Re: Chess books?
[ QUOTE ]
the commentary on TV and internet radio on the final Table were just so bland compared to the complexity of what a commentary on e.g.Kramnik vs Anand would have been.
[/ QUOTE ]
That says more about the commentators and their intent than it does about the game. TV commentary could be good if the intent was there, but it's 99.9% bland, basic, rubbish. Hellmuth seems to be a decent commentator, in comparison to the others I've heard. He at least tries to read the players, using things like board texture, and discussing the impact of new cards on the situation.
I think you have to already be a pretty decent player to understand chess commentary. It's not beginner friendly. Poker commentary seems to be with the intent of aiming it at the absolute beginner without showing them the level of thought that can go into the play of a hand, and attracting suckers into the casinos.
|