I'm talking specifically about watching games with professional commentary.
Even though from time to time the commentators do acknowledge that some moves are hard to find, I think that the computer evaluation somehow detract merit from the players, since they're always in the position that they have to somehow "excuse" themselves for not finding the right move, and when they do find it, it can be hard for the viewer to appreciate how hard to find the move was.
And the commentators often have this boxing commentary attitude of overreacting to the eval bar immediately, before really analysing what's going on.
U win some, u lose some...
@EvilPyrokar said in #2:
> U win some, u lose some...
That's a true statement but it has nothing to do with the point I am making.
10/10 absolutely agreed
spectator chats here are even worse
As someone who dips in and out of the shows, the eval bar is a handy indicator as to how players are doing.
I have mixed feelings. I'm more interested in the game of chess than the sport of chess, so I really love to know what resources are in a position, even if it's not likely to be played. I like when the engine suggests an amazing move and the commentators get excited and try to explain it. I think they are mostly honest about moves they think are hard to spot, and it's impressive when the top players actually make these moves right after other GMs claim they're impossible to play, which helps spectators to appreciate it. On the other hand, I've really enjoyed the commentary without engines over the years, like Miro at the Russian Superfinals or Svidler or Leko or Anand. It's great to watch the thought process of strong players. I suppose your post has made me realize how fast that is disappearing. The FIDE coverage seems to offer the most human analysis these days, and the SLCC has a decent hybrid model, but the ChessCom coverage seems usually to start from the engine analysis. I wish we could always have different types of commentary to chose from, but I expect it will get rarer as chess becomes more popular. Maybe that's something Lichess could try to keep alive since it's giving more attention to broadcasting, and might be a good niche.
Yeah... listening to professionals and their thought processes has been interesting, although eventually commentary without engines will be phased out since spectators get what they ask for.
The eval bars is like a crowd of bots cheering about a game. Just like there are humans cheering and commentating in other sports. The cheering crowds can be represent in many ways. It does not decrease my fun of watching a chess game. It actually helps to compare ideas and comments from humans and bots. I get a global picture of the game. It might even be good to see a rating graph per move to see how one player is having a hard time after they made an error. While the other player has it easier after the other blundered. Lucas chess elo graph give an ideal representation of a two player graph. Each move has a rating and are on their own graph line. Unfortunately you see those two lines only after a full analysis is done and not during a game.
Yeah, I enjoy watching commentary without the engine. I basically love the drama and suspense of seeing strong players trying to get a read on what's going on in real-time, rather than knowing what's going on objectively and just waiting to see whether the players can find the right moves.
With apologies to Carlos Santana:
You've got to change your eval bars, stockfish
Before I stop lovin' you
You've got to change, baby
And every word that I say is true
You got me runnin' and hidin' all over lichess
You got me sneakin' and a peepin', can't keep up with you
This can't go on
Lord knows you've got to change, stockfish
