Chess Masters: the Endgame

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Well, yes. Black's position is horrendous. 7.Qc2 is even stronger.

They reached this position and the following moves were played (I have left out the last two moves):

[Variant "From Position"] [FEN "1r1q1rk1/ppn1p1bp/3pPnp1/P1p2P2/2P5/2N1B3/1PQ1B1PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 1"] 1... Qe8 2. fxg6 Nxe6 3. gxh7+ Kh8 4. Bd3 Qh5 5. Bg6 Qe5 6. Rae1 Nd4 7. Bxd4 Qxd4+ 8. Kh1 Qxc4

It is quite surprising that 4.Bd3 throws away White's advantage. It gets worse later, the point being that 6...Ng4 wins everything, whereas 6...Nd4 allows White back on top in the game with a move like the quiet 7.Qd1.

I suppose this goes to show that when the standard of play is not accurate, you get loads of fluctuations of the assessment, with no possible way to present it all to an audience, so you have to pick a 'narrative' and tell the story. But surely it would be possible to build a more honest story around some of the actually relevant analysis lines?

It was a bit strange to see David Howell giving a potential line where White wins a piece (5...Qg4 6.Bf5 Qxc4 7.Ra4), only for that move to not be played at all. It is actually beginning to look like David's analysis lacks coherency and is a bit careless. It certainly isn't accurate analysis.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

One more point. The weirdness in the pawn race was the following:

[Variant "From Position"] [FEN "8/3k4/P7/1P6/6p1/5p1p/2P4K/8 w - - 0 1"] 1. a7 f2 2. a8=Q f1=Q 3. Qc6+ Ke7 4. Qe4+ Kf7 5. Qh7+ Kf6 6. Qh8+ Kg5 7. Qg8+ Kh5 8. Qh8+ Kg6 9. Qg8+ Kh6 10. Qe6+ Kg7 11. Qxg4+ Kf8 12. Qb4+ Ke8 13. Qe4+ Kd7 14. Qd3+ Qxd3 15. cxd3 Kd6 16. b6 Kc6 17. b7 Kxb7 18. Kxh3 Kc6 19. Kg3 Kd5 20. Kf3

Deema went for the mutual pawn promotion, instead of the winning 1.Kg3 (which does require a level of calculation virtually impossible at the 1-minute and 5s/move time control). In the above, moves 4-7 are a guesstimate. 10...Kg7 is a blunder. And 16.b6 throws away the win. The position after 20.Kf3 is drawn all day long.

This is where I get suspicious. The very next shot shows Deema about to promote her pawn, and we are supposed to assume that Kel blundered into that position. It seems more likely to me that the producers had to find a way to resolve the 'draw' and then stage the final winning moves.

I do think it is a great pity that the producers clearly had a ban on showing any draws. It is not a difficult concept to explain.

[Mark Hannon]

When did Thalia play for England B team as a junior as Thalia mentioned in the most recent episode?

[Mark Hannon]

One more point. The weirdness in the pawn race was the following:

[Variant "From Position"] [FEN "8/3k4/P7/1P6/6p1/5p1p/2P4K/8 w - - 0 1"] 1. a7 f2 2. a8=Q f1=Q 3. Qc6+ Ke7 4. Qe4+ Kf7 5. Qh7+ Kf6 6. Qh8+ Kg5 7. Qg8+ Kh5 8. Qh8+ Kg6 9. Qg8+ Kh6 10. Qe6+ Kg7 11. Qxg4+ Kf8 12. Qb4+ Ke8 13. Qe4+ Kd7 14. Qd3+ Qxd3 15. cxd3 Kd6 16. b6 Kc6 17. b7 Kxb7 18. Kxh3 Kc6 19. Kg3 Kd5 20. Kf3

Deema went for the mutual pawn promotion, instead of the winning 1.Kg3 (which does require a level of calculation virtually impossible at the 1-minute and 5s/move time control). In the above, moves 4-7 are a guesstimate. 10...Kg7 is a blunder. And 16.b6 throws away the win. The position after 20.Kf3 is drawn all day long.

This is where I get suspicious. The very next shot shows Deema about to promote her pawn, and we are supposed to assume that Kel blundered into that position. It seems more likely to me that the producers had to find a way to resolve the 'draw' and then stage the final winning moves.

I do think it is a great pity that the producers clearly had a ban on showing any draws. It is not a difficult concept to explain.

Doesn’t 16. d4 win instead of 16 b6?

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Among other moves (eg. just take the pawn on h3). We cannot be too critical. They were on a ridiculous time control of 1 minute plus 5 seconds per move for this 'test'. Like performing seals. (And maybe Kel really did blunder at the end, given that time limit.)

[Roger de Coverly]

When did Thalia play for England B team as a junior as Thalia mentioned in the most recent episode?

https://rating.englishchess.org.uk/v2/n ... de=293479G

lots of junior events including the Glorney Cup Stokes in 2016
https://rating.englishchess.org.uk/v2/n ... ction_no=1

[benedgell]

It's a TV show. Not a chess infomercial.

Whatever it is, it's knowing, deliberate trash.

Completely agree. I find it hard to believe that anyone involved with the production of the show has even the slightest knowledge of chess or chess presentation.

From the opening "Britain's up and coming chess masters... the winner will be crowned Britain's Chess Master." Just admit the contestants are amateurs. Why try to mislead viewers?

To the puzzle section where they only show a brief image of the puzzle, and in this week's episode instantly show you the solution after introducing the puzzle.

To the presenter who is there just to make desperately unfunny one liners.

To the 2 commentators. One of whom seems to be there purely to get over excited, the other I'm convinced must have been told to give bad analysis.

To the completely unnecessary obsession with contestant's back stories.

To encouraging contestants to display bad etiquette/ manners.

To the games where they seem unable to focus on the boards for more then a second at a time. There seems to be more shots during the game where you can't actually see the board or what's happening.

To edits that show a position, then the next shot shows an earlier position.

I might have missed a few issues, but I maintain if anyone creating/ producing/ editing this show had even the slightest knowledge of chess these issues would've been so glaringly obvious they would've been fixed by now.

I really was enthusiastic when I heard there was going to be chess on tv. That enthusiasm is long, long dead.

[Geoff Chandler]

And what's with the trash talking? Is this compulsory?

Craig, the lad who was eliminated last night, on his Python Chess channel; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qaU-eRjR58 answers a question about this in the comments.

""The talking was something that was encouraged by the show. As chess players of course we felt uncomfortable. But I understand that it makes better television."
Now he has been eliminated get him on here so he can spill the beans.

Hopefully Andrew Mathurin is also under instructions to go 'Epic' over every move. I never watched 'Traitors' is he like that all the time? Maybe this is the way to portray chess on the telly with 'wows and howls of disbelief' but I'm not too fond of it. If it works then go for it.
I'll stick to going hyper and drool when I see a !! attached to a move in a chess book or chess magazine.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

To edits that show a position, then the next shot shows an earlier position.

Agree. I have been noticing this as well. It is very distracting when you try and work out why the position looks wrong, and you realise they have slipped back a few moves (usually just one, but it is enough). It is very, very clear that the editing in post-production was done by a non-chess player long after David Howell (who I presume was not paid enough to provide detailed advice) and the actual chess consultants had gone home. Or if the chess consultants were there, they were not listened to or did not pay enough attention.

I wonder if the chess-qualified people will ever spill the beans at some point, or might that jeopardise a future show?

For the record, the people I would class as 'chess-qualified':

Presenter: David Howell (GM)
Chess technician: Tadeas Kriebel (IM)
Liveboard technician: Matthew Carr
Chess consultant: Matt Read

It would be good to know how the chess advising was split between those four and the relative amount of time they spent on set or in production studios. Relative pay would be going too far (you presume David Howell got most of it). For the record, Anthony Mathurin is a chess player, but I would not class him as any kind of chess consultant as his level of play is about that of the contestants, as far as I know. Ditto for the Junior chess consultant Jasmine Paton (daughter of one of the producers).

[LawrenceCooper]

Posting on Thalia's behalf whilst she waits for her application to join the forum to be approved:

Hey, it's Thalia from the show. Just so you know I also do YouTube videos of the show, here is a link to the playlist https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0VG ... v06dTFUUpB and each episode goes over every game.

Also just to clarify a few things - in the show we were allowed to draw, none of it was refilmed to edit out draws, and very little of the shots were redone (although there were a select few). I don't want to say too much just because of the NDA but just to confirm some things. Hope you enjoy the viewing, and when my application to comment is approved Ill clarify some of the things that you ask (only if I am allowed to respond)

[Richard Colfer]

Doesn’t 16. d4 win instead of 16 b6?

Yeah, reckon so.

I was also confused by the position after Kf3 not being a draw. Must not have been defended properly, could happen in a rush? Thalia says draws were allowed.

[Nick Ivell]

Thing is, most of these games are so low-level they are hardly worth analysing. I know it was blitz, but missing Qxf1 mate? Really?

I only hope they are paying Howell well, as I do not feel he is enhancing his reputation with his involvement in this profoundly unserious charade.

[jholyhead]

Hate watching is still watching The ratings count just the same.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Hate watching is still watching The ratings count just the same.

That is very true. At the end of the day, if you don't like it don't watch it!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Posting on Thalia's behalf whilst she waits for her application to join the forum to be approved

There is a BBC Merseyside interview with Thalia that was publicised by Shropshire Chess a few days ago:

https://www.shropshirechess.org/shropsh ... ia-holmes/

Skip to 29.45 to listen to an interview Thalia gave to BBC Merseyside regarding her participation in Chess Masters

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0ky7zgr