Is "Rapid" the New "Classical?

I wish I had the time and energy to play rated otb games. I have a demanding job and a young family. My wife already busts my chops for all the online related chess stuff I do. I really want to improve at this game over the course of my life but I have no aspirations of being anything but a good online player. Playing online is the show for me. 

Believe me, i used to think close to same. But i did not realise actually i am wasting my time with online chess. First the excuse was i am not that good yet for OTB tournament. So i played many games and watched tons of videos for more than year online. Then suddenly 2 years passed... And i did not study or played that much... i was just playinh bullet and that gave me joy and fun. I got better indeed.. but.. not as much if i had spend time on OTB tournaments.

All that time solving tactics.. watching videos and wasting time on one more bullet or blitz games but end up playing 20 more every day.. went out of control.. just be organized. Play 30 min for example no more, study 1 hour no more.. etc.. Then next month you dont play chess except for OTB tournaments and you will end up having even more free time for other stuff.

It's hard to find the time for OTB chess, and I had drifted away from tournaments.  Which is why I made the concession to play in full-rated G/30 events.  6 rated games in 8 hours.  I get nothing from online chess, in part, because I was raised on OTB play and just can't get psyched for playing on a computer screen.

I'm okay with online slow chess, but I prefer OTB play any day of the week. The community is far more supportive and analyzing games with other players in an OTB tournament is an easy and incredibly enjoyable way to improve. But classical-rated G/30 is just garbage and doesn't do it for me at all.

I've noticed a real preference among players for blitz.  I play occasional blitz (rated like 600 or 500) and the rest is 45/45 but I'll take a 90/30 if I see one. I can't stand not being able to mull over a move and make sure it's the right one.  Granted, I suck at a mere 1250ish rating, but I simply can't see deep enough in 10 minute or even 30 minute games to play decently.

Here is my view.

In most sports the organizers listen to what the fans want.  In chess not so much.  I would love a series of chess matches to determine the world champ challenger.  Instead fide gives us a tournament with odd requirements to qualify, and new time controls (and blitz tiebreaks) no one wanted.  

I am a pretty hard core chess fan - e.g., flew from the states to Germany to see Anand Kramnik
WC match - but even I find this candidates format easy to ignore.  

As a fan I don't really care too much who wins a rapid chess game.  Of course I have to care when the world championships depends on it.  Just like I would have to care who won a coin toss if they decided a tie break that way.  But in general I am not interested in watching rapid chess or coin toss competitions.  

Do people want to watch fast chess?  I certainly don't.  Not only do I not care about it, but I can't even follow what is happening.  I am too weak of a player to follow rapid games.  I think stronger players may enjoy it more because they can follow it.  They also might like to focus on the latest opening novelty or whatever.  But I can't follow what is happening in the games so I might as well watch my cat bat around the pieces.    At least with the slow games, with good commentators, I get a sense I understood what I just witnessed.

Since as your rating bracket goes up you get fewer people it doesn't make sense to have events only they can even follow.   You will be automatically cutting out the largest number of people.   

In the end I of course support all sorts of chess.  And I do think that if people want to play or watch rapid chess there should be options for that.   I will say though that I don't like using a rapid or blitz to decide a classical chess championship.  

And no I don't really think the whole chess championship should forever change because Kasparov and Karpov had so many draws.   

"I will say though that I don't like using a rapid or blitz to decide a classical chess championship."

I agree.  Although I concede that rapid or blitz chess is more exciting to watch.

"In most sports the organizers listen to what the fans want.  In chess not so much."

There may be a growing groundswell of support for faster time controls.  I think there was a tournament earlier this year in Europe where the organizer pushed for shorter time controls and more decisive results.  I can't remember his name.  Skorkov, maybe?  Anyways, I remember one of his mantras.  I think it went like this, "Save chess, Play for a win."

So I think the two ideas are linked:  Faster Time Controls and More Decisive Results.  (Time Trouble, More Blunders, More Decisive Results).  And this "trend" may be developing from both Organizers and from Fans.  I don't know.  

I just want to be cognizant of any trends or developments for when I return to OTB play.

I think there is a vocal crowd (possibly the minority?) that somehow can't deal with the fact that chess at the top level often ends in a draw, and also want to see players moving their hands faster in rapid/blitz games as if that is somehow more exciting.    I really think many of the announcers get into a rut where they just assume everyone else will be upset with a draw and so keep perpetuating this view.   I don't mind at all when a chess game ends in a draw.   

I never understood either of these views.    But then again I can't even follow what is going on with most top level blitz chess so I can't imagine I am their target audience.   But even at my somewhat rudimentary understanding of the game I am better than the vast majority of people who might be interested in watching chess in my area.  So the question is why would they purposely reduce the potential audience by speeding up the game and hence making it even harder to follow?

I just like to watch and learn from the best players in the world battle it out - preferably when they are not under time pressure.   I think allot of players/fans feel the same.     

"So the question is why would they purposely reduce the potential audience by speeding up the game and hence making it even harder to follow?"

They (the influential tournament organizers and casual chess fans) would dispute the question.  They would say that faster chess is more exciting.  And by being more exciting, they think they would *net* a larger audience than if the games remain at the slower classical time controls. 

I would have to say, and I just started watching chess.com videos early in the Spring of this year, when they were showing the Pro Chess League matches or some other Speed Chess with Danny Rensch or David Pruess or Eric Hansen as commentators, and I'll tell you what, it was Exciting!!  Seeing a GM swindle another GM in a lost position when they're both in time trouble, whew!!!  When things get hairy and there's time trouble and the announcers are getting amped up too, well, it's pretty entertaining.

So what I gather, is that the Sporting aspect of Chess is being more emphasized to show people that chess is fun and exciting which, in turn, will draw a larger audience which in turn means more moolah for the Sport or Game of Chess.

jengaias

Thanks for the comments.  Your last sentence made me chuckle.   Yes I think we agree on this and I don't think we should assume many players/fans disagree with us.  

I mean I often see people repeating that fans want to see wins and losses.  I even hear this from top players.  But when we ask the top player saying this whether they, themselves, mind draws they don't.  (short non-game draws are a different issue)

As I follow chess I see something like this.  A certain number of games by a player or at an event end in draws.  And then someone cries about it, in the chat or on a forum. (or even media outlets like chessbase or whatever.)   Now usually I can't be bothered to argue with the guy crying about the draws.  I imagine many other people can't either.  So the comment sits, leaving the impression others agree with it.   But do they?  I have no idea.  

But in my anecdotal experience when players and fans are really asked if they, themselves, mind when games end in a draw usually they don't mind.  (BTW: I am not talking about short non-game draws here which is something different)

I think very similar things happen with speed chess.  Everyone keeps saying speed chess is "more exciting!"  Exciting for who?   I find the slow chess games exciting in allot of different ways.  If I am hoping for one player to win then I see the engine move as well as the listen to the commentator analysis and I tend to get my hopes up for every move that he or she will play the right move.  What is even more exciting is when I see the player make a move the engine (and or commentators) originally thinks was bad and then find the engine analysis slowly creeping back up.  

With a tournament there are always more games than they can properly cover and often they have to skip several moves before they can get back to a game.  When they are covering a match there is often enough chess ideas to keep them pretty busy even if there is some downtime.   So I really don't believe that there is nothing to talk about in these classical tournaments.  

I think chess.com doesn't do longer timer controls because of concerns of cheating when the players are not otb.  And I think that is legit.  I think it is great they are having these faster time controls and building teams.  I have heard many strong players (master strength and above) say they really enjoy following these games.   And I think the very top players enjoy playing in the more casual yet rivalry inducing team atmosphere.  So its all great.  And I support these efforts even though they are not for me.  

I just think we should get some actual data before we claim to know that "everyone" wants fewer draws or faster chess.  

Rapid is so last year. Everyone in the know realizes ultrabullet is the new classical.

Well said, my Greek friend, and I completely agree, but you don't understand the American culture, which reveals itself to be dynamic but shallow, probably due to its underlying Calvinist beginnings. How Calvinism relates to these two attributes is beyond the scope of this post, but there is no arguing that Americans love speed, are enthralled with the new, and are always in a rush to get somewhere, even if it's nowhere in particular. Change is the name of the game, and you better get on board or you'll get run over.

American Transcendentalism, the Janus face of American Calvinism or Puritanism, was a reaction to this constant need for change, change always implying an onward and upward perfectibility of the spirit that became over time a need to perfect everything.

Naturally, most of the movers and shakers of American chess have no clue they are mere sycophants, mere agents of change, demanded by the culture, but change it will, sadly enough, and be called progress.

By the way, I also wholeheartedly agree with your response to niceforkinmove for Post #39.

Best,
Bob

With apologies to James Thurber, that's your world and you're welcome to it, Uncle_Bent, but I'd turn back the clock if I could.  So it goes.

Absolutely, I say chess in 5, five seconds that is, using an elephant pistol blast across the board and then taking account of where the pieces end up, at least what's left of them.  Here's a man who's got the idea down pat.

Now that ought to appeal to the non-chess playing public and all you bullet players out there in adrenaline land.

Really? You want to go back to the old days of the 1960s when there were just a handful of OTB tournaments in any part of the USA outside of NYC?  In the 60s, playing 30 OTB games a year made you one of the most active players.  There were mabye 6 or 7 rated events a year to choose from, and every one was a 2-day, 5 round, 50/2 Time Control tourney -- run by old men with old man rules and lucky enough to draw 30 players.  Not so much fun for a teen ager who just wanted to play chess.

Hey, he 's just offering an opinion.  But, unlike you, he's not claiming that he's going to be world champion some day, so I guess your opinions are much more valid.  

Well I think that it might become so more for viewership than anything else. I dont believe that classical chess will ever go away atleast. The problem with Rapid chess is that the quality of the chess goes down dramatically. For this reason it seems stupid to change it completely. Ofcourse for viewership it makes sense and as we all know everything is about making money. Its going to be interesting to see what happens in the next view years. I personally do not see why everything cannot have its place just like it does now. One thing I would love to see abit more of for the future is events that are internet based. In order to take away the traveling aspect which undoubtedly is the most expensive aspect of the game. There has been events where lets say South Africa plays a match against Russia but we do it from our own countries. All the players in the specific country come together at one venue with a TD and play on DGT boards that relay over computers to the other country etc. This idea is still a bit further off because of infrastructural problems... but I would love to see this sooner rather than later.

In the meantime folks. Join my club/group

https://www.chess.com/club/the-next-move

Nice straw man you like to build, Bent, but that's not the way it was in Colorado.

A fast-paced, superficial culture begets fast-paced, superficial chess.  Like I said, you're welcome to it.

Your reasoning is sound, when making intellectually honest observations about what's going on around us, in the culture, in society, and in the world at large.  Blame technology for the accelerated speed and pace of life.  It's the price we all pay.  

No straw man bob, and since you were from Colorado how the hell would you know about the tournament scene in Massachusetts in the 60s?  I happened to have the October 1970 issue of Chess Life and Review on my shelf, and looked up the list of all tournaments submitted for rating between July 2 and August 20 of that year.  I see ONE tournament for the entire state of Colorado for that period of 7 weeks.  One.

I humbly suggest that you are the one building straw men.