Monday, 21 November 2016

My eyes

I had no idea FiveThirtyEight were writing about Carlsen-Karjakin.

The latest piece (as I write) is called Are Computers Draining The Beauty Out Of Chess? and I am afraid my initial reaction was "no, you are", because the diagrams - particularly those heading the pieces - are some of the most garish, unfriendly efforts I've seen in quite a while, as well as unnecessarily confusing the eye of the reader by refusing to mark out the edge of the board.

The pink one is the worst.







Try again, maybe.
at

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous22 November 2016 at 04:02

    At least they (5-38) tell us VIP room was rather empty for Game 6.
    OTOH, before Game 8, Norway was talking about wanting to host 2018 Championship.
    Agon didn't want that this last time, because they are too small of a market.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous23 November 2016 at 16:16

    The court has now published the reasons in the World Chess vs Chessgames case.

    I don't know that either side has made it available, so maybe you have to pay.

    Courthouse News reported on the original verdict (Nov 14), and linked to Agon's brief.

    http://www2.courthousenews.com/chess-tourney-organizers-take-free-riders-to-court/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous23 November 2016 at 16:18

    Actually, chess24 did publish the full reasoning now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not quite the reality23 November 2016 at 16:45

    Tournaments only every 20 years?!

    From Agon brief #31: "As William Henry Watts of the British Chess Federation, and an amateur
    chess player himself, lamented in 1925 ... At the time Watts made this observation, twenty years often separated one international tournament from the next, because more frequent tournaments were not financially feasible."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not quite the reality23 November 2016 at 16:49

    If you ask me, if true, this is just a failed business model (Agon #32).

    "Today, the most valuable aspect of hosting and generating content for a chess tournament is the ability to profit from publication of the chess moves and to publish the moves in real time."

    As Seirawan mentioned, you have oodles of other things, such as commentary, videos, exclusive interviews. Without context, I'm not sure the move reporting is that valuable anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous29 November 2016 at 01:20

    Russia Today posted articles after 8, 10, 11, and 12.

    In this last one, they managed to cite both Susan Polgar and Nigel Short on Twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ejh29 November 2016 at 05:40

    More than I could easily do, being blocked by both...

    ReplyDelete

Please do not post anonymously if you have anything controversial to say. Abusive, offensive and legally iffy comments will likely be deleted.