Why does chess.com not have a classical or long time control rating?

     A classical rating is an excellent idea. So many players here boast of their high ratings, but it's only in fast games. A classical rating would give those who have joined chess.com during the pandemic an idea of what their rating might be in actual otb play.

There seems to be at least 2 relevant clubs on this site for those seeking 'classical' games - both have very few members currently. I wouldn't want to join at this time though due to health problems.

Definitely. 

I would also love to lend my support to the classical time control category. I would be much more likely to play 45 minute+ games if they were in a different rating bracket.

I second this.  Also, I suspect it would be quicker to get games as well.

I know this thread is a few weeks old, but I, too, would like to throw my support behind a separate classical rating.

Yes. Lichess already has classical category. I support separating classical and rapid.

Yes I agree, for me there is no benefit of longer games right now other than preparing for OTB, if they added another rating category I know I would probably be doing ~1 of these games a week.

Yeah, like the longest live time control I know of is still in rapid category. The time control? THREE HOURS. THREE WHOLE HOURS. To have this in the same category as 10 minutes seems kinda dumb to me. There should be a classical time control group, anything 30 mins or longer.

I think 30 minutes is too short to be considered classical, but I agree that there ought to be a separate category for classical chess.

This is one of the most common misconceptions, at least that is how I feel. As far as I've heard the most amount of cheaters occurs in blitz on higher levels, but in any case, I will give my reasons why this is a misconception.

I encounter a cheater in long games perhaps once every 20 games on average (perhaps even 30). This is really not that bad in my opinion. And as far as 45|45 and 60|0 time control games, there are not that many people 1 600+ rated, so you can say that I've explored around 99% of the pool of players playing these time controls.

They really don't need to play 30|0 or longer to cheat in a game. And most people who cheat in these time controls are new accounts that are caught almost immediately.

Another reason why I think more people cheat in short time controls is a practical one.  In most cases, cheaters are not so hard core to play long games, because from their perspective they can win at least 5 short games as opposed to 1 long game, and gain rating points faster than when they are playing long games where they have to wait much more for their opponent to play a move. 

So I find it paradoxical for people to fear longer games because of cheating, when in fact there is not so much cheating in these games, at least based on my experience.

It is recommended to play Classical Games when learning chess. Blitz and Bullet is not a good option for improving. At least this is what Masters say. I really would like to play some Classical Games, too. But if it counts to the same rating system as 10|0, then I just see no real encouragement for it.

Rapid Games with 10|0 take no more than 20 minutes. Why should I play for more than two hours, when it counts for the same rating? On chess24 they already have a rating for Classical. I think there 30 minutes or more counts as classic. 10|0 does count as Blitz, which I would not agree with.

I did not read the rest of the comments here, but I do also think it is a good idea to introduce a separate rating for Classical Games. But how should we tell chess.com? Complaining in forums will not help. And if one person makes a suggestion, it would not be enough.

Because 10|0 is too fast for improvement in most cases. 10|0 is played more like a blitz game than a rapid game.

In another thread with similar title, it was Martin said this:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/site-feedback/add-a-classical-rating-category-47355366?page=3#comment-62631015

So it is planned, but it will take some unknown amount of time.

And yes, you are correct, 30|0 and up is played in a completely different way.

Okay. For me 10|0 feels completely different, than a 5|0 game. My Blitz rating is 100 lower than my Rapid rating. That's why I wrote, that I do not agree with 10|0 being Blitz.

Actually, 10|0 is officially viewed as a blitz chess by FIDE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_chess

To quote:

Time controls for each player in a game of blitz chess are, according to FIDE, 10 minutes or less per player.

In any case, yes, 10|0 is different than 5|0. But it is certainly pretty close to 5|5 chess game. Actually, in 5|5 it is more difficult to lose on time even though you have slightly less time.

But 10|0 is certainly a lot closer to 5|5 than to even 15|10 or something like that, not to mention longer time controls.

Playing 10|0 will make it harder for someone to improve. I am of course not suggesting that you should play longer time controls, I am just making a case why would someone play longer games. Because it is not all about rating points. Someone would like to play more quality chess games in order to simulate slower chess because they want to improve. 


Actually, in my case, I am rarely playing 15|10 games because they are actually the same category as my 1 hour per side games.  

When they include classical rating, I will probably play more shorter rapid games as well.

     Read your own comment here and you will realize the benefits of playing classical time controls. Playing longer games lets you think about the positions you see and learn how to evaluate them and choose the best moves. Yes, this only helps you improve your game rather than get better blitz ratings. Which do you think is more important? If you only worry about your chess.com rating we will soon be hearing from you in one of these "Why am I stuck at 1500?" forums.

3|0 and 10|0