Consultation on the Draft FIDE Live Moves Broadcasting Policy

[Paolo Casaschi]

So you're saying that whether or not you're in favour of free stuff comes down to whether you personally benefit from it?

No, I was saying that you seem to be in favour of (other) chessplayers to pay for watching live chess games while the same is of no interest to you. In chess terms, it looks like you are very keen sacrificing someone else's piece rather than your own. Even if Agon does not have exclusive broadcasting for the candidates, you can still support the success of their innovative business model by opening your wallet.

Ohhhhhhh boy. You're going to love this.

The en passant glitch?

That was Chess24.

You got my reference wrong.

I was talking about this en-passant glitch, the animated screenshot is taken from the live chessboard on the Agon site for the 2018 candidates (the one that started to show live chessboards only after a few rounds): https://twitter.com/OlimpiuUrcan/status ... 0509122561

You said earlier that the Agon project was about attracting newcomers, how would a newcomer feel when the chessboards do not follow the basic chess rules?!

Also, that clip shows how a live chessboard looks like on the Agon site. The pgn4web project spent a good amount of time to optimize the chessboard look and feel; when I look at that clip I can't help noticing the hugly chessboard graphics, in particular the contrast between the different levels of gray and the lack of borders for the pieces makes it a lot more difficult to look at the chessboards. Would you agree this is much easier on the eyes? It's not rocket science...

I had seen the chess24 glitch when it happened during their live broadcast, however the key difference is chess24 does not pretend to be the unique broadcaster for chess events. If you pretend exclusivity you should at least show a flawless website, from the first round and following all the basic chess rules.

Incidentally, the chess24 glitch is the perfect illustration that you can't have a "one size fits all" commentary for chess events. Some people, like the Polgar sisters or at some extent Seirawan are good at tuning the level down to appeal inexperienced players. Svidler and Gustafsson are excellent to explain top games to slightly more experienced player but become clumsy when explaining the basics. Having multiple sites commentating live would certainly make more people happy; then you have the language issue and so on.

[Roger de Coverly]

Would you agree this is much easier on the eyes? It's not rocket science...

pgn4web and others use tried and tested methods of displaying positions dating back to the previous print media.

I had preferred to use chessbomb to follow the Candidates in particular and other chess in general and that has an acceptable display. Based on the ep screenshot, Agon haven't greatly improved their display since the London candidates of five years ago.

[Chris Goodall]

No, I was saying that you seem to be in favour of (other) chessplayers to pay for watching live chess games while the same is of no interest to you. In chess terms, it looks like you are very keen sacrificing someone else's piece rather than your own. Even if Agon does not have exclusive broadcasting for the candidates, you can still support the success of their innovative business model by opening your wallet.

Nah tho. That's just Torynomics. "If you peasants think capital gains tax is such a good idea, why aren't you volunteering to pay it?"

Also, that clip shows how a live chessboard looks like on the Agon site. The pgn4web project spent a good amount of time to optimize the chessboard look and feel; when I look at that clip I can't help noticing the hugly chessboard graphics, in particular the contrast between the different levels of gray and the lack of borders for the pieces makes it a lot more difficult to look at the chessboards. Would you agree this is much easier on the eyes? It's not rocket science...

It just looks like Fritz/ChessBase graphics to me. Are you saying the contrast between the light and dark squares is too high? I appreciate the science of chessboard graphics, I'm really thankful that people put lots of thought into it, but I just don't think that a setting you can change in 10 seconds is the difference between Agon fleecing us and Agon offering us a valuable product.

I had seen the chess24 glitch when it happened during their live broadcast, however the key difference is chess24 does not pretend to be the unique broadcaster for chess events. If you pretend exclusivity you should at least show a flawless website, from the first round and following all the basic chess rules.

Look, chess24 has glitches and Agon has glitches, because people bimble through life making one decision at a time. If you've got lower expectations of chess24 because it feels like it's free, well, why do you think chess24 bothered to cover the world championship match? Was it an act of pure philanthropy to the chess community?

[Roger de Coverly]

It just looks like Fritz/ChessBase graphics to me.

That's actually the point. How to display a chess board on a computer screen was essentially solved by ChessBase with their software for the Atari ST back in the 1980s. That was a high quality monochrome display. Attempts by Agon to vary on this are something of a waste of time and effort.

[Paolo Casaschi]

Nah tho. That's just Torynomics. "If you peasants think capital gains tax is such a good idea, why aren't you volunteering to pay it?"

No, it's more like: if you are not interested in live chess broadcast then stop telling people how those should be done.

It just looks like Fritz/ChessBase graphics to me. Are you saying the contrast between the light and dark squares is too high? I appreciate the science of chessboard graphics, I'm really thankful that people put lots of thought into it, but I just don't think that a setting you can change in 10 seconds is the difference between Agon fleecing us and Agon offering us a valuable product.

No, quite the opposite I'm saying the contrast is too low and you can't easily tell for example which back piece sits on a black square. While it could be changed easily, the fact that Agon is using something ignoring the current state of the art for usability hardly qualifies them as a desirable monopoly. If it's so easy to make better, why it's so ugly?

Look, chess24 has glitches and Agon has glitches, because people bimble through life making one decision at a time. If you've got lower expectations of chess24 because it feels like it's free, well, why do you think chess24 bothered to cover the world championship match? Was it an act of pure philanthropy to the chess community?

Chess24 provide a useful service to the chess community. A variety of chess broadcasters is an asset for the chess community. I do not think the chess community should give up such an asset we currently have in exchange for a potential future benefit that might or might not materialize. If ain't broken don't fix it; if you fix it do not make it worse.

[Chris Goodall]

It just looks like Fritz/ChessBase graphics to me.

That's actually the point. How to display a chess board on a computer screen was essentially solved by ChessBase with their software for the Atari ST back in the 1980s. That was a high quality monochrome display. Attempts by Agon to vary on this are something of a waste of time and effort.

I mean Agon are using ChessBase graphics. Aren't they? Weren't you just criticising Agon because they hadn't "greatly improved" their display since 5 years ago?

The contrast between light and dark squares in the Agon video is greater than in Paolo's diagrams. So confused

[Roger de Coverly]

I mean Agon are using ChessBase graphics.

Not on the basis of the clip quoted.

It's a bit better than 2013 but doesn't have the crispness available elsewhere.

[Chris Goodall]

No, it's more like: if you are not interested in live chess broadcast then stop telling people how those should be done.

Same difference. If you set out to ask the public whether train fares should go up, but only train passengers are allowed to answer your survey, what's the point doing the survey? You're going to get the answer No because your sample is biased.

Not on the basis of the clip quoted.

It's a bit better than 2013 but doesn't have the crispness available elsewhere.

It's identical to my crisp copy of Fritz 10, Roger. It's not going to transfer perfectly to YouTube. That's not its original platform.


The point about a variety of broadcasters being good for chess - see, this is where you're at a dis-advantage if you're Agon. Gustafsson and Svidler have free rein to be irreverent, whimsical and blokey, because they're not sitting in front of a commercial partner's logo. But that's the nature of commercial partnership. If you're going to handwave the holes in the elite tournaments' accounts by telling them to get more sponsors, you can't be upset when they do get sponsors and the sponsors insist on certain standards. Including not being completely edited out of the coverage.

[Paolo Casaschi]

It's identical to my crisp copy of Fritz 10, Roger. It's not going to transfer perfectly to YouTube. That's not its original platform.

You seem confused. The official video commentary is using the interface you claim identical to Fritz 10. The twitter clip is instead from the live chessboards on the Agon site. Two different things, although you might wonder why Agon decided to use a different presentation for the two use cases and you'd have a point; chess24 instead uses the same interface for both, it makes lot of sense for the end user but it's just another quirkiness of the Agon display.

How can you talk so passionately about something you understand so little? No offense intended there, but you comment on a user interface you admit you have not used and you confuse basic different things with each other, probably because you never looked at them or paid any attention.

This calls for an end of the discussion, we know each other opinions and I honestly see no point in discussing further with someone that admittedly is not even watching the broadcasts or the live chessboards.

[JustinHorton]

If you're going to handwave the holes in the elite tournaments' accounts by telling them to get more sponsors, you can't be upset when they do get sponsors and the sponsors insist on certain standards. Including not being completely edited out of the coverage.

I wasn't aware that any such holes existed, but I am aware that the order of events is not that, struggling to make their sums add up, Agon invited fresh sponsors who made these demands. What actually happened was that Agon took this view right from the start, including, as somebody observed above, opening up by threatening members of this forum with potential prosecution for analysing games in progress.

You can change round your arguments each time they're shown to be specious, but trying to change round recent history is a little harder.

[Chris Goodall]

It's identical to my crisp copy of Fritz 10, Roger. It's not going to transfer perfectly to YouTube. That's not its original platform.

You seem confused. The official video commentary is using the interface you claim identical to Fritz 10. The twitter clip is instead from the live chessboards on the Agon site. Two different things, although you might wonder why Agon decided to use a different presentation for the two use cases and you'd have a point; chess24 instead uses the same interface for both, it makes lot of sense for the end user but it's just another quirkiness of the Agon display.

How can you talk so passionately about something you understand so little? No offense intended there, but you comment on a user interface you admit you have not used and you confuse basic different things with each other, probably because you never looked at them or paid any attention.

This calls for an end of the discussion, we know each other opinions and I honestly see no point in discussing further with someone that admittedly is not even watching the broadcasts or the live chessboards.

That's a Courtier's Reply if I ever heard one. I asked you what was wrong with Agon's broadcast of WCC 2016, and you didn't know. You obscured the issue by talking about other Agon broadcasts that weren't WCC 2016. I found actual footage from Agon's broadcast of WCC 2016 and you weren't interested.

So all I can conclude is:

• Chess players like free stuff

• Chess players hate Agon regardless of what they do

[Chris Goodall]

I wasn't aware that any such holes existed, but I am aware that the order of events is not that, struggling to make their sums add up, Agon invited fresh sponsors who made these demands. What actually happened was that Agon took this view right from the start, including, as somebody observed above, opening up by threatening members of this forum with potential prosecution for analysing games in progress.

You can change round your arguments each time they're shown to be specious, but trying to change round recent history is a little harder.

What does the order of events matter? If Agon had started by saying to their commercial partners "we're not going to do anything to prevent ambush marketers from cutting you out of the picture, but I'm sure Gustafsson and Svidler will remember to give you a shout-out on their show" you'd have laughed at their incompetence. (More than you already do.)

[Roger de Coverly]

Chess players hate Agon regardless of what they do

That's about right. Now ask yourself why.

[NickFaulks]

So all I can conclude is:

• Chess players like free stuff

• Chess players hate Agon regardless of what they do

My conclusions are:

• Agon are rubbish. This view is shared by just about everyone who has been exposed to their work. I would be happy to commend them on anything they had done well, but nothing springs to mind.

• They will not change, because they do not wish to change. Comments ranging from "I can't tell the queens from the rooks on my fancy tablet" ( London Candidates ) to "I would like to drink something at the opening ceremony that isn't an exotic alcoholic cocktail" ( Berlin Candidates ) are met with "that's the way we do things, you'll get used to it".

One individual, who by his own admission has no first hand experience of their products, has chosen to tell everybody who has that they are all wrong. His motivation for doing so remains obscure.

[JustinHorton]

So all I can conclude is:

• Chess players hate Agon regardless of what they do

Well, unless and until Agon choose to test that thesis by changing their policy - which they have had ample opportunity to do - I strongly agree with Paolo that this discussion has run its course.