Chess on BBC World Service

[Paul Buswell]

Lifted from BBC site; other references indicate this is first of two episodes and has repeated transmission times 10-12 September

BBC WORLD SERVICE Friday 10 September 2010
www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice
Seeking The Endgame
Friday 10 September
8.00-8.30pm BBC WORLD SERVICE

Chess is an ancient game and its popularity has spanned many centuries – but how is it faring in modern times? Simon Terrington, a self-confessed chess fanatic, explores the game in today's world and examines whether modern technology is changing the game and the way it is played.

He also questions whether people still have the time, in today's increasingly fast-paced way of life, to master this game. Simon reaffirms his love for chess by absorbing the passion it generates, from grandmasters to community club players; from the World Chess Championship to the chess boards of a Bulgarian park.

Presenter/Simon Terrington

BBC World Service Publicity

[Matthew Turner]

I have heard the foreword for this program a number of times on radio 4 and they are obviouly building it up. It sounds quite interesting.

[Jonathan Bryant]

Simon Terrington may be a chess fanatic but his enthusiasm for the game doesn't extend to actually playing it under regular club or tournament conditions.

Last standard grade for that name was the mid '90s
last grade of any sort of grade was 2003.


Needless to say he could play lots on the internet or casually - and he may well follow the game avidly - but I do wonder about claims of presenters' interest/prowess at chess when this sort of thing gets said. I'm sure it's got much more to do with an attempt to establish the credibility of the presenter/programme than an attempt to reflect the truth.

Similar example:

The back cover of Daniel Johnson's book "White King and Red King" (published 2007) includes the claim that he is an "accomplished chess player" and the inner blurb states that he is a "strong chess amatuer". Well maybe he is but nobody of that name has troubled the graders since 1996 - and I don't think that DJ is the author DJ anyway.

I'm reminded of Fever Pitch when Nick Hornby writes about being told of folk who are - like him - mad keen arsenal fans and what he discovers is not a season ticket holder somebody who might watch them when they're on the telly or perhaps buy a replica kit every now and then.



Not that any of this necessarily means that the programme won't any good. I shall certainly be making sure I get to hear it.

[Leonard Barden]

Daniel Johnson was a strong junior (170-190 ish) in the 1970s. He is an active kibitzer when live games are shown on chessgames.com, and contributes posts there (more than 14,000 of them!) under the handle domdaniel.

[Geoff Chandler]

What on Earth has this lads grade got to do with anything?

"Not that any of this necessarily means that the programme won't [be] any good."

It looks like you have already made up your mind on the strength of a grading list.

And this bit:

"I'm sure it's got much more to do with an attempt to establish the credibility
of the presenter/programme than an attempt to reflect the truth."

What is the truth?

This lad does not have a grade of 2800 so he knows nothing about chess?

This is grade snobbery at it's best. As soon as someone has an opinion
this joker grabs a grading list to see if he has the right to hold an opinion.

Who do you think should present it?
Whose grade is high enough to come up to your expectations?

Tell us. We will start a campaign to stop the broadcast because this
lad's grade is too low.

The sad fact Jonathan is that you will not be alone in this assumption.
The programme is doomed before it is aired because of a four digit number.

I can just imagine all these blinkered grade worshippers doing everthing they can
to avoid going near a radio on the 10th of September because a guy with low grade
is talking about chess.

[Rob Thompson]

i think far more to the point is that the presenter is apparently a "chess fanatic", yet hasn't played competitively for around 7 years, casting doubt on whether the "chess fanatic" is true, or merely "an attempt to establish the credibility of the presenter/programme". At no point was the actual standard of the play from that time brought up, nor was what his actual grade, when he had one, was, so whilst i agree with your points, they are totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand

[Geoff Chandler]

Of course it is relevant.

The lad's grade and playing career was brought up as a possible reason
why the programme might not be any good.

"Last standard grade for that name was the mid '90s
last grade of any sort of grade was 2003."

This typical thinking really grips my nuts.

I recall reading on here some lad whose pedigree in organising chess
events was faultless. And yet he was lambasted because his grade was too low.

He was even asked how many chess books he had.

Good Grief. What is a matter with you guys?

You must get away from thinking that chess is nothing
but a four digit number for it to have a chance.

Remember:

....than an attempt to reflect the truth.

What is the truth?

The truth is this boy has been dismissed as a fake because he
does not have a high grade.

The grade rules, the numbers...the magic numbers.

Football was mentioned.

Some of the games most knowledgable writers and commentators
on the game have never kicked a ball in their lives.

But football is an open minded sport. There is the big difference.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Er, right ... well I am sure that I have never seen an inarticulate idiot commenting on football on TV simply on the basis that he used to be a very well known player ... and I am sure that I have seen a lot of (more articulate) third division players and managers being invited instead ...

[LozCooper]

What on Earth has this lads grade got to do with anything?

This lad does not have a grade of 2800 so he knows nothing about chess?

This is grade snobbery at it's best.

Whose grade is high enough to come up to your expectations?

This post seems ironic given how you made fun of Meri Grigoryan in Chandler's Chess Column
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandle ... handID=221

Having name dropped about Jacob, Jonathan and Keti you felt the need to completely ridicule a non Grandmaster "She was one of the blundering clowns from the last C.C."

I suppose title snobbery is different to grade snobbery

It was my misfortune to stumble on this nonsense whilst searching on google for the results from Meri's current tournament.

[IM Jack Rudd]

Nobody has yet mentioned Terrington's playing strength (for what it's worth, his last published grade of any sort was a rapidplay grade of 137, so he was obviously a decent player when he was active). The comments were aimed purely at his activity level.

[Jonathan Rogers]

To get some balance, I liked the chess extracts in the Corner bit to which Loz links! And I don't think that the "blundering clown" bit is meant at all maliciously - it seems to be just a reference to the fact that the chess from Meri was coming very much from the opposite end of the table from the chess of the other (more familiar) players who were also mentioned. And "look at the bottom board chess too!" was very much a Corner theme, as I understand it.

[LozCooper]

To get some balance, I liked the chess extracts in the Corner bit to which Loz links! And I don't think that the "blundering clown" bit is meant at all maliciously - it seems to be just a reference to the fact that the chess from Meri was coming very much from the opposite end of the table from the chess of the other (more familiar) players who were also mentioned. And "look at the bottom board chess too!" was very much a Corner theme, as I understand it.

Malicious or not, it seems hypocritical to accuse someone of grading snobbery when he himself is only too happy to make fun of another player for not being at the level of Grandmasters.

[Geoff Chandler]

"...an inarticulate idiot commenting on football on TV simply on the basis
that he used to be a very well known player."

Precisely.

I have seen loads of good footballers who cannot string two words together.
And I have read books and articles by GM's who should never have been let near
a typewriter.

You do not have to be good at the game or even play it to be
a knowledgeable chess fanatic.

If Mr Barden is correct and domdaniel is on Chessgames then I look
forward to his broadcast.

I've just looked and his post are amusing and he does display quite a
fair bit of knowledge about our game.

Infact I think him being inactive on the chess scene counts in his favour.
We won't get none of the chummy Oxford crowd hogging the prgramme
like we did when they produced that shambles on TV. setting back
chess by 50 years.
These guys had their chance and blew it.

Enter the new kid with a fresh approach.

I think he deserves a chance rather being dismissed out of hand
because he is not on the current grading list.

++++++++++++++++

"Having name dropped about Jacob, Jonathan and Keti you felt the need
to completely ridicule a non Grandmaster "She was one of the blundering
clowns from the last C.C."

Yup. That sound like me. Good Corner that one.

Jacob, Jonathan and Keti are (er...Scottish...One of out of three is not too bad).
The Corner was primarily a Scottish site.
It kind of went global and really got out of hand.

Cannot recall any of the emails Meri sent me saying she was upset
at being one of the clowns.

Of the 400 I done I pulled one picture and one comment about
a lad on request because it could have been misunderstood.
(I missed the double meaning but fully understood their request).

One titled player asked me once to pull one of his endgames blunders because

"it's unfair as I have not played that opening for 6 years."

I just sent his email back to him.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hi Jonathan.

There was never anything nasty about The Corner.
Players made blunders I make jokes about them.
If some took it the wrong way then I very rarely heard about it. (shrug).

I often singled out a lower graded player to follow because
it's the lower graded guys (and girls) who play the most interesting chess.

(also I'm comfortable in that zone. I try not go on about games I do
not fully understand and using a box and then filling in the gaps
is cheating.)

I simply chose Meri because she was a girl and we are all equal nowadays.

------------------------------------------------
Everytime I go to post - someone else has posted.
------------------------------------------------

Loz II

"Malicious or not, it seems hypocritical to accuse someone of grading snobbery
when he himself is only too happy to make fun of another player for not being
at the level of Grandmasters"

I made fun of everyone. Nobody was safe.

I cannot see the bit in that Corner where I poke fun at Meri for NOT
being a GM.

If you read the thing instead of picking out the bits that upset you.

(gosh I cannot believe I'm actually writing an excuse for a Corner
now I feel like a hypocrite to myself.)

Further down I state:

"I've castled Queenside (O-O-O) in a five rounder before. (Alnwick 1980).
You miss the simple wins trying so very hard no to lose a won game."

So the joke is swinging on me as well.

But if you want to single out that one Corner because I did not
crack a joke against a GM then OK I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Hi Geoff,

We agree about silly but famous football commentators. However, my point was made in response to your assertion that football is more open-minded. I rather meant to doubt that - thus the preference to have anyone famous on TV, often ahead of someone less famous but articulate. So what is the difference between football and chess here? "Strong player elitism" probably happens in most sports, in fact.

[Jonathan Rogers]

Actually I'll answer my own question

in football, people want informed commentary but often get famous idiots

in chess, people want famous commentators, but often get people they've never heard of