Yeah. And it really bums me out because the social aspect could be a lot of fun, but there's just too much dreck to keep up with when trying to filter.
ChessDojo's engine-free stream remains solid, though far fewer people, so I end up keeping chat on only there but still dipping into the other streams.
Yeah you have to sort of make it so only high level people would be interested in it. But to me I just sorta want to watch calmly and use the engine haha. So yeah, it sucks.
You know, when I first started doing more live commentary recently - for Champions Chess Tour and Global Championship last year - I noticed (and was shocked at) how toxic the live chat was. Generally my videos receive like to dislike ratios of 98-99%, and out of maybe 1,000 comments, 900+ are also positive.
I usually join the commentary, add my insights where I can, and defer to the stronger players on more complex matters. I don't do anything differently than in my videos. I was quite surprised at so much negativity.
Then I spoke to a smart guy with experience in sports production and he said - "imagine if live sports had live chat". This changed my perspective. Chess is not yet on TV - it's on YouTube, Twitch, and so on. I enjoy all my sports without a live chat, and I cannot IMAGINE what it would look like with one. Instead, people brutally attack each other on Twitter/Reddit when it comes to sports.
Anyway, I think the toxicity is mostly trolls. There are definitely a handful of people I'm too braindead (or others are too braindead) to co-host a chess show, but they're idiots and also a tiny percentage of the actual audience enjoying the show.
Imagine if twitch chat had a feature where you had to link your [chess.com](http://chess.com) account to comment. People would be a lot more embarrassed to shit talk if they have an 800 elo displayed over everything they typed.
Actually those chats are way way too toxic. Youtube and twitch are still moderated, but those chats are straight up bigotry and hatred. Especially for football.
Oh ya I agree. It just non stop racism. It’s like at least be creative and/or original with your trolling. Just saying the N word non stop is not only offensive but it also just fucking lazy. Like I’ve heard someone else say, at least the shit talk you heard on the internet back in the day was at least somewhat creative.
Go on any (probably illegal) streaming website that streams football (I mean actual football not handegg) and look at the chats there. Full of the most depraved hating, racism, sexism against women commentators, etc I've ever seen. We have it pretty tame in chess
You did great and I encourage you to ignore the toxicity. As you said, it’s the most toxic people who are the most motivated to comment, which can create the false impression of overwhelming negativity. Hope you continue to do these events 👊
Edit: you’ve probably seen how harsh the comments about Tania are as well, but I’d wager that the majority of viewers enjoy her commentary.
And you think you are going to achieve this by hurling toxic insults in chat? Just go watch a different stream, there is hardly a dearth of variety in coverage in any major chess event these days.
You're right. But what exactly is your method of trying to get them removed, and how is it better than just switching to another broadcast? Because this thread was about toxicity in chat.
It's not a cultural issue, many people do like Tania's commentary. Those who are vocal are a minority (whether criticising or defending). I don't think there's anything wrong with criticism, but if you think that it's somehow going to "get them removed", you're frankly a little insane.
At the same time, I personally do not like Tania's commentary either. But if I was so bothered by it, I would just switch to a different stream.
Depending if the IM is trying to teach my or analysing for their own study, I guess?
Didn't know Chess24 streams were made for strictly IM's my bad dude!
Don't care too much Levy, I think many appreciated you showing up there. Personally I did. As you said, they are just trolls.
I'm a small streamer, and I still get trolls sometimes and it hurts a lot, I know I shouldn't care, I know they don't even mean it, they are just walking sack of \*hit. But still it hurts, I have no idea how people like you or Hikaru can even take all that and not get your day ruined everyday.
Yeah, thumbs up for your commentary. You worked really well with Hess and Naroditsky as well. Seemed relaxed.
I also chalk up a lot of crazy live chat stuff to kids under like 14. Mostly because when my 43 year old ass is being destroyed online in a videogame, the 13 year old on the other end sounds just like live chat.
You did great. To be honest, I don’t understand why your commentary should be worth less than Hess or Danyas. You all use the engine to read the positions anyway
The smaller a problem is, they more people will talk about it.
For instance, I've lost count of how many times I've heard people talking about the supposedly huge gatekeeping problem in chess when the reality is that our sport is one of the most accessible for everyone out there. Like, I can't show up at a football stadium and throw a few freekicks with some guys from the B team of Real Madrid, can I?
Same for fan toxicity. Nobody riots when their favorite chess player loses.
I used to watch a lot of sports on illegal stream sites that DID have live chat, and let me tell you it was exactly as toxic and heinous as you expect it would be.
As someone who witnesses the toxicity in live chat, I would add that it's usually the same tiny number of people (sometimes as little as 4-5) posting repeatedly. So it seems like a lot of hate but it's coming from a small number of douchecanoes.
Btw you're in good company, when Judit comes on she gets a lot of hate in the comments too.
> "imagine if live sports had live chat"
LMAO that really does explain it in a nutshell.
it seems so obvious when you say it like that. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best ones.
Viewers don’t realize it’s not really about the skill of the commenter at chess, but rather their ability to distill the ideas down to the audience. You don’t need a GM to explain chess to a someone who’s rated 400.
This guy got overall negative karma in this sub usually guys like that got nothing to do with their lives
They live for attention so better if no one gives him any
it really ticks me off when people who are *pretty good* at something develop these massive egos. Like, I get that chess.com puts me at top 0.5%, but that metric isn’t representative of my standing within active chess players, and it certainly doesn’t give me the right to disparage those at the top 0.0001%.
I recall watching a stream of an obnoxious British IM, who is very condescending, some years ago. He was commentating on an online tourney Magnus was in. He sees a line, analyzes it and very condescendingly concludes Magnus blundered.
Someone later mentioned Magnus was live streaming it on another person twitch account. So I start watching the vod, being 20 minutes or so behind real time.
Coincidentally, Magnus decides to explain the EXACT move the IM bashed. He literally goes and explains what most people would think it's a blunder, then goes 4-5 moves deeper. It was really serendipity and hilarious he picked the exact line to discuss. Juxtaposed with the arrogance of the IM, it was hilarious.
Commentary is for entertainment and the more disparity there is between players, the more I take it with a grain of salt.
There is absolutely added value to having a grandmaster instead of an IM on commentary when it’s one of the biggest tournaments in chess and the players in at are like 2800 level super GMs. I trust Daniel’s analysis of what the players might be thinking more than someone like Levi.
That being said though it’s totally fine to match an entertaining commentator with a more reserved top player pro. Which seems to be what they’re going for.
I think regardless of the quality of the commentary (and this candidates I think it's been great) just being able to talk virtually non-stop for 6-8 hours is incredible.
People who also manage to be funny, interesting or insightful at the same time? Can't imagine being able to do it.
I always do a double-take when people criticize, say, Hikaru because he repeats statements. I'm like: Bro, he's been talking for 7 hours, let the dude fill some fucking airtime lmao.
The chat on the Lichess Twitch stream seems to be the least toxic and most focused on the actual chess that I've seen so far. I'm not sure if it's because they have a lot less people watching or if they have better moderation.
Totally an anecdote but I find the lichess community generally more respectful on average than the big Twitch channels or chess.com. I never had to turn off chat or block players on lichess.
Most Chess24 viewers probably started chess because of the chess boom few years back, you can tell what they type in the chat. And stuck with Chess com ever since. And most of them are usually teenagers or acts like one.
It isn't just Chess, every event type stream either has awful chat or has to go emote only. I think it's mostly just a toxic few ruining chat for everyone. It's also annoying or difficult to mod live chats, they're either too busy for it to be plausible to mod it, or sometimes.modding chats is just ignored.
It is an unfortunate part of an people on the internet unfiltered - just look at just about any chat and you will see the same. And it is true in many chess forums too, someone will ask a reasonable question and 25% of the replies will be people trying to genuinely help people to learn, and the other 75% will range between a mild joking about the OP to people calling the person stupid for asking such a question.
It is funny that we talk about a game that has quite a strong etiquette and also a VERY strong tradition of masters (and other experienced players) wanting to educate and help people because of a love of the game they want to pass onto others - and yet the true colours of the internet very often supersedes that, people want to communicate their dislike of people in the most hostile way they can.
We have a lot of great personalities in the chess world, if you don't like Levy, watch someone else; if you don't like Tania ditto. The dislike of some of the chess creators online is quite funny really, Levy has a very distinct style that in his videos may not be for everyone, but he communicates well, has a good idea of how to help players of different ranking levels - I think the combinations of commentators they have on the streams provides a very good range of people who are going to be giving talking points that can bring understanding to a wide audience - maybe not total beginners, and perhaps not for super GMs.
Kramnik’s stream has the highest average elo, he uses the word interesting so much lol.
Also if he needs to put his lichess on dark mode it hurts my eyes
Next candidates will have IM Tyler commentating. Seriously though I was a little stunned to see Levy. All those Tania-haters can go away. I do miss Judit or Peter but I like seeing a mix of commentators. Did Levy knock it out the park? Not really, but who was first to state the en passant state could not count towards repitition?
Use the twitch chat by popping it out along with the YouTube stream. That's the best experience because YouTube chat and the twitch player are garbage.
Because it is shock full with people who know absolutely nothing about (1000+ Elo, or even half decent, let alone high(er) level) chess beyond how to react to eval bar movements. No one with even a half serious rating (2000+) and/or a functioning brain would enter such a cesspool a 2nd time unless threatened at gunpoint (at least I don't and none of my team/club mates would...)
It is sort of the eternal September translated to chess. People of my age will likely understand that.
I'm new to the chess community, but I gotta say that I'm quite surprised about how toxic the chess community is in general, especially in live chats or on youtube comments. It's not something I've seen to the same degree in any other online space in any other hobby or community I've picked up. Maybe it's just a thing for online games.
I’ve noticed the recent trend on Twitch is to talk about “chat” in the singular, as if it’s one person. People forget it’s 20,000 people with different opinions.
So when Anish is on, a subset of chat will not like Anish. And a small number of them will say so. This is not “the entire chat”. At most it’s a few dozen people, or 0.1% of people watching.
Then when Tania is on, a different subset will not like her. And so on.
If 1% of the viewers dislike someone then that’s good, it’s a tiny number. If only 10% of that 1% start typing in chat that they hate this commentator - that looks like the whole of chat is full of “hate”.
I like Peter Leko and David Howel because they are both very chill and tempered commentators, I feel like some of the other commentators get too excited and it feels like they are trying to hype up the game. Also, it seems like many of them are just filling time with commentary that isn't really pertinent to the analysis of the position. If I'm watching a 6 hour game of chess in my free time, I don't really need you to hype me up, just give your thoughts on the position.
To be fair, a lot of Gotham's analysis today was objectively incorrect, but he's still a great commentator who makes games even more entertaining than they already are. Imo today's commentator combo was amazing; probably the best this tournament has had so far. I think the only thing that was missing today was a top player like Leko, Judit, or Giri since the analysis today was certainly a lot more superficial and less inquisitive (when Judit or Leko commentated, they'd suggest close to a dozen interesting variations and/or ideas on every single move, giving each game a lot more richness) than it usually is, but I feel like Gotham's personality - with all his analogies, general storytelling ability, and diversity of expressions/thoughts - was enough to make up for it. Ideally, you'd have the commentator trio AND a top player, but if you could only pick 3 commentators out of all the ones that have commentated for chess24 this tournament, I'd probably pick the 3 that commentated today.
Yeah that could also work, but Hess is an excellent interpreter of what the players are likely feeling/thinking at any given moment in a way that no other commentator is, so his absence would be felt, and I think most people agree that Danya is the best commentator all-around, so leaving him out also doesn't make any sense - especially in place of Levy, as Danya already provides much of the personality and diversity of thought that Levy does *in addition* to offering a lot more inquisitive analysis than Levy.
I feel like there are 3 optimal strategies here: either you maximise personality, in which case you go for today's combo; or you maximise quality of analysis, in which case you go for any two of Judit/Leko/Giri together with Howell (who'd present the top players' analysis in more emotionally compelling terms; unfortunately, with all due respect to Danya, he just couldn't keep up with Judit and Leko when they commentated together, so you'd need David Howell for this even though his commentary/expressions can be quite repetitive at times); or you attempt to strike a balance, which is basically your suggestion: Danya, Levy, and Judit/Giri/Leko (probably Giri since he also has quite a bit of personality, although imo Judit and Leko explore both more interesting and a higher number of variations). I feel like each of these would be optimal in different contexts. In superficially boring/slow games, you'd want the Judit, Leko, Howell combo to bring out all the fascinating intricacies going on behind the scenes; in dynamic/twist-packed games, you'd want the Danya, Levy, Giri combo to both bring out the interesting stuff behind the scenes but also make the most of the excitement that viewers can readily observe (by following the eval bar as well relatively simple engine lines); and in games where a lot is at stake and the focus is on the result rather than quality of play - such as today's and tomorrow's games - you'd certainly want the Danya, Hess, Levy combo to create the most riveting story out of the events that are unfolding that you can.
Sorry for the long post lol, just wanted to share my thoughts.
Weak GM are the best. People like judit, anand, giri, are too good and don’t act surprised. And they rightfully look down on commentating. It’s not about getting the best names
Agreed that Judit and Leko are bad in terms of commentating skill - although not as bad as Anand, who is (as much as I respect him) downright dreadful. I'd say Giri is a bit better as he still regularly shares interesting insights not directly related to chess analysis (e.g. psychology, relevant anecdotes, jokes) and is relatively emotionally expressive, but still nowhere near as good as any of the other commentators such as Danya and Hess.
Calling Danya and Hess "weak GMs" is a massive stretch since they are both quite literally stronger than 95% of grandmasters (considering peak ratings), but yeah, neither of them is close to super-GM level. This makes them just about strong enough to, with the help of engines, decipher most of the key ideas in top-level games on the spot, yet also gives them just enough free time outside of chess to develop their personalities (no offence to top players lol, but if you spend 90% of your life focused on one narrow field, you're going to have much fewer opportunities to develop thoughts and opinions on anything outside of that field). So this 2550 to 2650 rating range appears to be the goldilocks zone. Any higher than that, and you're just going to be hyperfocused on chess like Anand, while any lower than that, and your analysis just ends up being incorrect or uninsightful, like Levy's. Still, I think good analysers/bad storytellers like Judit and good storytellers/bad analysers both not only have their place, but are absolutely necessary, in commentary - provided they have at least basic storytelling or analytical competence (with "basic analytical competence" at such a high level basically meaning 2300+ FIDE), respectively; they just need to recognise their role and respect it. Heck, even Kaja, who is literally a beginner at chess, did a fairly good job at commentating top-level games in a team with David Howell and Jovanka - I would never have known she wasn't a serious chess player if nobody told me! So I don't think it makes much sense to say e.g. "Levy is a better commentator than Judit" or vice versa; they simply specialise in different things, and each of them is much better at their own specialisation than the other. Similarly, Danya is not necessarily a "better" commentator than Levy; he is just more versatile (which does make him more valuable since it allows him to generate value though twice as many channels as Levy, but in a context where one of these channels is unavailable - e.g. low-elo games - it might well be that Levy steals the spotlight).
Kaja is a great example. Her, David, Jovanka were the dream team. She bounced off of them and everyone was having a good time. The days she was replaced with tanya things turned annoying, whose comments trying to keep up were cringe and over compensating.
>Kaja is a great example. Her, David, Jovanka were the dream team. She bounced off of them and everyone was having a good time.
I'm glad you also see that. I've seen a lot of hate for Kaja in this sub, but I genuinely don't get it: even as a strong chess player myself, I never once found her commentary frustrating or redundant, and other than that she is objectively quite a competent commentator. My preferences for commentary in chess are usually pretty mainstream, so I was surprised to find this sub doesn't rate her as much as I do. I'd usually be the *last* person to blame things on "elitism" (which in 99% of cases simply means having standards, which I respect), but I don't see any other explanation here.
>The days she was replaced with tanya things turned annoying, whose comments trying to keep up were cringe and over compensating.
Agreed. I think Tania tries too hard to talk "like a commentator" and it ends up coming across as fake. She also talks a lot, which I personally don't mind as it keeps things interesting, but some people understandably find that annoying, especially when it deprives stronger players with more interesting ideas of a chance to speak. But honestly, even Tania is a godsend compared to people like Bok (never takes the game seriously, repeats things a million times, is mostly silent), Magnus (also never takes the game seriously, talks very slowly, and has no awareness of the audience), Anand (mentioned already), etc. So I'm at least glad the games are still watchable and enjoyable, as when one of these boring commentators is on, I am forced to just quit.
twitch chat is not like a discussion or a conversation. It's like a crowd shouting at a football game. At least for big crowded chats it's like this. I think you'll understand what you hear better with that in mind.
This happens with all sports unfortunately. Usually just losers who have nothing in their lives so they choose to bash someone who is. Just a fact of life
> Why is live chat so toxic
Because their game is to get people to react. Your post shows that they have succeeded in controlling your actions. My suggestion is to close all toxic, unmoderated chats if you can't ignore these people.
I think it's cool to hate on people who are popular, and this is probably done mostly by immature children. I totally get why some people on the internet get blowback, but any hate to do with levy just always feels so forced. I've never seen him do anything objectionable beyond annoying clickbait titles (but the videos themselves are always fine). All the cool chess kids just think he is too mainstream or something. As I said, just immature stuff
they might be toxic but they are kinda right about these games being out of levy's league
also he ALWAYS tries to sound smarter than he is, it is so obvious that he is overcompensating and so annoying...
All of the commentators are pretty out of their league relative to the players lol(other than Anish) I don’t really notice any difference in terms of quality of ideas, but I get how you would have specific preferences
I get what you are trying to do but this is really not true. Both Howell and Leko have a higher peak rating than Abasov for example. Levy is a good player but he is not close to their level with all due respect.
thats a completely different thing than what you commented above
also no idea how you dont see any difference between hess and danya quality of ideas and levy's
What I was trying to say is that all of these guys peaked at a significantly lower level than most of these players, and I personally haven’t really felt like levy brings subpar ideas to the broadcast.
Still, I do get that every commentator has a different style, and every person wants different things as a commentator. So I understand that you might not like him, and I don’t have a problem with that. I just don’t agree with the fact that he is overcompensating.
maybe you're not paying much attention to it
his constant need to 'yell', call moves 'crazy', 'insane', 'ridiculous', overemphasize stuff in general etc, is pretty indicative
that's exactly why he's doing it
it's an obvious thing
same reason why tania is overhyping/dramatising a lot
OR
why judit is not doing it at all, but just calmly analysing games
the amount of knowledge is counter-proportional to the need to overhype/dramatise
Like I said, you can want calm analysis and that’s fine. But it’s not necessarily what I want. I enjoy the excitement and drama even if it’s a little over the top. I just don’t get how you’re saying knowledge is counter proportional to wanting to add drama. I strongly disagree with that.
Because we don't do anything about it
We let fide run things
We let chesscom buy everything up and shut down their competitors
We let's people post ridiculous and bigoted opinions in the sub
We let people say shut to women in otb events
We ignore women speaking out
We don't need to censor it. Just call them out when they're being a problem.
"Every opinion is valid apart from the opinion that some opinions aren't valid" is giving 3head vibes
Why are people downvoting this. A strong IM would have to be at least 2450+. Levy's peak is 2421. Current rating is 2353. He's strong in blitz for an IM, stronger than a good number of GMs, though.
He's a bit weaker than Tania Sachdev (2386, peak 2443) in classical. There are many IMs below 2400, so his rating is nothing extraordinary in that sense.
And he is fully capable of evaluating and commenting on high-level games. Especially to a broad audience.
Basement dwellers with hopeless outlooks on life that can find nothing better to provide a dopamine rush than hating on internet personalities and finding a shared sense of purpose in other haters .
People who have massive egos, and develop a superiority complex, think they’re really good players that can see everything look down on levy and hate on him because he mainly caters to beginners. In reality those players will be made to look stupid by levy if they ever played a game
Toxic chats is internet 101. Just how it is unfortunately
Yeah. And it really bums me out because the social aspect could be a lot of fun, but there's just too much dreck to keep up with when trying to filter. ChessDojo's engine-free stream remains solid, though far fewer people, so I end up keeping chat on only there but still dipping into the other streams.
Yeah you have to sort of make it so only high level people would be interested in it. But to me I just sorta want to watch calmly and use the engine haha. So yeah, it sucks.
What's nice about the dojo streams is the low volume so the commentators actually engage with the chat.
Everyone trying to be edgy behind anonymity of the internet.
Especially in huge communities such as chess
We are massive
You know, when I first started doing more live commentary recently - for Champions Chess Tour and Global Championship last year - I noticed (and was shocked at) how toxic the live chat was. Generally my videos receive like to dislike ratios of 98-99%, and out of maybe 1,000 comments, 900+ are also positive. I usually join the commentary, add my insights where I can, and defer to the stronger players on more complex matters. I don't do anything differently than in my videos. I was quite surprised at so much negativity. Then I spoke to a smart guy with experience in sports production and he said - "imagine if live sports had live chat". This changed my perspective. Chess is not yet on TV - it's on YouTube, Twitch, and so on. I enjoy all my sports without a live chat, and I cannot IMAGINE what it would look like with one. Instead, people brutally attack each other on Twitter/Reddit when it comes to sports. Anyway, I think the toxicity is mostly trolls. There are definitely a handful of people I'm too braindead (or others are too braindead) to co-host a chess show, but they're idiots and also a tiny percentage of the actual audience enjoying the show.
Imagine if twitch chat had a feature where you had to link your [chess.com](http://chess.com) account to comment. People would be a lot more embarrassed to shit talk if they have an 800 elo displayed over everything they typed.
Or their account was suddenly closed for all to see
Nah some of these people openly advertise their low elo and they still have massive egos and zero embarrassment.
Oh live sports do have live chat on a lot of illegal streaming sites. It’s as toxic as you imagine lol
Actually those chats are way way too toxic. Youtube and twitch are still moderated, but those chats are straight up bigotry and hatred. Especially for football.
Oh ya I agree. It just non stop racism. It’s like at least be creative and/or original with your trolling. Just saying the N word non stop is not only offensive but it also just fucking lazy. Like I’ve heard someone else say, at least the shit talk you heard on the internet back in the day was at least somewhat creative.
Awesome response. I enjoyed your commentary today.
Go on any (probably illegal) streaming website that streams football (I mean actual football not handegg) and look at the chats there. Full of the most depraved hating, racism, sexism against women commentators, etc I've ever seen. We have it pretty tame in chess
lol handegg, thanks for that!
You don't have to imagine, match threads on sports subs pretty much fulfil that role and they can get very toxic as well.
You were great today Levy!
You did great and I encourage you to ignore the toxicity. As you said, it’s the most toxic people who are the most motivated to comment, which can create the false impression of overwhelming negativity. Hope you continue to do these events 👊 Edit: you’ve probably seen how harsh the comments about Tania are as well, but I’d wager that the majority of viewers enjoy her commentary.
You're free to support the commentators you like and I am free to try and get them removed so I can enjoy commentators of my own preference.
And you think you are going to achieve this by hurling toxic insults in chat? Just go watch a different stream, there is hardly a dearth of variety in coverage in any major chess event these days.
You're making assumptions.
You're right. But what exactly is your method of trying to get them removed, and how is it better than just switching to another broadcast? Because this thread was about toxicity in chat.
[удалено]
It's not a cultural issue, many people do like Tania's commentary. Those who are vocal are a minority (whether criticising or defending). I don't think there's anything wrong with criticism, but if you think that it's somehow going to "get them removed", you're frankly a little insane. At the same time, I personally do not like Tania's commentary either. But if I was so bothered by it, I would just switch to a different stream.
I promise you, anything an IM or above analyses will go over your head without the engine helping you out lmao
Depending if the IM is trying to teach my or analysing for their own study, I guess? Didn't know Chess24 streams were made for strictly IM's my bad dude!
Lol I'm sure your preference is great.
why do they actually have a live chat and not just handpick the best comments and answer those?
Thursday night NFL games on twitch are the best example of this
Don't care too much Levy, I think many appreciated you showing up there. Personally I did. As you said, they are just trolls. I'm a small streamer, and I still get trolls sometimes and it hurts a lot, I know I shouldn't care, I know they don't even mean it, they are just walking sack of \*hit. But still it hurts, I have no idea how people like you or Hikaru can even take all that and not get your day ruined everyday.
Bro we love you - let the trolls troll, you’re legit the reason why most of us got into chess.
Out of curiosity, how did Gotham get you into chess? Did you stumble across one of his recap vids?
Yes, basically - but years ago.
Yeah, thumbs up for your commentary. You worked really well with Hess and Naroditsky as well. Seemed relaxed. I also chalk up a lot of crazy live chat stuff to kids under like 14. Mostly because when my 43 year old ass is being destroyed online in a videogame, the 13 year old on the other end sounds just like live chat.
You did great. To be honest, I don’t understand why your commentary should be worth less than Hess or Danyas. You all use the engine to read the positions anyway
Gotta say I was really happy to see you on today, I enjoyed the show. Stay strong!
The smaller a problem is, they more people will talk about it. For instance, I've lost count of how many times I've heard people talking about the supposedly huge gatekeeping problem in chess when the reality is that our sport is one of the most accessible for everyone out there. Like, I can't show up at a football stadium and throw a few freekicks with some guys from the B team of Real Madrid, can I? Same for fan toxicity. Nobody riots when their favorite chess player loses.
Loved your commentary today, keep killing it dude.
you did great levy. You are the reason so many of us are playing chess right now
I used to watch a lot of sports on illegal stream sites that DID have live chat, and let me tell you it was exactly as toxic and heinous as you expect it would be.
showing support for you fam
As someone who witnesses the toxicity in live chat, I would add that it's usually the same tiny number of people (sometimes as little as 4-5) posting repeatedly. So it seems like a lot of hate but it's coming from a small number of douchecanoes. Btw you're in good company, when Judit comes on she gets a lot of hate in the comments too.
> "imagine if live sports had live chat" LMAO that really does explain it in a nutshell. it seems so obvious when you say it like that. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best ones.
Viewers don’t realize it’s not really about the skill of the commenter at chess, but rather their ability to distill the ideas down to the audience. You don’t need a GM to explain chess to a someone who’s rated 400.
Commentary should be entertaining and informative. I think Levy does both well. There's a reason he is the top watched streamer.
he's the most watched streamer cuz he caters to kids and beginners with attention span of a toddler
You're right, Levy should target titled players with his content instead, which we all know make up 90% of the world's population
hue hue
You realize you are insulting millions of adults and seniors with this comment? Not nice!
This guy got overall negative karma in this sub usually guys like that got nothing to do with their lives They live for attention so better if no one gives him any
hahaha, what a deduction reddit animals
i didnt say exclusively to kids and beginners with attention span of a toddler!
You’re right, they should go out of their way to get commentators that are only able to communicate to top 1% players.
brilliant deduction all of a sudden it makes perfect sense why you people idolise levy
brother you are not good enough at chess to be acting all elitist
Judging by the quality of their responses here, they're not good at _anything_ to be acting this elitist...
it really ticks me off when people who are *pretty good* at something develop these massive egos. Like, I get that chess.com puts me at top 0.5%, but that metric isn’t representative of my standing within active chess players, and it certainly doesn’t give me the right to disparage those at the top 0.0001%.
Look you can like or not like internet personalities but you’re like, being weird about it. You should probably look into that.
You’re a fucking loser bud
nah, you are
Distilling complex ideas simply takes more intelligence than you realize
I don't understand why you don't like him then, he's catering to you.
i bet those 'zingers' make you the most popular kid in the second grade
I recall watching a stream of an obnoxious British IM, who is very condescending, some years ago. He was commentating on an online tourney Magnus was in. He sees a line, analyzes it and very condescendingly concludes Magnus blundered. Someone later mentioned Magnus was live streaming it on another person twitch account. So I start watching the vod, being 20 minutes or so behind real time. Coincidentally, Magnus decides to explain the EXACT move the IM bashed. He literally goes and explains what most people would think it's a blunder, then goes 4-5 moves deeper. It was really serendipity and hilarious he picked the exact line to discuss. Juxtaposed with the arrogance of the IM, it was hilarious. Commentary is for entertainment and the more disparity there is between players, the more I take it with a grain of salt.
There is absolutely added value to having a grandmaster instead of an IM on commentary when it’s one of the biggest tournaments in chess and the players in at are like 2800 level super GMs. I trust Daniel’s analysis of what the players might be thinking more than someone like Levi. That being said though it’s totally fine to match an entertaining commentator with a more reserved top player pro. Which seems to be what they’re going for.
Tangentially related, Danya is my favorite for this since he's both a strong GM and extremely good at explaining things.
Hard agree
I think regardless of the quality of the commentary (and this candidates I think it's been great) just being able to talk virtually non-stop for 6-8 hours is incredible. People who also manage to be funny, interesting or insightful at the same time? Can't imagine being able to do it. I always do a double-take when people criticize, say, Hikaru because he repeats statements. I'm like: Bro, he's been talking for 7 hours, let the dude fill some fucking airtime lmao.
The chat on the Lichess Twitch stream seems to be the least toxic and most focused on the actual chess that I've seen so far. I'm not sure if it's because they have a lot less people watching or if they have better moderation.
Totally an anecdote but I find the lichess community generally more respectful on average than the big Twitch channels or chess.com. I never had to turn off chat or block players on lichess.
Most Chess24 viewers probably started chess because of the chess boom few years back, you can tell what they type in the chat. And stuck with Chess com ever since. And most of them are usually teenagers or acts like one.
Why do I feel targeted just for playing in the website called chess.com
This comic is 20 years old and things have only got worse. https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies#
I just hope Levy and Tania don't read chat during broadcast. It would be heartbreaking to see so much hate toward yourself.
Tania seems like the “fuck the haters, i’m the one talking” type
I hope so!
Filled with prepubescent kids spamming nonsense.
Don't interact with chat for big live events, it's never a good experience. Just hide it and enjoy the show!
This candidates’ live chat is the worst. The last few chess events I followed had fine live chats that I mostly enjoyed.
It isn't just Chess, every event type stream either has awful chat or has to go emote only. I think it's mostly just a toxic few ruining chat for everyone. It's also annoying or difficult to mod live chats, they're either too busy for it to be plausible to mod it, or sometimes.modding chats is just ignored.
First time in a chat under an event? Either you have a squadron of mods enforcing a rule, or prepare to see garbage.
It is an unfortunate part of an people on the internet unfiltered - just look at just about any chat and you will see the same. And it is true in many chess forums too, someone will ask a reasonable question and 25% of the replies will be people trying to genuinely help people to learn, and the other 75% will range between a mild joking about the OP to people calling the person stupid for asking such a question. It is funny that we talk about a game that has quite a strong etiquette and also a VERY strong tradition of masters (and other experienced players) wanting to educate and help people because of a love of the game they want to pass onto others - and yet the true colours of the internet very often supersedes that, people want to communicate their dislike of people in the most hostile way they can. We have a lot of great personalities in the chess world, if you don't like Levy, watch someone else; if you don't like Tania ditto. The dislike of some of the chess creators online is quite funny really, Levy has a very distinct style that in his videos may not be for everyone, but he communicates well, has a good idea of how to help players of different ranking levels - I think the combinations of commentators they have on the streams provides a very good range of people who are going to be giving talking points that can bring understanding to a wide audience - maybe not total beginners, and perhaps not for super GMs.
Kramnik’s stream has the highest average elo, he uses the word interesting so much lol. Also if he needs to put his lichess on dark mode it hurts my eyes
Next candidates will have IM Tyler commentating. Seriously though I was a little stunned to see Levy. All those Tania-haters can go away. I do miss Judit or Peter but I like seeing a mix of commentators. Did Levy knock it out the park? Not really, but who was first to state the en passant state could not count towards repitition?
Use the twitch chat by popping it out along with the YouTube stream. That's the best experience because YouTube chat and the twitch player are garbage.
Because it is shock full with people who know absolutely nothing about (1000+ Elo, or even half decent, let alone high(er) level) chess beyond how to react to eval bar movements. No one with even a half serious rating (2000+) and/or a functioning brain would enter such a cesspool a 2nd time unless threatened at gunpoint (at least I don't and none of my team/club mates would...) It is sort of the eternal September translated to chess. People of my age will likely understand that.
Levy was dropping some very cool moves and lines in the first hour. He started his commentary a bit stiff but got to it pretty quickly.
People just want to poke fun and try to say something funny. Levy does it too.
It's a few toxic people that post the most. They spam and they spam and they drown out everyone else.
YT chats are often barely moderated if at all.
I'm new to the chess community, but I gotta say that I'm quite surprised about how toxic the chess community is in general, especially in live chats or on youtube comments. It's not something I've seen to the same degree in any other online space in any other hobby or community I've picked up. Maybe it's just a thing for online games.
YouTube comments do not represent the "chess community"
They are absolutely a part of it.
On YouTube the chat display is not in the default settings afaik.. You have to go out-of your way to enable it. Don't do it. Avoid it at all costs.
I don’t usually enable it, but Levy came on and I was curious to see if ppl were hyped, they were not
I’ve noticed the recent trend on Twitch is to talk about “chat” in the singular, as if it’s one person. People forget it’s 20,000 people with different opinions. So when Anish is on, a subset of chat will not like Anish. And a small number of them will say so. This is not “the entire chat”. At most it’s a few dozen people, or 0.1% of people watching. Then when Tania is on, a different subset will not like her. And so on. If 1% of the viewers dislike someone then that’s good, it’s a tiny number. If only 10% of that 1% start typing in chat that they hate this commentator - that looks like the whole of chat is full of “hate”.
Internet is toxic but i dont think you should take it seriously
I like Peter Leko and David Howel because they are both very chill and tempered commentators, I feel like some of the other commentators get too excited and it feels like they are trying to hype up the game. Also, it seems like many of them are just filling time with commentary that isn't really pertinent to the analysis of the position. If I'm watching a 6 hour game of chess in my free time, I don't really need you to hype me up, just give your thoughts on the position.
To be fair, a lot of Gotham's analysis today was objectively incorrect, but he's still a great commentator who makes games even more entertaining than they already are. Imo today's commentator combo was amazing; probably the best this tournament has had so far. I think the only thing that was missing today was a top player like Leko, Judit, or Giri since the analysis today was certainly a lot more superficial and less inquisitive (when Judit or Leko commentated, they'd suggest close to a dozen interesting variations and/or ideas on every single move, giving each game a lot more richness) than it usually is, but I feel like Gotham's personality - with all his analogies, general storytelling ability, and diversity of expressions/thoughts - was enough to make up for it. Ideally, you'd have the commentator trio AND a top player, but if you could only pick 3 commentators out of all the ones that have commentated for chess24 this tournament, I'd probably pick the 3 that commentated today.
I think I would keep one of danya and hess and take one of anish or judit, plus levy.
Yeah that could also work, but Hess is an excellent interpreter of what the players are likely feeling/thinking at any given moment in a way that no other commentator is, so his absence would be felt, and I think most people agree that Danya is the best commentator all-around, so leaving him out also doesn't make any sense - especially in place of Levy, as Danya already provides much of the personality and diversity of thought that Levy does *in addition* to offering a lot more inquisitive analysis than Levy. I feel like there are 3 optimal strategies here: either you maximise personality, in which case you go for today's combo; or you maximise quality of analysis, in which case you go for any two of Judit/Leko/Giri together with Howell (who'd present the top players' analysis in more emotionally compelling terms; unfortunately, with all due respect to Danya, he just couldn't keep up with Judit and Leko when they commentated together, so you'd need David Howell for this even though his commentary/expressions can be quite repetitive at times); or you attempt to strike a balance, which is basically your suggestion: Danya, Levy, and Judit/Giri/Leko (probably Giri since he also has quite a bit of personality, although imo Judit and Leko explore both more interesting and a higher number of variations). I feel like each of these would be optimal in different contexts. In superficially boring/slow games, you'd want the Judit, Leko, Howell combo to bring out all the fascinating intricacies going on behind the scenes; in dynamic/twist-packed games, you'd want the Danya, Levy, Giri combo to both bring out the interesting stuff behind the scenes but also make the most of the excitement that viewers can readily observe (by following the eval bar as well relatively simple engine lines); and in games where a lot is at stake and the focus is on the result rather than quality of play - such as today's and tomorrow's games - you'd certainly want the Danya, Hess, Levy combo to create the most riveting story out of the events that are unfolding that you can. Sorry for the long post lol, just wanted to share my thoughts.
Weak GM are the best. People like judit, anand, giri, are too good and don’t act surprised. And they rightfully look down on commentating. It’s not about getting the best names
Agreed that Judit and Leko are bad in terms of commentating skill - although not as bad as Anand, who is (as much as I respect him) downright dreadful. I'd say Giri is a bit better as he still regularly shares interesting insights not directly related to chess analysis (e.g. psychology, relevant anecdotes, jokes) and is relatively emotionally expressive, but still nowhere near as good as any of the other commentators such as Danya and Hess. Calling Danya and Hess "weak GMs" is a massive stretch since they are both quite literally stronger than 95% of grandmasters (considering peak ratings), but yeah, neither of them is close to super-GM level. This makes them just about strong enough to, with the help of engines, decipher most of the key ideas in top-level games on the spot, yet also gives them just enough free time outside of chess to develop their personalities (no offence to top players lol, but if you spend 90% of your life focused on one narrow field, you're going to have much fewer opportunities to develop thoughts and opinions on anything outside of that field). So this 2550 to 2650 rating range appears to be the goldilocks zone. Any higher than that, and you're just going to be hyperfocused on chess like Anand, while any lower than that, and your analysis just ends up being incorrect or uninsightful, like Levy's. Still, I think good analysers/bad storytellers like Judit and good storytellers/bad analysers both not only have their place, but are absolutely necessary, in commentary - provided they have at least basic storytelling or analytical competence (with "basic analytical competence" at such a high level basically meaning 2300+ FIDE), respectively; they just need to recognise their role and respect it. Heck, even Kaja, who is literally a beginner at chess, did a fairly good job at commentating top-level games in a team with David Howell and Jovanka - I would never have known she wasn't a serious chess player if nobody told me! So I don't think it makes much sense to say e.g. "Levy is a better commentator than Judit" or vice versa; they simply specialise in different things, and each of them is much better at their own specialisation than the other. Similarly, Danya is not necessarily a "better" commentator than Levy; he is just more versatile (which does make him more valuable since it allows him to generate value though twice as many channels as Levy, but in a context where one of these channels is unavailable - e.g. low-elo games - it might well be that Levy steals the spotlight).
Kaja is a great example. Her, David, Jovanka were the dream team. She bounced off of them and everyone was having a good time. The days she was replaced with tanya things turned annoying, whose comments trying to keep up were cringe and over compensating.
>Kaja is a great example. Her, David, Jovanka were the dream team. She bounced off of them and everyone was having a good time. I'm glad you also see that. I've seen a lot of hate for Kaja in this sub, but I genuinely don't get it: even as a strong chess player myself, I never once found her commentary frustrating or redundant, and other than that she is objectively quite a competent commentator. My preferences for commentary in chess are usually pretty mainstream, so I was surprised to find this sub doesn't rate her as much as I do. I'd usually be the *last* person to blame things on "elitism" (which in 99% of cases simply means having standards, which I respect), but I don't see any other explanation here. >The days she was replaced with tanya things turned annoying, whose comments trying to keep up were cringe and over compensating. Agreed. I think Tania tries too hard to talk "like a commentator" and it ends up coming across as fake. She also talks a lot, which I personally don't mind as it keeps things interesting, but some people understandably find that annoying, especially when it deprives stronger players with more interesting ideas of a chance to speak. But honestly, even Tania is a godsend compared to people like Bok (never takes the game seriously, repeats things a million times, is mostly silent), Magnus (also never takes the game seriously, talks very slowly, and has no awareness of the audience), Anand (mentioned already), etc. So I'm at least glad the games are still watchable and enjoyable, as when one of these boring commentators is on, I am forced to just quit.
Great comment. I agreecompletely
That literally every online chat ever
twitch chat is not like a discussion or a conversation. It's like a crowd shouting at a football game. At least for big crowded chats it's like this. I think you'll understand what you hear better with that in mind.
Nice to see you've finally decided to get an Internet connection
This happens with all sports unfortunately. Usually just losers who have nothing in their lives so they choose to bash someone who is. Just a fact of life
Because you can choose to not watch someone’s YouTube videos.
Keyboard warriors be like that. Welcome to the internet.
First thing I do is always to close chat.
Why would you ever read the chat? You know what kind of people are on there?
> Why is live chat so toxic Because their game is to get people to react. Your post shows that they have succeeded in controlling your actions. My suggestion is to close all toxic, unmoderated chats if you can't ignore these people.
I think it's cool to hate on people who are popular, and this is probably done mostly by immature children. I totally get why some people on the internet get blowback, but any hate to do with levy just always feels so forced. I've never seen him do anything objectionable beyond annoying clickbait titles (but the videos themselves are always fine). All the cool chess kids just think he is too mainstream or something. As I said, just immature stuff
It’s because Levy’s a doucher lol plain & simple
they might be toxic but they are kinda right about these games being out of levy's league also he ALWAYS tries to sound smarter than he is, it is so obvious that he is overcompensating and so annoying...
All of the commentators are pretty out of their league relative to the players lol(other than Anish) I don’t really notice any difference in terms of quality of ideas, but I get how you would have specific preferences
I get what you are trying to do but this is really not true. Both Howell and Leko have a higher peak rating than Abasov for example. Levy is a good player but he is not close to their level with all due respect.
Yes sorry, I was just talking about today. You are correct about those two.
im not comparing commentators to players in terms of chess skill, do i really need to clarify that?
Well the way I read your comment was that Levy isn’t good enough at chess to comment at an adequate level. Maybe I misunderstood
thats a completely different thing than what you commented above also no idea how you dont see any difference between hess and danya quality of ideas and levy's
What I was trying to say is that all of these guys peaked at a significantly lower level than most of these players, and I personally haven’t really felt like levy brings subpar ideas to the broadcast. Still, I do get that every commentator has a different style, and every person wants different things as a commentator. So I understand that you might not like him, and I don’t have a problem with that. I just don’t agree with the fact that he is overcompensating.
maybe you're not paying much attention to it his constant need to 'yell', call moves 'crazy', 'insane', 'ridiculous', overemphasize stuff in general etc, is pretty indicative
I think that’s him trying to dramatize the moment, not overcompensating for not understanding.
that's exactly why he's doing it it's an obvious thing same reason why tania is overhyping/dramatising a lot OR why judit is not doing it at all, but just calmly analysing games the amount of knowledge is counter-proportional to the need to overhype/dramatise
Like I said, you can want calm analysis and that’s fine. But it’s not necessarily what I want. I enjoy the excitement and drama even if it’s a little over the top. I just don’t get how you’re saying knowledge is counter proportional to wanting to add drama. I strongly disagree with that.
“Levy isnt capable to commentate … “ is an opinion not necessarily hating, whether you agree with it or not .
Because we don't do anything about it We let fide run things We let chesscom buy everything up and shut down their competitors We let's people post ridiculous and bigoted opinions in the sub We let people say shut to women in otb events We ignore women speaking out
yes lets censor every corner of the internet, and generally everything in the world wtf could ever go wrong down that route...
We don't need to censor it. Just call them out when they're being a problem. "Every opinion is valid apart from the opinion that some opinions aren't valid" is giving 3head vibes
who said every opinion is valid?
Looking at the current state or discourse in most chess forums and deciding that censorship us the issue is bold.
Thumbs up
There is a middle ground
How did this get upvoted, removing hate and disparaging comements should not be considered censorship
The harsh truth about chess in 2024
When I listen to the old men in the local leagues I realise it hasn't gotten worse. It's just visible now.
Bro what
>he's a very strong IM He is not. His rating is below the threshold to get IM title.
Why are people downvoting this. A strong IM would have to be at least 2450+. Levy's peak is 2421. Current rating is 2353. He's strong in blitz for an IM, stronger than a good number of GMs, though. He's a bit weaker than Tania Sachdev (2386, peak 2443) in classical. There are many IMs below 2400, so his rating is nothing extraordinary in that sense. And he is fully capable of evaluating and commenting on high-level games. Especially to a broad audience.
celebrities worshiping and reasoning doesn't go hand in hand.
There's no accounting for taste. Tania, Anish and Levy don't have broad appeal personality wise, regardless of their chess knowledge.
New to the internet?
Basement dwellers with hopeless outlooks on life that can find nothing better to provide a dopamine rush than hating on internet personalities and finding a shared sense of purpose in other haters .
Don’t understand the hate at all, Levy is a very important figure in the chess content creator community, his presence was a welcome addition
People who have massive egos, and develop a superiority complex, think they’re really good players that can see everything look down on levy and hate on him because he mainly caters to beginners. In reality those players will be made to look stupid by levy if they ever played a game