Chess Masters: the Endgame

[Paul McKeown]

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

By no means - I packed it up after watching Episode 1, by which time I had seen more than enough.

A pile of remains a pile of shite, no matter whether you put in a bun, or dress it with a side salad.

[John Clarke]

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

I first noticed that trend years ago on game shows generally. It soon got so that everyone taking part seemingly had to have an interesting "story" attached to them, preferably featuring some degree of adversity or unfulfilled desire. I suppose it was so that viewers could identify with them more readily, and/or want to root for them - and of course want to go on watching to see how they fared in the end. (Ratings!!)

Long before that, and for much the same sort of reason, it was also helpful if you were telegenic and not too much over a certain age.

[Ronnie Burton]

Its not too bad. My club colleagues enjoyed it. My friends who are not chess players watched it and enjoyed it

[jholyhead]

Yeah, it's too frequent a topic of conversation at my club nights for me to believe that all chess players hate it and that it is objectively bad television.

[LawrenceCooper]

Yeah, it's too frequent a topic of conversation at my club nights for me to believe that all chess players hate it and that it is objectively bad television.

I've enjoyed it. I'm not the target audience but I'm very happy to see chess on tv and it's a great experience for the players (some of whom I know).

[Mick Norris]

Yeah, it's too frequent a topic of conversation at my club nights for me to believe that all chess players hate it and that it is objectively bad television.

I've enjoyed it. I'm not the target audience but I'm very happy to see chess on tv and it's a great experience for the players (some of whom I know).

Me too

[NickFaulks]

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

I was at home this Monday, so thought I would give it one more chance. Gave up before the end.

The fact remains that my perspective is of little relevance to the producers because I am a very long way from their target audience.

[Roland Kensdale]

Some real clangers in presentation. Why would you show the viewers the solution to the 'Five Queens' puzzle only a few seconds after explaining it? If anyone is reading this and has not watched the programme, you need to pause a few seconds into that segment before the solution (one of them) is shown! For the record, I managed to cover 63 of the 64 squares, failing to find a full solution. Two minutes is really not enough time for this challenge.

But about the presentation in this episode. The way they tried (and failed) to show the 'scores' in the 'Five Queens Challenge' was abysmal. There is no other word for it. The first animated graphic was fine (for the person who came fifth, clearly showing the squares not controlled by the queens), but after that the animations were horribly misleading (the shading of the squares was all wrong, and it felt like the person doing the animation had not been told properly what they needed to do). It feels like no care has been taken over the details. Sure, 99.9% of the audience (and 100% of the target audience) will not spot these errors, but it still feels fake.

Thanks for the warning about the puzzle Christopher.

Didn't sit continuously and work on it, but took around 25 mins altogether to solve it. Then discovered I had solved Geoff's version where no queens attack one another. I had assumed that had to be the way to solve it to maximise range of each queen.

Having my own entertainment independent of what the programme makers intended, which, in our different ways, anyone on this forum who keeps watching this is probably doing.

[Alistair Campbell]

Episode 5 seemed a little flatter for some reason. Perhaps it is inevitable that there is a lull half-way through a series of this nature? Viewing figures seemed to be a little down at 605,000. Maybe these are actually holding up well? Who knows? (Not I)

Was it my imagination or were we getting more quips from Sue this week?

Yes, the graphics were poor and inaccurate – there is no excuse for this – but I thought it was a nice touch to employ a seemingly arbitrary method to split a tie – that at least has the whiff of authenticity – but it was a shame that “The Python” lost out as he seemed quite entertaining.

The more I think about the concept, the more I realise that it must be quite difficult to achieve even a half-way sensible format. For example, I guess it’s not really possible for competitors to improve noticeably over the lifetime of the series, so that angle is not available to the producers.

The people who are being entertained the most may be the participants watching the various reactions of the viewers rather than the other way about.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... -drops-out

Leonard Barden, with the 'Chess Masters: the Endgame' mention relegated to the end of the column and only a few lines:

BBC Two’s Chess Masters: The Endgame reached its fifth episode (of eight) this week. Viewing numbers have stabilised at 606,000, 5% of the total audience. Reactions remain split, as experts dislike it while social players, novices and children enjoy the show. In next Monday’s episode (BBC Two, 8pm) the second group of contestants try their skills on the Carlsen memory test.

(Follow Leonard's link to the lovely miniature by Mestel - the forum seems to have failed to register that another international Seniors tournament is in progress!)

[LawrenceCooper]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/ ... -drops-out

Leonard Barden, with the 'Chess Masters: the Endgame' mention relegated to the end of the column and only a few lines:

BBC Two’s Chess Masters: The Endgame reached its fifth episode (of eight) this week. Viewing numbers have stabilised at 606,000, 5% of the total audience. Reactions remain split, as experts dislike it while social players, novices and children enjoy the show. In next Monday’s episode (BBC Two, 8pm) the second group of contestants try their skills on the Carlsen memory test.

(Follow Leonard's link to the lovely miniature by Mestel - the forum seems to have failed to register that another international Seniors tournament is in progress!)

That makes me either a social player, novice or child then

[NickFaulks]

I have finally taken a look at the five queens, more maths than chess I think,

My first stab started with a1 + b3 + d6, just because they seemed to control a lot of squares, A solution dropped out immediately.

To see if that was a fluke I then tried b1 + d4 + f7, which turned out to be even better. The obvious symmetrical attempt not only works but can be extended to a 9x9 board.

[NickFaulks]

Another symmetry based solution is e2 + g5 + d7 + b4 + any corner.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Nick, we need a board to see what you mean! How many solutions are there? The one given in the programme seemed easy to remember as well. All the queens along one of the shorter white square diagonals with two on the edge of the board and three in a row next to each other.

[NickFaulks]

Nick, we need a board to see what you mean!

See next post for a better photo.

This is a 9x9 solution, scribbled on a train. Moving the outliers in by one square diagonally also works.

Given that 9x9 solutions exists, you would expect to find plenty of 8x8 solutions.