Classical Time Control Is Dead

@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. 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.   

I think @Dsmith42 brings up a good point. The point being in the fact that it takes a tactical enforcer with strong calculation to consistently beat other opponents to stop drawish games.
His words have truth. Reason being is because Kasparov was that type of player and so was Lasker as well.
Commonly, you are either 1 or 2 types of players:
1. You are either a positional mastermind (like Karpov) with great Endgame skill (like Carlsen)
2. Or you are a player who is great at making complications and is tactically dominant and somehow can shift the position into a winning game with great positional understanding.(like Kasparov or even Tal)[ I know, many people may not agree that Tal was the best pure positional player, but he was, he understood positions well enough to the point where he could break them down and build him up. No he was not a positional mastermind, and nowhere close, but it wouldn't be reasonable to say he wasn't a good positional player, it is just that he ways a way better tactical and calculator that he didn't even bother with the positional nature of the game, he just wanted to complicate and make dubious moves for dubious lines to make matters hard for his opponent. But it is good to know that later on in his life when Tal couldn't sustain his calculations, he became a positional player and was a good one]
This is what seems to make world champions as these players break the loop of drawish games. I do think that the people who are to the extreme of positional understanding, calculation, tactics or endgames face even the strongest of players, they will somehow win.
@NikkiLikeChikki
I don't think this is a forceful statement by @DSmith43, I think some things are great from which he says, and though I may not agree with everything, I do think it takes a person to be like a Kasparov or a Karpov to be a world champion or very successful player. Engines do make a difference however but in terms of strictly being on the next level drawish play would cease and the truth of the matter would be shown if you could push the win or not.
The reason Kasparov was great was due to the fact that he used to be everyone else that was not a drawing master. For the drawing masters he had to draw against unless he would lose, but everyone else he won for the majority. This is the common theme for the uphill climb to be world champion.
Also, this was doesn't only go for Kasparov, but Bobby Fischer as well and also Karpov. What they did was beat everyone they did was beat everyone with their style of play then draw against the drawing masters (such as Smyslov in his time).
Also the claim of @Dsmith42 seems valid to say that both players seemed more determine to not lose than win. As in that level with significant preparation and precision rarely would mistakes occur to the point of an outright loss and because of this most of the time, patience was key and the players would just have to hope they could keep making the strongest moves until an opening would arise.
Breaking someone who is not trying to lose is trying to break Smyslov, and even he was a world champion at one point. He wasn't a joke, and he has a positive score against Bobby Fischer with his drawing play style. He was the type of person who was a defensive tank and was quite literally seeking to draw you if he couldn't find a win, as he didn't really care for the win, he just didn't want to lose. Anish Giri is like the modern-day Smyslov, but Smyslov in his time was called the drawing master, and he was called the drawing master for a reason.
The reason this is important is because when talking about the breaking point of a person in chess, it is hard to beat them if they have a mentality to draw and not care for seeking to win. As there aim would be to draw and make it hard for their opponents to win. This lesson has been taught to Bobby Fischer many times in his playing days because every time he would play against the French he would try to push the position for the win and most of the time end up losing. It just shows you the differences in mentalities and how a breaking point is real.
I do disagree however with the fact that nobody spends 60-70 moves in a drawish endgame. That is actually the opposite of what happens sometimes, especially in the case of Magnus Carslen. It is debatable however when speaking on if people try to grind out Endgames a lot of the top Super-GM's try to do it in top tier competition for the most points. So I don't think that is entirely true, but it all depends on the position at hand.
On the claim that Lasker's opponents were horrible, that is just false. He played top tier competition, and sure they may to be as strong as today's SuperGM's they were no joke. Some of his opponents were Tarrash, Frank James Marshall, Rubienstien and Capablanca. These were some of the old masters and none of them were scrubs, so saying he had horrible opponents is just not true. They are called the "old masters" for a reason; they were definitely tough, perhaps tougher than some GM's and even Super GM's to this day. We will never know but it is always a possibility.
Regardless, it is true that there is needed for a certain balance for the leap of good players or good GM's, great GM's and world championship contending GM's. Honestly I just think that however in order to become a world champion or to be in the conversation you have to be masterful in either positional dominance, the Endgame or tactical skill and calculations, if you are dominant in one area of the game and just good/great in the rest becoming a world champion is probable. It just depends if you beat the rest of the competition and then draw the drawing masters, that is how I view it but everyone has their different opinions.
Anyways, just adding some clarification on the claim from what @DSmith42 was saying, and other comments in which I don't necessarily agree with fully, however is fine as we all have different viewpoints, this is what makes us human, so the more we share the better we can make the discussion!

Carlsen grinds out wins in drawn positions no doubt, but when he's able to get them because grandmaster opponents fail on basic techniques like opposition, I think they qualify as "horrible" in the end game.