To be clear, though, history is on my side. The viewers follow the excitement, the money follows the viewers, and the players follow the money. The market will win in the end, and classical chess will be relegated to a niche format.
Classical Time Control Is Dead
Sort:
0
#62
Actually it was nkl that used the phrase flawed analogy. I’m not at all emotional, I just dislike watching classical chess. It’s fine to watch YouTube summaries of them but they are bad theater. Clearly we have different priorities and that’s all.
To be clear, though, history is on my side. The viewers follow the excitement, the money follows the viewers, and the players follow the money. The market will win in the end, and classical chess will be relegated to a niche format.
To be clear, though, history is on my side. The viewers follow the excitement, the money follows the viewers, and the players follow the money. The market will win in the end, and classical chess will be relegated to a niche format.
NikkiLikeChikki wrote:
@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.
They change the rules all the time in sports to make for a more entertaining product.
Nope, you used the word flawed before me. I used it in the next post. Here is the proof (your post is number 70, mine is number 71). 
I can see that you dislike classical chess, and that is all fine. I believe that because you dislike it, you are being a bit too subjective on this. The thing is, those two doesn't really belong to the same market. It is like a difference between superhero movies or something that stars Dwayne Johnson (which is fine, don't get me wrong, I like that kind of entertainment as well) and a bit more serious cinema. It is both made for the big screen, but they do not target the same audience. They will probably not target the same sponsors as well. Blitz has a bright future in e-sports, for example, but e-sports isn't everything.
Rapid, but especially blitz can be very popular among gamer audience and of course some real chess enthusiasts. Classical will probably be more popular among hard core fans of chess. It is not a general rule of course, some hard core fans will be very blitz and rapid oriented as well. I am not against those 2 formats.
@NikkiLikeChikki
I have other things to do with my life as well; you think chess is just all I do? No my fellow member it is not and that is very far from the case, hence why I am not on the site 24/7 or anything close to it. I am not saying you are either, but I am not for sure. Anyone that has that much time for chess or something close to it, is very lucky, and not to play chess but to do others things in life with their time.
Again though talking about the discussion you are off the topic, we are talking about the relevance of the classical time format not the entertainment value. Of course rapid, blitz and bullet are significantly more entertaining. But they are not better in the terms of classical in better candidate tournaments or world championship contending, this coincides with credibility as I have previously stated.
History can be on your side, honestly this does not concern me, I see your side of the story you fail to see mind, and I don't know why in honesty but does it really matter? Not really... But it is interesting to talk about and that is why I say these things.
Also you are biased, and I am a lot less biased (if I am) in my claim therefore your argument is flawed, I gave counter-claims you gave nothing really, you literally said you "dislike watching classical chess" therefore you are not talking from the worldview you are talking from your emotions. There is nothing wrong with this as we all do this from time to time however I know where you are coming from and I know what I sending out, so it just makes your claim discredited and not factual, therefore it needs to be revised.
Moreover, I could understand if this was your own forum but this is different and since you are adding to another forum your information is more directed to you than any else with information you just previously stated.
Therefore I state my case, very good discussion and I learned a lot. What did you my fellow member? It could be interesting to find out if you respond.
Regardless thank you for your time
In a game where equality is everything, how fast a player can play becomes a desirable trait, and a way to tell apart the players.
Thelaretus wrote:
Chess is a strategy game, not a pattern recognition game. For that reason, I don't think rapid and blitz game should be rated at all: it's impossible to make proper strategy in speed chess. For the ADHD Twitch children, Blitz will always be there; but that is not true chess, and will very likely not be seen as such. Fischer stopped playing because Classical time controls were too short then; and now they're even shorter.
By the way, try Correspondence (in this site called 'Daily') Chess. Really, it's amazing; you can play it in your spare time much better than stupid bullets.
You have no right to tell us how to play a game, with the only rules being the rules commonly acknowledged, especially as a 900 in rapid.
@Ixneilosophye
Very true, equality is everything, theoretically the game is supposed to be a draw...
How fast a player plays can be helpful, usually in bullet, blitz and rapid, classically nearly useless so it has its pros, but I think nearly every GM is fast so, very hard to tell apart those players, but for mere amateurs very important, in the lower time formats for sure in my opinion.
You opinion is valid talking about those lower time formats, and that is what makes up a lot of that game, the speed and consistency, but it true that speed can do without consistently in which is commonly error. But you absolutely need consistency in chess regardless of what is happening especially in classical time formats.
psychohist wrote:
Ray-Gun wrote:
No-one knows how chess was originally intended to be played
Chess was played for centuries before chess clocks were invented. I doubt most of them were blitz games.
I doubt any of them played 1 hour games either. They just took as much time as they needed and most of them were played by extremely rich people who by today's standards would be rated 1000-1200.
I do agree with @Redgreeenorangeyellow
I don't think much of those games were 1 hour games. They were free with what they did, and the first game of chess was played by 1400(at minimim-1800(at best), so the competition was not hard, therfore it was a limited game and nowhere near today's standards.
Blitz and bullet players of today could not play past wake-up time.
TeacherOfPain wrote:
I do agree with @Redgreeenorangeyellow
I don't think much of those games were 1 hour games. They were free with what they did, and the first game of chess was played by 1400(at minimim-1800(at best), so the competition was not hard, therfore it was a limited game and nowhere near today's standards.
I think some of the masters of that time were 1800 or maybe even 1700.
Magnus couldn't beat Caruana (and vice versa) because both players were more determined not to lose than they were determined to win.
Breaking someone who's trying not to lose (Capablanca and Petrosian both excelled at this) is very hard well below the super-GM level without inviting at least some counterplay. Kasparov was the last champion to really invite complications, and even he did so as a calculated risk.
The OP mentioned Lasker, which is important, because not a single active player today would be able to handle that style of play in a match. No one today spends 60-70 moves of a dead drawn rook & pawn endgame probing for weaknesses. But Lasker would do it, win, and still be fresh for the next round (I honestly think this is what drove Rubinstein insane). He'd lose a game on occasion, sure, but he made you prove the draw if you wanted one.
There are players active today with the tactical skill to play like a Lasker or an Alekhine if they so chose, but they choose not to. I firmly believe another fearless attacker will come along eventually to break the current drawish complacency. It took Reti and then Alekhine beating Capablanca the first time, and Fischer beating everybody the second time, but it happened before and it will likely happen again.
Can we still play it?
@Redgreenorangeyellow
Yes they were so in theory I could be a master, in that time, lol...
But now it is a completley different ball game by 1000 points, who would've thought?
@Dsmith42
You are absolutley correct, nothing more to say on that...
It's been proven time and time again just everyone look at Kasparov for another example.
Only due to engines is the classical time control not popular. Over the board will be alive and well once things get back to normal.
They play to not lose because the match is too short.
Dsmith42 wrote:
Magnus couldn't beat Caruana (and vice versa) because both players were more determined not to lose than they were determined to win.
Breaking someone who's trying not to lose (Capablanca and Petrosian both excelled at this) is very hard well below the super-GM level without inviting at least some counterplay. Kasparov was the last champion to really invite complications, and even he did so as a calculated risk.
The OP mentioned Lasker, which is important, because not a single active player today would be able to handle that style of play in a match. No one today spends 60-70 moves of a dead drawn rook & pawn endgame probing for weaknesses. But Lasker would do it, win, and still be fresh for the next round (I honestly think this is what drove Rubinstein insane). He'd lose a game on occasion, sure, but he made you prove the draw if you wanted one.
There are players active today with the tactical skill to play like a Lasker or an Alekhine if they so chose, but they choose not to. I firmly believe another fearless attacker will come along eventually to break the current drawish complacency. It took Reti and then Alekhine beating Capablanca the first time, and Fischer beating everybody the second time, but it happened before and it will likely happen again.
Pretty sure magnus has grinded many dead drawn positions to squeeze a win out of them. Lasker's opponents were horrible, carlsen's opponents are not, that's a big distinction. Therefore being a "fearless attacker" will be almost impossible in today's chess. You cannot sacrifice 3 pieces like tal and hope your opponent will make a blunder. Top players today are 100 times better than the "top players" of yesterday(30s , 40s and 50s) who would all be rated around 2300 by today's standards.. they made mistakes and that's why there was a huge incentive to sacrifice everything against them
0
#79
He does that. He says things forcefully and thinks that makes it a good argument.
Somehow cricket manages to survive using three different match time formats with all three having their own merits. It is an almost direct comparison to chess, including tedious arguments about the longer form (test) dying and the shortest form (T20) not being real cricket, etc. They just put an emphasis on different skills and end up growing the game as they also have different merits as spectator and participatory sports.
Classic isn't going to die, it will probably grow, It might seem like it is dying simply because shorter time controls have far, far more potential for growth.
(The classical championship should just go back to when the champion kept the title in case of a tie. It puts more pressure on the challenger but right now it puts more pressure on whoever is worse at shorter time controls, which is far sillier.)
Having four titles of that sort would probably be a good idea. Bullet/blitz/rapid/classical. Using the internet would allow for a very inclusive yearly candidate cycle.
Plus one person holding all four would be extremely impressive.
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
@NikkiLikeChikki
No need to get emotional my friend...
I don't really care about the rules from which you say, or is, I am fine with the new NBA rules and liked all era’s (but especially the 90's, 00's and 10's.). So I don't know what you mean by flawed analogies they are just facts and opinions.[even though you were talking to our other member.]
Furthermore on chess it is just my opinion, my fellow member, I don't get the problem, we have different viewpoints that's all. I am just explaining my side of the story from what I know.
Also I don't feel like it is real chess at times yes (especially for blitz and bullet), rapid is fine, heck even I have my highest rating currently in rapid. I am not saying anything against those formats; the only thing I am saying is that those time formats don't look to be eligible, that's all. Furthermore, I gave my reasoning, it's not like I am going to repeat myself on these claims continually.
And it is not nostalgia, I don't care for the game like that, I am just stating the facts, and the facts is what I said my fellow member, I don't get your reasoning.