Classical Time Control Is Dead

@41 I think you have the causality backwards: it’s not offered because nobody plays it. Even 30 minute is rarely played.

Any chance of a link to either of these?

I certainly agree that chess is getting more popular online.  That could just be a shift from offline chess to online chess, though.

You can google “yougov chess” and “sporting news chess” and you will get links.

I feel as if the chess world will always have Classical time formats, that is just how it is going to be for serious matches, especially for world championships matches, I mean why would blitz, rapid or bullet determine such a title?

There are too many reasons why classical time format is more important than the others (subjectively speaking) and with this it shows the importance of it in major tournaments (such as the candidates) and world chess championship matches.

I don't seriously think classical time format will change, that's like changing something that has been around for 200+ years like the U.S for example (as a whole). There is a difference between tradition and more of logical sense. These other ways of doing chess(being rapid, blitz or bullet) won't last when it comes to specifically  major matches such as the candidates tournaments and world chess championship match ups. It just wouldn't make any other sense otherwise for these lower time formats to determine those titles sincerely in my opinion.

But on the flip side other people do prefer blitz chess, rapid chess and even bullet chess more openly than classical for the majority in casual play(even do I), and this is valid and it proves especially in this time with engines. However this doesn't make the fact that classical time format may be dead or not used in classical times for major matches. 

Just think if classical time format was taken out and rapid, blitz or bullet was only played, there would be a significant gap, and it would not be significant because people of the past generations play it out of tradition. There would be a gap because the game of chesS is a strategically and positional principled game and would be lesser-valued if not played longer. Therefore if the format would change, people would not prepare nor would take the effort to take games on higher magnitudes as seriously even despite the competition because credibility would be in question(because of lower time formats). Because of this, no I don't think classical would leave or be changed, and if it would there would have to be major adjustments to the game as credibility would be on the line for a chess champion that does not have classical chess formats and the game would be viewed as lesser in general. Chess without classical time formats is like the NBA without a three-point line in today’s age, like it wouldn’t be logical to not shot more three’s because you would be missing out on more points and it is proven to be more effective. The same is for Chess in classical time format, if not for this the credibility, effectiveness and logical appeal would be thrown out the window in my opinion.

Also at @GalaxKing

I do not believe 1 game or even a few games against a 2700 player losing to the current world champion has anything to do with anything to the topic. That just happens in chess, you win some you lose some and whoever has the better game wins. That's always how the game goes, it was never about the engine's until very recently and though they are making a disturbance and to a very unfortunate part, there are other factors to the game as well. Truthfully speaking, there are too many factors to the game and hence why chess is called a Strategy game, it is not like checkers (no disrespect to elite or good checkers players if offense taken). From this, no 1 game or even a few games lost because of a strong 2700 Super GM doesn’t mean classical format is the problem; it was just the game that was played.[You act as if the guy[Magnus] lost to a 2300 or 2400, and even with that it is possible to lose if Magnus is not on his A-game, this is for any Master. As Master’s cannot be taken for less because even the lesser master can beat higher opponents due to their mistakes and bad games. The rating gap for Magnus is like 100-150 lesser than the player he played against, it is not an outreach to say he lost to a person like this not matter if he is the better player or not, as losing still happens.]

A lot of the forums speak of interesting concepts in my opinion but it is very clear that the problem for this one is not of the game, but how it is being played (or in other words the amount of preparation, intuition, skill (very important), and how the game goes and transitions through each move). A person cannot blame single-handedly that the problem with chess is just engines or time format, if that is the case you might as well say "hey it is not fair for people to be talented and gifted in chess", that’s practically the same argument give or take and because of this is just makes this forum look silly.[no offense, it does mislead.]

But I will say this; this has nothing to do with formats, but everything to do with play. Yes, things are changing and rightly so as we are not playing from 200 years ago and we live in the modern era. So adjust to the change as best as possible, what else can you do? Even the Super GM’s have to adjust, and people commonly say the only thing they do is prepare but they do a lot more than just that, nobody just gets to that level by just pure preparation. So, Just enjoy the game, and before you make a vague claim see what the real problems is, and then you may find a great solution upon your behalf.

No disrespect to the OP but this is just the truth about this matter and how Classical Formats is not dead, and I believe is far from dead and this speaking from a person who has not relative care for it really.

Just speaking the truth in all honesty, my fellow chess friends and members.

Sorry if this came off too hard to anyone(especially the OP).

Teacher of Pain over here practicing writing English essays

Thanks guys I guess. 

But seriously, it is something to take into account for those who view it in that way. 

me neither.

That's ok, it is not for you. The point is to build awarness in the few people who do choose to read it, and even if not that the OP, and not for the OP for me, to understand the true values in chess and where it is going. 

That's the point, and that's the point for my foruming as well. 

"foruming" 

I like that word.

I had a similar point, for me chess without longer time controls is not really chess. Like someone would say: We are going to abolish basketball, 3x3 basketball is all the rage now.

I prefer slow time controls because for me looking for the best move slowly and carefully

and calculating variations is very important.

I play exponentially better when I have time to think, and the more time to think I have

the stronger I play.

@pain - I disagree. The way people play the game flows from the rules that are in place and the tools that are available to them.

You can’t take away the tools since there is no practical way to limit the use of engines and preparation. Long formats encourage risk averse behavior because taking chances is more easily punished by a long think and this leads to boring draws.

To combat this, you need to alter the incentive structure to encourage riskier play. One way is to punish long thinks, and another way is to change the value of wins and draws. For instance, you can make wins be worth significantly more than a draw (for example win = 1.5, draws .5, losses 0).

The evidence that rapid formats leads to more decisive games is undeniable. Wesley scored 9/11 in The US Championship and Jeffery Xiong 8.5. The games were great and few people complained. It was great fun and the games were exciting and entertaining. It’s hard to imagine going back to a time where you could win a tournament with a +2 score.

@nklristic

Very true my fellow member, chess without longer time formats doesn't feel like real chess. It is just something off about it, yes blitz, rapid and bullet are fun, but the credibility for such matches in the candidates and world championship matches is out of the question. Classical is needed and needed badly in those instances, at least in my opinion and yours alike it seems. 

Very true also for your example, makes sense...

@Eric_Shmerling

I agree with you as well Eric, the more time I have the better I do (at least OTB), with this said looking, improving as well as seeing all your options in slower time formats is much more beneficial and adds to the credibility. 

Therefore Classical time format is needed and is not dead, so I 100% agree with you there! 

@nklristic - your basketball analogy is flawed. The NBA has changed the rules many times to make the game more exciting to watch. They added the shot clock. Dunks didn’t used to be allowed. Three pointers were added. What is considered a foul was changed to encourage more offensive play. Right now nobody thinks the NBA rules are broken except for old timers who long for the days when players would mug people on the court.

They change the rules all the time in sports to make for a more entertaining product.

I believe that your analogy is flawed. NBA is still NBA, 3 points line further away, those are small changes compared to this. Rapid chess is a different kind of game compared to classical. Like 100 m sprint and marathon (or 3x3 vs normal basketball). 

In short you are not speaking of some rule changes you are speaking of deleting entirely different game. 

@pain - it doesn’t feel like real chess to YOU. Nostalgia is a bad reason to keep a set of rules in place that makes for a less interesting game.

@nkl - you REALLY need to go watch games from before the shot clock, dunks, and three pointers. It’s VERY different. The 3 point shot has changed the entire dynamic of the game. You are simply incorrect and any basketball historian would agree with me. It feels like a different game.

There is already blitz and rapid, so there is no need to change the classical. If someone doesn't appreciate one kind of a game, it doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. It's as if I say that mechanical engineering shouldn't exist because I like electrical engineering more. There is room for both. 

@NikkiLikeChikki

You have your opinion and that is fine. 

But to put it to your respectfully my fellow member, this is not what the topic is on... you are talking about entertainment values more than credibility. This is not about that per se it is about credibility and why classical formats are not dead, and I gave my reasoning for why it is not already.

But to reinforce this I will just say rapid is fun, but it should not determine a victor based on entertainment but rather skill. Also "Boring" is subjective, just as you and my claims are subjective, however the difference is boring does not apply to what the "problem" is that more personalized than on the affect of classical being gone completely over the other formats.

And again if classical were to leave what would replace it? Rapid only is credible to a certain point, and again not based on traditions but based on logical and precise reasoning classical format should be played because it the most accurate and logistically sound way of playing the game without worrying about time (for a large majority) and it is about the most skill, preparation and determination and other factors but the point is classical is still better, not out of tradition, but out of results and out of understanding of the game and that is why it will still be played and is played for top tier matches today(candidates and world championship matches) 

Again even if it does get replaced I just don't think replacing it with 15-45 minute time formats is the way to go as it is to short and not as credible and therefore I don't see a reason why people would change unless the affair went past chess (like revenue). But from my point of view know that entertainment is not so much the affair as the game itself, and chess is thriving right now and growing (even despite the unfortunate virus) and because of this I just don’t see classical going away, even with engines, in the near future, or for a long-term deal.