What was that again?
The piece is far from being the worst ever written about chess, but I wonder - would the Observer publish a long piece about tennis written by somebody who didn't know the difference between a game and a match?
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Game for a laugh
Readers may have seen the piece on Magnus Carlsen that appeared in Sunday's Observer. If so, they may have found their own brows furrowing when they came across the following passage.
What was that again?
The piece is far from being the worst ever written about chess, but I wonder - would the Observer publish a long piece about tennis written by somebody who didn't know the difference between a game and a match?
What was that again?
The piece is far from being the worst ever written about chess, but I wonder - would the Observer publish a long piece about tennis written by somebody who didn't know the difference between a game and a match?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
We all gain if chess becomes popular and Carlsen is the best chance for that happening. Jumping down the throat of a journalist who writes match when we would write game isn't helpful really, particularly when match is often used for a single contest in other sports.
Getting things right is important in journalism, and saying "why does it matter?" is too common in chess.
I have, tbf, known quite a few actual chess players to conflate "game" and "match".
Which doesn't make it OK, obvously ;)
If we're going to be precise, how many of Carlsen's recent games (or matches!) ended with mate, or resignation to avoid mate? Very few, if any.
This is just a piffle piece. I think we're supposed to be glad it mentions chess.
Post a Comment