Burguulkudar: "I believe that we will reach a point where 1-hour or 30-minute each would be the new "standard" playing. Well, in fact in my country pretty much all tournaments (by the state federation) are 15+10 already. Not saying I like it, but that's how it is."
Very informative post, Burguulkudar! Thanks for sharing what's going on in Brazil, which is indeed a country crazy for soccer. So many great players there, from Pele to Ronaldo, etc. However, my most vivid thoughts of Brazilian soccer is the 7-1 victory by Germany over Brazil. That was just unbelievable. Sorry that I had to bring that up. It just got a lot of tv play here in the U.S.A. when it happened.
But to your point, it is what it is. I'll go along because I still want to play competitively. But man, it will have to alter one's game to accommodate the faster time controls, at least it will mine.
Classic chess will likely slowly die out, but do not think that bullet chess will ever become the "new classical". Both of these are extremes.
I believe that we will reach a point where 1-hour or 30-minute each would be the new "standard" playing. Well, in fact in my country pretty much all tournaments (by the state federation) are 15+10 already. Not saying I like it, but that's how it is.
For me, 1-hour is enough, 30 minutes is good, and 15 is too fast to learn much from a game.
There's also another thing. The more you play chess, the better you become and recognizing patterns you've seen before, usually more and more quickly. In my opinion, only very high rated players should play blitz or bullet, since they will make less blunders and the game will still be interesting. A 2000 or less playing bullet seems to me just a blunderfest, or a "tactical mess" as Jengaias use to say. There is no "beauty" to it.
Let's imagine if soccer (a favorite sport in my country) suddenly had a time limit of 10 minutes per match. It would become extremely aggressive and we would miss on many well-prepared moves and tactics we see today. This is with any sport. The only difference is that with chess, less time assures a winner, while in the other sports usually it assures a draw. However, my analogy is just comparing that watching well-prepared tactics in any sport or game requires time and careful preparation. The less time, the worst it becomes. A street painter could paint your image for 10 bucks, but if he had some days, wouldn't it become more vivid, more colourful and more interesting?
Of course, you can buy a street drawing or painting and say "I love paintings, that's what's paintings are all about, why waste so much time adding details when street paintings is what the public likes and can afford?"
Sadly, majority rule is just the rule of the ignorant masses and shallow parts of mankind. Yes, that applies to (fake) "representative democracy" too and will likely become something more refined in the future (as with was with many others forms of government).
However, majority is what makes consumism and capitalism thrive, so as long as we have this wild form of capitalism who needs to sell as much as it can to as many as possible, and the faster it is more profit can be made, chess events will definitely tend to become faster (again, there's always a drawing line).
However, there's always an optimistic point of view. It might mean that we humans are becoming more and more "adapted" at thinking and seeing patterns and logic. Maybe our brains as a whole are becoming faster processors than the ones of people born 500 hundred years ago. Maybe rapid chess helps select the faster and faster thinkers.