English Chess Forum

Given that we (london) hosted the recent match of some significance to the world of chess.
Was anyone else disappointed by the lack of mainstream domestic coverage?
If you're already involved and interested in the game there were good channels to keep up to date, but surely this could have been an opportunity to promote and encourage increased awareness of the game and participation?

Can't say I was disappointed with the coverage, but I'm not a avid media fan.

One of the many unwritten rules of this forum is that the title of a thread should be distinct, e.g. -

World Championship 2018 - missed media opportunities?

(You can edit it yourself.)

Or just jump, feet first in media res, into the main discussion thread - 2018 World Championship in London (or the long-suffering "Media comments on chess") - but don't necessarily expect any easy answers there (or any answers at all for that matter).

I went down for game 5.



Could not get a ticket at the door, could not blag my in.

Went to a net café nearby to watch the game, nobody there knew the event was on.

On the way home popped into a 2nd book shop near King's Cross. Bought a chess book,
(a beginners book published in 1942 - still on the search for Len Deighton's chess source Justin, no joy)

I added I expect you sold loads of chess books due to the world championship being held in London.

Blank Stare.

Yes, images of tumbleweed! Another frustration in what little mainstream coverage there was, was the frequent reference to chess as a sport. The ECF, its supporters in Parliament and FIDE (Nigel?) should be constantly lobbying for sporting recognition despite past failed attempts.

Geoff tried to do his bit, in a rugby shirt, I see.

Can't quite understand how he wasn't fast-tracked straight in, instead of having to try to invoke divine intervention. After all's said and done he's one of the few remaining top chess bloggers.

The S&B Clapham Collective blogs on, of course, but others' blogs - e.g. Steve Giddins, Simon Spivac - are long gone. (Though I have a sneaking suspicion one may've got in and mingled.)

Chris Snook-Lumb wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:13 pm

Was anyone else disappointed by the lack of mainstream domestic coverage?

I was pleasantly surprised by how much of it there was on the final day. Given the relative popularity of chess in the UK compared with the popularity of other sports that could have been covered, I think it punched noticeably above its weight.

There was coverage (error-strewn) on Have I Got News For You last night, repeated Monday.

Yes, where the single HIGNFY joke about the event was that chess is boring ...

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:49 pm

Chris Snook-Lumb wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:13 pm

Was anyone else disappointed by the lack of mainstream domestic coverage?

I was pleasantly surprised by how much of it there was on the final day. Given the relative popularity of chess in the UK compared with the popularity of other sports that could have been covered, I think it punched noticeably above its weight.

The coverage at the end was excellent, but it was far from that at the start.

On Wednesday 14th November, the rest day after Game 4, I attended the annual Pensioners Reunion Lunch of my former employer. At my table, none of my old colleagues knew that the match was in progress in London. That included someone who captained the office chess team during the 1980s.

Alex Holowczak wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 30, 2018 6:49 pm

Chris Snook-Lumb wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:13 pm

Was anyone else disappointed by the lack of mainstream domestic coverage?

Given the relative popularity of chess in the UK compared with the popularity of other sports that could have been covered, I think it punched noticeably above its weight.

Yes, I’d agreed with that overall.

In terms of the amount coverage was good. In terms of quality a fair chunk was truly dreadful. I’m not so bothered about HIGNY but rather the news media.

It always surprises me how pleased to see mediocre writing about the game some chessers are. Today’s piece in the guardian being a case in point.

What happens when people with no knowledge of chess write about the game? They tell you that Spassky won in 1972

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/world-c ... vs-caruana

They also say

With approximately 605 million regular players, the chess community is one of the largest in the world

A shame about those bloopers though, there's some interesting stuff in that piece (not least Nigel Short's typical screaming fit).

Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:30 pm

What happens when people with no knowledge of chess write about the game? They tell you that Spassky won in 1972

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/world-c ... vs-caruana

Though now it says "Fischer won".

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:34 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:30 pm

What happens when people with no knowledge of chess write about the game? They tell you that Spassky won in 1972

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/world-c ... vs-caruana

Though not is says "Fischer won".

It's been changed. When I read it earlier this afternoon it said Spassky won. From the Wayback machine website, it said:

"Spassky retained the title, in a victory that was construed as evidence of the supremacy of Soviet." (sic)

and that has now become:

"Fischer won; but the competition stood as a metaphor for the conflict between East and West."

They haven't, though, corrected the caption error on the photograph of Carlsen and Caruana which says Carlsen is on the right when he's actually on the left with his back to the camera.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:11 pm

JustinHorton wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 5:34 pm

Jonathan Bryant wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 3:30 pm

What happens when people with no knowledge of chess write about the game? They tell you that Spassky won in 1972

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/world-c ... vs-caruana

Though not is says "Fischer won".

It's been changed. When I read it earlier this afternoon it said Spassky won. From the Wayback machine website, it said:

"Spassky retained the title, in a victory that was construed as evidence of the supremacy of Soviet." (sic)

and that has now become:

"Fischer won; but the competition stood as a metaphor for the conflict between East and West."

Heh, yes, I spotted that.

Ian Thompson wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 01, 2018 6:11 pm

They haven't, though, corrected the caption error on the photograph of Carlsen and Caruana which says Carlsen is on the right when he's actually on the left with his back to the camera.

Or indeed the 605 million bit.