Chess Masters: the Endgame

[Kevin Thurlow]

This person doesn't seem impressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LJv24EiM4

I didn't watch it (no TV!), and I believe they didn't play Chess960 correctly - didn't they ban castling? But, the programme was chess and might well get people interested. I doubt BBC could afford to do a modern-era master game. How much would they have to pay the players? The thing they made gave an opportunity for enthusiastic people to get on TV and have a chess competition. There will be blunders. A club colleague (rated 2000-ish) played Ray Keene in a weekend tournament 50 years ago, and asked why he lost. "You played a3 in the opening, that left a fatal weakness on b3." Over to David Howell, who will explain in 60 seconds, without hesitation, deviation or repetition, what he meant by that...
If you want super analysis, watch the Chessable course by Magnus Carlsen, where the IM presenter looked baffled!

"Britain's Got Talent" and "Bake Off" etc don't have the best performers or bakers on it - it's entertainment and gives people the chance to show what they can do, and also to improve.

[NickFaulks]

although I still think the minimum standard required to take part should have been higher than it was so we didn't see so many pieces being blundered.

As has been said a dozen times, we are not the target audience. All the same, I would be sorry if viewers went away with the idea that chess is about setting up a mate in one and hoping your opponent doesn't notice - and that this is "the psychology of the game"!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Is there an argument that radio might work for 'highbrow' chess audiences? For the record, agree with Graham and Loz. Craig's YouTube video shows he is stronger chesswise than appears on the TV.

[LawrenceCooper]

I really don't understand the negativity and the snide comments about the standard of the players.

The programme got off to a bad start by claiming the players were of a very high standard when that's obviously not the case. If most of them had been described as enthusiastic newcomers to the game who were still learning and improving the comments might have been different, although I still think the minimum standard required to take part should have been higher than it was so we didn't see so many pieces being blundered.

If you were the target audience, then agreed. I suspect that you aren't though hence the approach they took.

[Roger de Coverly]

Is there an argument that radio might work for 'highbrow' chess audiences?

The BBC tried that in the 1960s. A selection of transcripts was available as a Penguin paperbook. It was broadcast on their highbrow network "The Third Programme".
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/126157480567

It's also been republished by Hardinge-Simpole.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Treasury ... 1843820595

[Rob Coles]

I warmed to the series over the course of the 6 episodes. My main criticism after episode 1 was I didn't know who it was for, and since then I've heard anecdotes that complete non-players have enjoyed it or been intrigued by it. So that's good enough really!

You can find some OTB record for most of the players quite easily and I'd be basically in the middle of the pack were I on the show. Most of my 5 or 10 minute games are eventually decided either way by fairly trivial moments that aren't worthy of much analysis (let alone were I on camera at the same time). And some of the players (e.g. Craig says this on his YT channel) might not even play a lot of blitz.

Were the eliminator games 1hr+ (TV producer nightmare, I can imagine) then that might be nice but the programme doesn't have the relative time to unpack what's going on anyhow.

I hope it returns, and if so I really would like 1) get rid of the ludicrous trash talking 2) a couple of moments that much more directly make beginners feel like they know how to play (how the pieces move etc). I think it would be worth showing the easy mate in one puzzle on screen for 90 seconds rather than 10, because it seems like "getting it" might give some of the viewers a thrill.

[Mick Norris]

I warmed to the series over the course of the 6 episodes. My main criticism after episode 1 was I didn't know who it was for, and since then I've heard anecdotes that complete non-players have enjoyed it or been intrigued by it. So that's good enough really!

You can find some OTB record for most of the players quite easily and I'd be basically in the middle of the pack were I on the show. Most of my 5 or 10 minute games are eventually decided either way by fairly trivial moments that aren't worthy of much analysis (let alone were I on camera at the same time). And some of the players (e.g. Craig says this on his YT channel) might not even play a lot of blitz.

Were the eliminator games 1hr+ (TV producer nightmare, I can imagine) then that might be nice but the programme doesn't have the relative time to unpack what's going on anyhow.

I hope it returns, and if so I really would like 1) get rid of the ludicrous trash talking 2) a couple of moments that much more directly make beginners feel like they know how to play (how the pieces move etc). I think it would be worth showing the easy mate in one puzzle on screen for 90 seconds rather than 10, because it seems like "getting it" might give some of the viewers a thrill.

Agree with this

[GrahamStuart]

I hope the BBC have another series, and they will probably tweak it -

I doubt they can get much mileage out of the multiple piece puzzles or the pawn race. That's because they can be pre-prepared by anyone expecting them to come up. The mate in 1, mate in 2 etc. ladder as seen in the final is likely to have more mileage.

As to the quality of the final game, a player was a piece up, missed a mating trick and went on to lose.

Do you mean a player missed a mating trick and then blundered a piece?

https://lichess.org/study/8AOcXzwD/p3n6QWQY

[Event "Chess Masters 2024"] [Site "The Coal Exchange Hotel, Cardiff, United Kingdom"] [Date "2024.11.03"] [Round "11.1"] [White "Richie"] [Black "Thalia"] [Result "0-1"] [TimeControl "Unknown"] [Variant "Standard"] [ECO "D53"] [Opening "Queen's Gambit Declined"] [StudyName "Chess Masters Ep 8"] [ChapterName "Richie - Thalia"] [Annotator "https://lichess.org/@/chessmastersanon"] [ChapterURL "https://lichess.org/study/8AOcXzwD/p3n6QWQY"] 1. d4 { [%clk 0:20:05] } 1... e6 { [%clk 0:20:08] } 2. c4 { [%clk 0:20:03] } 2... Nf6 { [%clk 0:20:11] } 3. Nc3 { [%clk 0:20:05] } 3... d5 { [%clk 0:20:14] } 4. Bg5 { [%clk 0:20:04] } 4... Be7 { [%clk 0:20:17] } 5. e3 { [%clk 0:20:07] } 5... c6 { [%clk 0:20:19] } 6. cxd5 { [%clk 0:19:57] } 6... exd5 { [%clk 0:20:22] } 7. Bd3 { [%clk 0:19:37] } 7... O-O { [%clk 0:19:34] } 8. Qc2 { [%clk 0:18:43] } 8... h6 { [%clk 0:19:06] } 9. Bh4 { [%clk 0:18:35] } 9... Be6 { [%clk 0:18:30] } 10. Nf3 { [%clk 0:18:23] } 10... Nbd7 { [%clk 0:17:29] } 11. O-O { [%clk 0:17:38] } 11... Re8 { [%clk 0:16:35] } 12. a3 { [%clk 0:16:39] } 12... a5 { [%clk 0:16:10] } 13. Rab1 { [%clk 0:14:19] } 13... c5 { [%clk 0:13:43] } 14. Nb5 { [%clk 0:10:25] } 14... c4 { [%clk 0:13:16] } 15. Bf5 { [%clk 0:10:28] } 15... a4 { [%clk 0:11:21] } 16. Bxe6 { [%clk 0:09:58] } 16... fxe6 { [%clk 0:11:21] } 17. Bg3 { [%clk 0:09:45] } 17... Ne4 { [%clk 0:10:24] } 18. Nc3 { [%cal Gd7f6] [%clk 0:07:10] } 18... Nxg3 { [%clk 0:08:04] } 19. fxg3 { [%cal Gd8a5] [%clk 0:06:55] } 19... Qa5 { [%clk 0:07:30] } (19... Nf6) 20. Ne2 { [%clk 0:05:42] } 20... Rf8 { [%clk 0:04:48] } 21. Nf4 { [%clk 0:05:29] } 21... Ra6 { [%clk 0:03:35] } 22. Ng6 { [%clk 0:04:47] } 22... Rf7 { [%clk 0:02:45] } 23. Nfe5 { [%clk 0:04:26] } 23... Nxe5 { [%clk 0:02:39] } 24. Nxe5 { [%clk 0:04:02] } 24... Rxf1+ { [%clk 0:02:04] } 25. Rxf1 { [%clk 0:04:06] } 25... Bg5 { [%clk 0:02:03] } 26. Qf2 { [%clk 0:02:56] } 26... Bf6 { [%clk 0:01:34] } 27. g4 { [%clk 0:02:12] } 27... Qd8 { [%clk 0:01:26] } 28. h4 { [%clk 0:01:41] } 28... Bxh4 { [%clk 0:00:32] } 29. Qf7+ { [%clk 0:01:44] } 29... Kh8 { [%clk 0:00:20] } 30. Qh5 { [%clk 0:00:47] } 30... Kg8 { [%clk 0:00:08] } 31. Qf7+ { [%clk 0:00:08] } 31... Kh8 { [%clk 0:00:12] } 32. Ng6+ { [%clk 0:00:11] } 32... Kh7 { [%clk 0:00:17] } 33. Nf8+ { [%clk 0:00:10] } 33... Kh8 { [%clk 0:00:19] } 34. Nxe6 { [%clk 0:00:10] } 34... Qe7 { [%clk 0:00:21] } 35. Qf8+ { [%clk 0:00:08] } 35... Qxf8 { [%clk 0:00:24] } 36. Nxf8 { [%clk 0:00:11] } 36... g5 { [%clk 0:00:26] } 37. Ng6+ { [%clk 0:00:11] } 37... Rxg6 { [%clk 0:00:30] } 38. Kh2 { [%clk 0:00:10] } 38... Kg7 { [%clk 0:00:30] } 39. g3 { [%clk 0:00:14] } 39... Rf6 { [%clk 0:00:33] } 40. Rf5 { [%clk 0:00:07] } 40... Bxg3+ { [%clk 0:00:35] } 41. Kxg3 { [%clk 0:00:11] } 41... Rxf5 { [%clk 0:00:38] } 42. gxf5 { [%clk 0:00:14] } 42... Kf6 { [%clk 0:00:42] } 43. Kg4 { [%clk 0:00:11] } 43... b5 { 0-1 Black wins. } { [%clk 0:00:45] } 0-1

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Leonard's Guardian column diagram incorrectly has a White bishop on g2. Richie was never a piece up.

[Leonard Barden]

Leonard's Guardian column diagram incorrectly has a White bishop on g2. Richie was never a piece up.

This has now been corrected. Unfortunately I copied the faulty diagram from the chess.com report, which still has it wrong.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Some interesting comments on the Guardian column. I liked this one from 'electronicmath':

I think the show itself has a lot going for it, but is held back by a need to try and make chess into something it probably isn’t, and a hesitance to let the game itself win over the viewers. But that’s fine, that’s window dressing. The big win here is that there is a chess show on primetime TV. I don’t think you can underestimate the potential effect that will have on drawing new players. It’s out there, people can see it, many will be drawn in by it - there’s a good reason it’s such a revered game.

[Jon Mahony]

This person doesn't seem impressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LJv24EiM4

Yeah, he's a good lad him I was watching that video.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Missing 34. Qg6 was a bit shocking.

[Richard Kelly]

I was a Contestant on the Show and read with great interest most of the comments here ,even the negative ones. So just to clarify a few things :-none of the participants ever suggested that they were more than keen amateur players but were indeed proud and pleased that they were part of a programme designed to introduce chess to the general public and raise awareness of the game as a fun pastime/hobby etc.
They gave up their spare time to do so for no financial gain whatsoever but were thrilled that they were promoting chess. Therefore, I find some of the criticism aimed at them unfair and unwarranted.
For my own part my best playing days are obviously behind me. But in my youth I won some Majors and also the British Intermediate in 1991( if i remember correctly ) plus several club championships including one in 2023. There were many successes in the strong Armed forces events so no longer a strong player perhaps but no patzer either. My highest official grade was 163bcf but I've had lots of 2000+ tournament performances.
Therfore, just to dispel a further myth I did not miss Qg6 , I simply chose not to play it ! My intention from early on after Thalia played h6 was to try and land a piece on g6 .But that move had to be prepared and part of that prep was to swop off the white squared bishops to accentuate the weakness on the white squares. However , even before the opportunity arose to play Qg6 i had intended to allow Bxe3+ (sacing the pawn ) and just stick the King in the corner whereupon the attack continues .
But in a sudden rush of blood to the head I (too) quickly thought I can just play Qf2 ( still +2.0 on SF by the way ) save the pawn and keep the attack going.
However, the Queen hadnt even settled on the square when i realised it wasnt as good and consequently knowing I had made an inferior move when short of time it subsequently played on my mind for several moves afterwards and I blundered the knight. - Sound familiar anyone ??
Who of you havent been on the wrong end of this exact scenario ?
And just for the record I have seen it reported in various outlets including Chess.com that I missed the perpetual.
Wrong again. I didnt miss that either I simply opted not to play for it as I was still playing for the win.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Thank you for posting, Richie. It was incredible to see you and the others representing chess on prime time TV, and commiserations on losing that exciting game in the final.

(For the record, I found the way you fearlessly played g4 and h4 after Qf2 very impressive. I probably would have not had the courage to play that.)

Could I ask how accurate you think the editors and producers of the programme were in representing the games and the contestants? And indeed chess as a game?

What would you as a contestant have wished they might have done differently, either on the screen or behind the scenes (if you are now allowed to say)?

I am presuming you all signed NDAs regarding the results, but are hopefully free to give your views now?