Chess is blowing up in twitch (x10 times spectators in 6 months ) and become part of pro e-sport competitions!

[Nay Lin Tun]

And now Nakamura Join TSM

[Ozymandias]

Not surprised, but as far as I can see this is still human chess.

I will never grasp the appeal at watching (or playing) a stronger human opponent. When I play, I want someone around my level. When I kibitz, I want there to be as close to no mistakes being made as possible (humanly or otherwise). This leaves human play out.

[JohnW]

Not surprised, but as far as I can see this is still human chess.

I will never grasp the appeal at watching (or playing) a stronger human opponent. When I play, I want someone around my level. When I kibitz, I want there to be as close to no mistakes being made as possible (humanly or otherwise). This leaves human play out.

I want to play a stronger human because I could learn something. What bit of good does it do to play someone at my level who doesn't know any more than I do?

[Ozymandias]

I've heard that argument before, but for me, there are much more efficient ways of learning, such as analyzing my games or having someone explain where I went wrong. In essence, I play for fun, if I want to learn, I study.

[MikeB]

...
When I kibitz, I want there to be as close to no mistakes being made as possible (humanly or otherwise). This leaves human play out.

I appreciate the fact that you will not be kibiziting any human games I will be watching ...

[lkaufman]

Not surprised, but as far as I can see this is still human chess.

I will never grasp the appeal at watching (or playing) a stronger human opponent. When I play, I want someone around my level. When I kibitz, I want there to be as close to no mistakes being made as possible (humanly or otherwise). This leaves human play out.

Regarding playing a stronger human opponent, for me the appeal was always that if I won (or perhaps even if I drew), I had something to feel good about, I could credit my skill. If I beat an equal, it's likely due to luck or to one detail he happened to miss, which can be called luck. As for watching, it is more interesting to try to guess the moves of a stronger player than to guess the mistakes of a weaker (or equal) one, but if the player is too far above me (like a top engine) it is too difficult to understand/predict/explain the moves.

[Ozymandias]

it is more interesting to try to guess the moves of a stronger player than to guess the mistakes of a weaker (or equal) one, but if the player is too far above me (like a top engine) it is too difficult to understand/predict/explain the moves.

If you try to do it on your own, I can see that. Kibitzing can also be computer assisted tough; a lot of people on the TCEC chat do it, and some are able to see the possibilities, a computer move can bring to the board. Whether a particular engine can follow trough is another matter, but you can see what the move was about if properly groomed. This is basically what centaur players have been doing since computers were able to aid in the analysis.

[the_real_greco]

Color me disappointed. I like things to stay the same, forever. Including chess being insular and weird.

[Ovyron]

Regarding playing a stronger human opponent, for me the appeal was always that if I won (or perhaps even if I drew), I had something to feel good about, I could credit my skill. If I beat an equal, it's likely due to luck or to one detail he happened to miss, which can be called luck.

That's funny, because the time I beat a player 500 elo stronger than me, it was clear it only happened because s/he missed a detail that I didn't, and it was pure luck that it happened. And I didn't even felt good about it, because they'd have lost that position against anyone (it happened to Margnus Carlsen when he lost against a 2400, you can say anything you want, but that's the luckiest chess game I've witnessed).

I've enjoyed a lot more the games where my opponent is only slightly stronger, but I outplay them, as if I was 500 elo stronger than them. Utter destruction. This becomes impossible once the strength distance is big enough, and then the games I win are lucky shoots.

The outcome is that the most enjoyable games are those against people about my level, but stronger. While the most frustrating ones are those against people about my level, but weaker, where there's a struggle to show supremacy and urges to win, and a draw feels like a disappointment.

Chess is the kind of game only one of the players gets to enjoy.

[Cornfed]

Chess is the kind of game only one of the players gets to enjoy.

Hogwash.

First - this twitch "Pogchess" and such, is largely people 'important' for being 'famous' in their own little world playing a game they really are not very good at...but is the hot thing at the moment.

Someone recently told me to look upon it as the chess equivalent of "Celebrity Poker" for the internet. It makes sense. Of course in Texas Hold'em you can know certain rules of thumb and be able to play a decent game...win hands, but of course you would lose in the long run to the 'pros'.

In chess, these 'celebrity' players are just...pretty bad really, because Chess demands so much more from someone to play well. I personally can't stand to watch it...like I can't see any value in "Jersey Shores" or "Keeping Up with the Kardashians". But that is the milk that keeps so much of today's younger crowd nourished...

Second (the hogwash comment) - There is a reason I have played in OTB tournaments since 1980 even though I've only won 35 or so (lost far many more), is because I enjoy the mental struggle of pitting myself against another human in a game we both are trying to play well. Sure, some games you get outplayed...some games you outplay your opponent...mostly it's a mix with the result hanging in the balance until the very end. But I enjoy the competition in the end. It's very .... human.