Chess Is NOT A Spectator Sport ... So Deal With It!
Or Why I’m Not Watching #AnandCarlsen Any More
In 1978-79, Alvin Kallicharan's West Indies cricket team toured India for a test series during the December holidays.
I remember curling up in front of the TV every morning, a Perry Mason novel in my hand. In between deliveries, I would read my book. By the draw of stumps every evening, I would have finished a murder mystery, and enjoyed a full day's cricket - without missing anything of interest.
Compared to a chess match, even this slow pace is blisteringly fast!
I can say this after watching Anand vs. Carlsen for six long hours (twice!), during which around 60 moves were made. While studying an analysis of the 4th game which was drawn, I browsed through a match between Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer referenced in the report.
It took me exactly 4 minutes to click through the moves, from start to finish.
For perspective, let's contrast this against a few other sports.
In table-tennis, if we were were to replay a recording of a match, eliminating all the "waiting, thinking and preparing" moments to retain only the "action", we might cut down a 20 minute game by half - to ten minutes or so.
In test cricket, when you carry out the same exercise, you could distill down a day's play (all three sessions of 2 hours each) to 30 minutes or less, without overlooking any of the action. In fact, on school days, we used the TV broadcast of daily "highlights" to review everything we missed on the pitch.
In chess, a 6 hour session can be whittled down to six MINUTES of action - or even less!
To reiterate my point... the percentage of ACTIVITY to TOTAL TIME is:
* Table-tennis: 50%
* Cricket: 10%
* Chess: 2% - or less!
What is the sound of grass growing?
Chess commentary is tough. Very tough.
It's far easier to moderate a cricket match, where talking about the previous ball, or over, can keep you going at least until the run up to the next. A brief analysis of the game up to that point will suffice to fill the gaps while the field changes or bowling shifts to the other end.
In chess, a commentator has an indefinite (and uncertain) time interval to fill until the next move is made.
Worse, there is no way to reliably figure out exactly what strategic and tactical thinking goes on in a player's mind. Even more so when the players are among the highest ranked in the world. ("Let's ask them about it during the press conference" is a popular refrain!)
I've admired and appreciated the way Susan Polgar and R.B.Ramesh have managed to sustain viewers' interest in the game with insightful analyses of potential moves and strategy, catering to raw newbies with barely a smattering of chess knowledge as well as more advanced students of the game who are looking to gain some tips and experience.
But even the best analysis has its limitations. When you watch a sport, you watch it for the sport - not for opinions ABOUT the sport.
That, and the action.
It's agonizingly slow in chess.
Maybe it's a better idea to watch a game of chess in retrospect - after all the moves have been played, the champions' motives and technique deconstructed by experts, the comparisons drawn between other games in the past, and all of it nicely packaged and presented for a quick, smooth review within a reasonable period of time.
At least, that's what I've decided to do - especially after Vishy Anand lost game 5.
Who wants to spend SIX HOURS watching one's favorite lose, eh?! ;-)
Chess isn't a spectator sport.
Get over it!
