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.Chris Wardle wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:07 pmSo you're saying that whether or not you're in favour of free stuff comes down to whether you personally benefit from it?
You got my reference wrong.Chris Wardle wrote: ↑Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:07 pmOhhhhhhh boy. You're going to love this.
The en passant glitch?
That was Chess24.
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.