[Walddk]

January was overwhelming, but you may be interested to know that we have an even busier vugraph schedule in February. 18 of 28 days with live broadcasts! Yet another BBO record. Have a look at

http://www.bridgebas.../online/vg.html

Broadcasts from 7 nations of which 2 are brand new: Russia and Iceland. We hope you appreciate the efforts we put into this. There is a mountain to climb before it becomes perfect (if ever), but we won't stop trying.

Constructive suggestions are always welcome. Fred and I promise to consider any constribution you can offer in order to make our presentations even more successful.

Roland Wald
Vugraph Coordinator

[whereagles]

Hum.. how about a button enabling/disabling kibitzer chat in vu-graph room?

Let me explain: push button if you want to hear/stop hear other kibitzers comments, and make comments of your own.

Or is this already implemented?

[Walddk]

whereagles, on Jan 31 2005, 08:01 AM, said:

Hum.. how about a button enabling/disabling kibitzer chat in vu-graph room?

Let me explain: push button if you want to hear/stop hear other kibitzers comments, and make comments of your own.

Or is this already implemented?

No, a kibitzer can't chat to the room or to fellow kibitzers except for private chat messages. Whether that is on Fred's list of improvements I don't know. We will probably hear from him within long.

Personally I don't think it's a good idea. The screen will be cluttered with messages, and spectators who are interested in following the comments by the commentators will get a hard time. An on/off button may be an option, however. That will be up to Fred and Uday to decide.

Roland

[inquiry]

I am of the belief that five commentors is one too many. In a room with a 1000 spectators, all allowed to talk, that would be total chaos. Look... there is exciting bridge going on, if you have to stop and read what is being said, you are not thinking about the hand. And reading on line text is harder than listening, because you have to decipher what a particular response was too... if someone typed something earlier that one of the commentors want to respond to, there might have been two or more comments typed by someone else before the reponse is typed in... I am old and slow, and it takes me a while sometime to figure out what is being "said" in converstations when three or so are going on at once.

For this reason, my personal preference if for two or at most three commentators. It is not that I think with more the quality goes down from a technical side..it is just that if there is a lot of typing, I find it better to ignore all of it and study the hand rather than try to decipher what the heck is being said in the different "converstations" going on at once.

I know others disagree and think the more the merrier, but my experience, again, is two to three commentors are sooooooo much easier to follow. Let everyone talk? No, never.

Ben

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Jan 31 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

I am of the belief that five commentors is one too many. In a room with a 1000 spectators, all allowed to talk, that would be total chaos. Look... there is exciting bridge going on, if you have to stop and read what is being said, you are not thinking about the hand. And reading on line text is harder than listening, because you have to decipher what a particular response was too... if someone typed something earlier that one of the commentors want to respond to, there might have been two or more comments typed by someone else before the reponse is typed in... I am old and slow, and it takes me a while sometime to figure out what is being "said" in converstations when three or so are going on at once.

For this reason, my personal preference if for two or at most three commentators. It is not that I think with more the quality goes down from a technical side..it is just that if there is a lot of typing, I find it better to ignore all of it and study the hand rather than try to decipher what the heck is being said in the different "converstations" going on at once.

I know others disagree and think the more the merrier, but my experience, again, is two to three commentors are sooooooo much easier to follow. Let everyone talk? No, never.

Ben

In another thread I wrote that 3-4 commentators at a time would be ideal. Less will be boring, and more than 4 often chaotic. We are not far from agreeing Ben, but I still claim that two will be at least one too few - simply because it will put too much pressure on the two commentators.

They will have to type almost constantly, and no one can do that for a session of say 16 boards.

Roland

[inquiry]

Two might put a lot of work on both, but one thing for certain, two commentators are SOOOO much easier to follow, as they respond only to each other. This makes it very easy to follow. I think two technical commentors discussing bridge, and a thrid for "color" or to tell us about the personalities (sort of like monday night football, with a "color" man for humor, flavor, and then the rest of the booth for technical issues). I guess a fourth to VERY OCCASSIONALLY stick in a comment or to clarify a point the others may have missed is ok.

Ben

[whereagles]

Well, indeed 100+ kibitzers can easily spam the vu-graph channel. But that's what the on/off button would be for One could also try and implement multiple chat channels, so that you could chat with the kibitzers in a public channel and still have a window with official comments.

Just an idea. Perhaps some of it actually makes sense

[Chamaco]

Multiple channels sounds a great idea.

I know it was already mentioned some time go.

All I can say is that I had the chance to watch the online live broadcast of the great CORUS chess supertourney (Wjik An Zee- Netherlands), with the aid of multiple channels (on the FICS - Free Internet Chess Server), and that was a great fun for everybody !

[nickf]

Over the weekend, there was a wonderful World Championship bridge game on BBO between garozzo-du pont and a pair of reisigs.

At first we had no commentators which made the match a bit dry, then (I believe) the organisor enabled kibbitzer chat and nothing short of mayhem ensued. Every man and his dog felt compelled to make trivial jokes and comments, of which less than 1% were either funny or relevant.

Sanity was re-installed after the participants crashed and re-opened a new table where only roland and ben, being yellows, could commentate.

As for the optimal number of commentators, I've worked at tables solo (a lot of work...not unlike talking to yourself) and also with between 2-5 other commentators. I'd say 3-4 is best but you always get your quiet ones and then those who talk too much which compensates. It's very hard to follow commentary when two pairs of commentators are having separate conversations or anlaysis. You can't really tell which comment someone is replying to.

nickf
sydney

[Walddk]

nickf, on Jan 31 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

As for the optimal number of commentators, I've worked at tables solo (a lot of work...not unlike talking to yourself) and also with between 2-5 other commentators. I'd say 3-4 is best but you always get your quiet ones and then those who talk too much which compensates. It's very hard to follow commentary when two pairs of commentators are having separate conversations or anlaysis. You can't really tell which comment someone is replying to.

nickf
sydney

Quite right Nick. If I have a choice, I try to take that into consideration when I schedule commentators for our broadcasts. Some talk all the time and others don't talk much. That's why it's so difficult to determine the "right" number of commentators.

3-4 is the closest we can get to the truth I think. I'd love to please everybody in this regard, but after 2 years in my position as the coordinator I have realised that there is no such thing as perfection.

To those who think there is: dream on. The world isn't perfect, is it?

Roland