House of Knives

As soon as they showed the contestants and judges and because the judges knew who cooked what, we knew who the winner was.

Scott Conant is a good judge but not a good host. The overall concept, what with all the medieval motif, is corny as hell.

The Asian chef can only cook Asian food but with an Asian judge that's no problem. For the noodle challenge she makes dumplings but still wins? All her dishes reminded the Asian judge of home and her childhood. Baloney.

How about a challenge that forces her to cook something Italian or Mexican or Southern?

Rigged from the getgo because of Food Network's new obsession with Asian cooks.

Another reviewer complained that many of the competing chefs were little known. I think that's wrong, although talented chefs not frequently seen on television are a real positive. The episode I am watching now (S1 E3) features Ann Burrell, Shirley Chung, Jonathan Sawyer. Hardly unknown. Chefs Claudette Zepeda, Hign Tesar, and Martel Stone are impressive. Other chefs are skilled and not out of place.

Marcus Samuelsson and Judy Joo are very successful in their culinary careers and both are capable and fair judges here.

Host Scott Conant may be more conventional than the spiked hair, jewelry draped Guy that dominates food shows on TV, but Conant is knowledgeable, respectful, articulate, and authentic.

So in my opinion , anything artistic weather it be photography, painting, cooking ...etc should be anonymous judging, meaning the judges do not know who cook what, so you you have to judge the food not the cook and be persuaded by personal bias. That's why i love watching Tournament of Champions or Triple Threat. This is neat twist in cooking but the Judging is Joke. No disrespect to the judging I'm talking about the judging format. They probably already have their winner picked out.

We all love watching our favorites cook I just think to be a fair format the judges should never know who cooked what especially if its something that produces a finish product. They didnt say they were being judge on watching them cook, from the judging it looks like they just want to make sure the food meets the challenge and the test. Theres not even a score card to average the scores like they do on Guys Grocery Games. Just my opinion, I think it be more interesting if it was a blind taste test and the judges never know who cooked what. Go TOC.

Show itself is unspectacular but good, the whole theme and host delivery is pretty cheesy but in a very deliberate way that makes it kind of acceptable.

The real star of the show is the competition and level of cooking. Most of the contenders absolutely bring it, and the ones that cook anything that isn't incredible really stand out. Really high level cooking and competition.

The judging is ok. They're animated and it's fun to watch them eat a dish that you can tell they're really enjoying. But they do know who cooks what - anonymous judging is preferable IMO.

If you like competitive cooking shows, it's worth watching. There are cooking shows with better formats, but the competition is quite fun to watch nonetheless.

Great cooking. The rules are what feel new here. It's going for the throat of the top dog. Contrary to letting the worst pick each other off. Very medieval. I think that's is why I liked it so much. It's cutthroat because of that.

The judging could be improved. TOC and next level chef are more fair because it is truly anonymous. It is hard to not agree that it feels like decisions are what makes it for good TV. Reads as less than meritocratic a couple of times and that's a letdown.

Also feel like it's unbalanced when you end up being on the throne near the beginning is nowhere near as important as being on the throne going in to finale. It is very lopsided. Not sure how to fix that but that should be addressed in season 2. Otherwise winning 5 times in a row is meaningless other than bragging rights unless you made it happen at the right moment.