiters that you aren't a fan of

[LawrenceCooper]

Marcus Harvey moves to 3/3 and passes 2500.

[Ian Thompson]

I did note that there's a risk of the arbiters adjusting the equipment while the game's in progress and likely causing a distraction whilst doing so.

So it's not just streamers but also arbiters that you aren't a fan of

I'm definitely not a fan of arbiters who fail in their duty to "ensure that the players are not disturbed" (Law 12.2.4).

[Jonathan Rogers]

Now if you were to ask me for a list of the top ten British players in the late middlegame/early endgame, Marcus Harvey would be on it. His third round win today was just par for the course for him.

[NickFaulks]

Good for them.

I agree it is good that they have made this explicit in the regulations. It tells me that their event is not one in which I would wish to play.

[NickFaulks]

I got home and went quickly to Peter Wells' game, where he was doing well against a 2518 GM and had to make sixteen moves in two minutes. Nothing new there, then!

Overcoming the desire to hide under the desk, I did watch the game out and was pleased when he went on to win. Even then he was down to three minutes in the final time session, for no reason my small brain could understand.

[LawrenceCooper]

Good for them.

I agree it is good that they have made this explicit in the regulations. It tells me that their event is not one in which I would wish to play.

That's an early setback for my streamers v forumites tournament idea

[Joey Stewart]

I do feel like if I was the opponent of the streamer I should be given some kind of conditions - I'm providing a percentage of their content, which they will ultimately get paid for at my expense, so unless it is a friend of mine or a streamer i actually want to help for free then i don't see why i wouldn't at least be entitled to some sort of entry discount at the minimum.

[Roger Lancaster]

The FIDE Handbook, if I'm looking at the current version, doesn't explicitly cover streaming but includes within its "General Rules and Technical Recommendations for Tournaments" the statement that "Photographers are allowed to take photos during the first 10 minutes in the games with standard time control; first 3 minutes in blitz and rapid tournaments ...". What impact, if any, does this have on the discussion upthread?