Chopped

Season 45 was a disappointment to be honest. So unfair to the chefs that are trying to win. I understand the judges work with each other but when they do a versus show with the judges, there needs to be unknown judges that judge the meal. 2 episodes back to back and I feel like the chefs got railroaded. Scott won against Michael which is BS and the one before that was BS. She dropped her sorbet and burnt her cookies but still won. Stop playing favorites with your friends and judge it honestly. You guys harp on the basket ingredients being noticed and Scott's ranch could t be tasted but he still won. I just feel that it was very unfair to the contestants. Just my 2 cents.

I have always enjoyed the show. Some judges are more to my taste than others, however Martha Stewart is a dreadful addition. Her comments are vague, banal, and unworthy when compared to the comments of the other judges. There does not appear to be any real understanding of the nuances of cooking

In a world of fake reality television shows the simple idea of pairing 4 people up against each other competing for $10,000 while cooking offers more than most.

Being a bit of a foodie myself I really enjoy the mystery basket approach of secret ingredients. I find this show much more "real" than say Iron Chef America. The strict time limit and need to produce all 4 plates single handedly makes for more intense buzzer beater endings to each round.

The quick personal stories of each competitor in the beginning of the program set up each episode to give the viewer a sense of their expertise (or lack there of) as well as occupation. There have been teen chefs, stay at home moms, and military personnel.

The recent episode of accepting suggestions from social media sites was also a fantastic idea that I enjoyed as well.

My only suggestions to improve the show might be to add fan of the show to guest judge along side the professional judges from time to time. I would also like to see less "sob story" during the cooking portion of the show and focus more on the techniques and commentary from the judges. Also for those strange mystery basket ingredients I would like to hear more from the judges about what they know about it and how they might integrate the ingredient if they were competing.

Overall one of my top shows to watch each and every week.

I think the whole premise of this show is fantastic with the 4 crazy ingredients having to be whipped into a dish in a limited amount of time and the winner must survive 3 rounds where 1 person is "Chopped" after each course

But, the judging appears to be disingenuous and biased. They seem to favor personalities, stories and potential over the actual dishes served. They let their favorites through even when given uncooked dishes or those missing a basket ingredient. This is the only show of this type of the ones I watch (the others are Guy's Grocery Games and Forged in Fire) where I can't consistently guess the winner based on the judges' comments. Is this because the judges let through who they like best without regards to the established criteria/parameters or is it just a case of poor editing? Anyway, if you ignore that aspect, it is very entertaining to watch just to see what the chefs come up with in each round.

I have watched Chopped for a long time, and I still really enjoyed the show. Sometimes it's obvious that the wrong person wins, but again I didn't have a chance to taste the food. Sometimes it does seem as if the person with the worst sob story is the winner, maybe out of pity.

Unlike some, I do think that leaving out a basket ingredient should be a reason to be automatically Chopped. Although they do you eliminate those who have blood the food because they can't eat the dish, sometimes they give the contestant rave reviews about the appearance of the food when really the person shouldn't even be up there for judging.

Overall it's a fun show and feel most of the judging is fair.