There are lots of ways to make the game more interesting. It’s not like there’s one and only one way to do it.
The fundamental problems with Chess as a spectator activity are that
It’s incomprehensible to many observers, including many Chess players.
There are long periods of inactivity, at least in “important” games where masters are present playing their best Chess.
Expert commentary is one way to address those problems. I’ve offered another. It’s not like doing one would prevent you from doing a different one. What works for one observer wouldn’t work for a different one, so do both.
One of the things that led me to my suggestion was a simple observation comparing Chess and sports. Is there any area where Chess actually has an advantage over sports as a spectator activity. I realized that yes, there is one area I can think of. When watching any competition, spectators are often thinking, “What would I do in that situation?” When watching a football game, if you think you know the best move for your team, you can’t try it out. When watching a Chess game, you can. My suggestion is a way of taking advantage on one area of strength.
On the local level I see players watching the game and then going elsewhere and playing out the position. Then back to look at the game and playing it from the new position.
First of all, I am a chess player, not an " ‘A’ player." My friend, Neal Harris, another player of chess, once said to me, “You’re a 1900.” I took that as a compliment, coming as it did from someone as accomplished as Neal. He meant that I was thought of, no matter what my rating at the moment, as a solid class ‘A’ player; a dangerous opponent capable of upsetting a much higher rated player, or of losing to a much lower rated player. I know players many classes below me who enjoy following ‘live’ chess.
During a tournament at the House of Pain, David Vest, the only player to hold the title of champion of the Great State of Georgia, and also Senior champion simultaneously, railed against the rating system because human beings had become “Just a number.” I asked him how he had done against his last round opponent. He said he had won. I asked who he had played. He replied, “Some 2100.” Just one of many humorous moments at the House…
As for the “long periods of inactivity”, I could not help but think of the doughnut hole in Zen. The doughnut and the hole of the doughnut depend upon each other in order to remain complete –for without a hole, by definition, it would no longer be a doughnut. The hole is what makes a doughnut a doughnut! The hole makes it whole.
There are no “long periods of inactivity” in chess. Just because one is sitting there at the board without moving does not mean he is “inactive.” He is THINKING! Those moments were filled with interesting, lively commentary during the Ben & Jen show. Moments like those are filled on television with things like personal interest stories. I am thinking of the presentation of the US women’s olympic football team about right now. I know far more about some of the players on that team than I do about some of my favorite chess players.