Do most beginners prefer longer time controls?
Sort:
Feb 15, 2020
0
#43
In the first game I did not know the opening , I looked at first few moves but then just played my best
Colby-Covington wrote:
@btickler I think the definition of the term chess is somewhat open to interpretation, but in my opinion there can be no chess without a time element, seeing as any competitive, turn based game requires time ramifications in order to be viable and sensible.
Especially, concerning strategy and thinking games, granting each player an infinite amount of time seems highly counter-intuitive and rather boring.
Nevertheless, if you buy any basic chess set and read the rules of the game, you will find no mention of any time controls. Time controls are an add-on option a small minority of chess players use (100s of millions play, a few million use clocks), and they also have a short history relative to the game. An even smaller minority play blitz or bullet...in fact, there are more people in the US that play Monopoly with the Free Parking option than people worldwide that play faster time controls.
Feb 15, 2020
0
#45
They can not be compared imo , speed chess is an entirely different game to me you play differently , You used time as a weapon , intuition and opening theory as a time advantage , and you can win losing games just because you opponent times out.
As far as no time limit , that depends on the players , my friends and I all prefer OTB games no time , but never have boring or long games , very rarely , and it is an epic fight if it is long.
It is personal taste but different feel to it , I used to play a lot of speed chess , just not now , I need to adjust my style to play fast
Bertovzki wrote:
In the first game I did not know the opening , I looked at first few moves but then just played my best
Yeah the first game was weird, but you did better in the second one. Your London looks solid up until move 12 or so which is pretty good. I always find myself wanting to switch it up too but that doesn't usually work out so great. It's like a said, every 1500 random and their girlfriend knows the best moves against the London 20 moves deep and that just gets annoying after a while. I really prefer less known openings for Blitz.
Colby-Covington wrote:
I think your "rules of the game" argument is a bit of a strawman, because there is no official manufacturer of chess sets, hence nobody has the authority or even a reasonable basis to establish any official rules pertaining to the game outside of their own product.
If you don't mind, I would like you to state your sources for these numbers, because I highly doubt they are accurate, to be honest.
I think you might be confusing playing without a time control and not officially negotiating a time control before playing.
Of course, when I'm playing with my dad before breakfast there won't be a clock with a tournament mediator, but if I don't move after an extended period of time he'll tell me to get tf on already.😅
So, we might not have a clock sitting on the table but there is an unspoken agreement that the game should be concluded within a reasonable amount of time, which is still a time control.
We're getting down to semantics here, but whether it is daily, blitz bullet or even a casual game at home, everybody plays with a time control one way or the other.
There certainly can't be an infinite amount of time given to each player, because legal moves must be coducted until such a time where a check mate or drawing position has been reached.
If you're going to now define time controls, emphasis on the latter word, as just an informal "hey, hurry up and move"...then I think we've found the real straw man here 
. Maybe shell game is a better analogy...you often like to change your arguments up as you go along. It's a bit disingenuous.
As for numbers, it is estimated that up to 600 million people alive today have played or currently play chess. FIDE membership in 185 countries is about half a million (extremely generous, it was 360K in 2017 and even the loss of Kirsan could not have been much of a boost ...). All other federations combined (minus the FIDE or multiple federation overlaps, of course) plus some players that play in local tournaments and have clocks without joining any federation might be an order of magnitude higher, so say 5 million.
The estimated number of people that play Monopoly worldwide (it's sold in 114 countries) is up to a billion. Surprise 
. There have been 275 million units sold and the only limit to the number of players is how many pieces you allow...it's kind of a trick question since anyone can just be invited to sit down and roll the dice and handed some fake money and if they make it through one game long enough to loss all their money, then they are a Monopoly player. Learning chess moves and playing a fully legal game of chess to completion is a far higher barrier to entry. So, while chess is a better known board game, it is not the board game that has been played by the most people worldwide.
There aren't any official estimates on how many people use the Free Parking house rules, but 68% of Monopoly players are not using the official rules and have never even read them, and 34% make up their own side rules. Free Parking is the best known and most common house rule, so...easily 10s of millions, possibly 100s of millions, which flies way past the number of people that play blitz or bullet and possibly past the number of people that have ever played chess with a clock in the history of the game.
These are all estimates, of course, but it's clear enough that even given wide margins of error, my statements hold up pretty well.
btickler wrote:
If you're going to now define time controls, emphasis on the latter word, as just an informal "hey, hurry up and move"...then I think we've found the real straw man here .
Let's use a different definition instead; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_control
"....A time control is a mechanism in the play of almost all two-player board games so that each round of the match can finish in a timely way."
Thus, the term "time control" merely describes the requirement of a game to end in a timely fashion, which is exactly what I suggested.
"....Time controls are typically enforced by means of a game clock, where the times below are given per player."
Hence, time controls are typically, but not necessarily enforced by means of a clock, which again supports completely the argument that I have proposed.
As for numbers, it is estimated that up to 600 million people have played or currently play chess. FIDE membership is about half a million. All other federations combined (minus the FIDE or multiple federation overlaps, of course) plus some players that play in local tournaments and have clocks without joining any federation might be an order of magnitude higher, if we're being pretty generous.
Oh no, you specifically stated that "100s of millions play and a few millions use clocks..."
People who play online, in parks, at home and various other scenarios obviously use clocks as well, yet you are merely referring to players who are associated with an official federation, which is obviously wildly inaccurate and rather disingenuous, considering your very bold and specific claim with regards to "a few million" who do not use clocks.
Also you still have not produced any sources in support of these figures you have implicated in your wild claims.
I think it's very funny that more than half of your post addresses the intricacies of monopoly rather than this ridiculous supposed major disparity between the number of players who do and do not use clocks, which is clearly the primary point of contention here.🤭
Colby-Covington wrote:
btickler wrote:
If you're going to now define time controls, emphasis on the latter word, as just an informal "hey, hurry up and move"...then I think we've found the real straw man here .
Let's use a different definition instead; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_control
"....A time control is a mechanism in the play of almost all two-player board games so that each round of the match can finish in a timely way."
Thus, the term "time control" merely describes the requirement of a game to end in a timely fashion, which is exactly what I suggested.
"....Time controls are typically enforced by means of a game clock, where the times below are given per player."
Hence, time controls are typically, but not necessarily enforced by means of a clock, which again supports completely the argument that I have proposed.
As for numbers, it is estimated that up to 600 million people have played or currently play chess. FIDE membership is about half a million. All other federations combined (minus the FIDE or multiple federation overlaps, of course) plus some players that play in local tournaments and have clocks without joining any federation might be an order of magnitude higher, if we're being pretty generous.
Oh no, you specifically stated that "100s of millions play and a few millions use clocks..."
People who play online, in parks, at home and various other scenarios obviously use clocks as well, yet you are merely naming players who are associated with an official federation, which is obviously wildly inaccurate and rather disingenuous, considering your very bold and specific claim with regards to "a few million" who do not use clocks.
Also you still have not named any sources in support of these figures you have implicated in your wild claims.
I think it's very funny that more than half of your post addresses the intricacies of monopoly rather than this ridiculous supposed major disparity between the number of players who do and do not use clocks, which is clearly the primary point of contention here.🤭
I backed up the numbers I originally posted with the more detailed numbers I used to derive them. You asked for those numbers, and I certainly did not need to bother giving them to you. Now, you want more support and more links to help you decide that you are still right .
Feel free to run around and check them...do some legwork, if you can handle that. You have not backed up any numbers or opinions (and you never do). You merely cast aspersions at any pesky facts that get sprinkled in your way on any subject and move on with your faulty assumptions unaffected. It's been your MO since you got here, and it's a cornerstone of your arrogance remaining intact not to examine the facts too closely lest you find yourself to be full of BS. Better to stay narrowly focused, ala the BDG. Big fish, tiny pond = comfy ego .
Your time controls = "any player that says a word about a turn taking too long" stance is ridiculous. "Typically enforced by a time clock" allows for various other mechanisms of a nature *excluding normal human interactions, which are clearly not covered under any reasonable definition of "time controls"*...you know, like hourglasses, weights that fall, audio cues, etc. A human being saying "hey, hurry up and move, I'm getting bored" does not qualify as a time control analogous to your OP or even to the lax standard you retreated to later...and you know that full well.
btickler wrote:
100s of millions play, a few million use clocks
Please, provide a link leading to the source from which you have gathered this groundbreaking piece of information.😌
As for the rest of our little debate, I believe you have confirmed your utter defeat by resorting to personal attacks and unintelligible, unrelated ramblings about Monopoly.
btickler wrote:
Your time controls = "any player that says a word about a turn taking too long" stance is ridiculous. "Typically enforced by a time clock" allows for various other mechanisms of a nature *excluding normal human interactions, which are clearly not covered under any reasonable definition of "time controls"*...you know, like hourglasses, weights that fall, audio cues, etc. A human being saying "hey, hurry up and move, I'm getting bored" does not qualify as a time control analogous to your OP or even to the lax standard you retreated to later...and you know that full well.
You specifically claimed that the majority of chess players do not use any time controls at all, which is obviously a nonsensical statement, as that literally indicates infinite amounts of time for each player, by definition violating the rules, considering that a legal move must be conducted until such a time where either a drawing or check mate position is reached.
The more reasonable approach to this issue is the notion that all chess players, whether they have officially agreed to a conventional time control format or not, have an unspoken understanding and agreement amongst each other, that the game should be concluded in a timely fashion.That aligns perfectly with the definition of the word time control and the argument I originally made.
I believe you meant something else, but failed to express yourself properly.
Simply admit that you were wrong here, jesus.🙄
Colby-Covington wrote:
btickler wrote:
100s of millions play, a few million use clocks
Please, provide a link leading to the source from which you have gathered this groundbreaking piece of information.😌
As for the rest of our little debate, I believe you have confirmed your utter defeat by resorting to personal attacks and unintelligible, unrelated ramblings about Monopoly.
I gave you the info. I used several different sets of numbers, and I correlated them and derived some conclusions, you know, the way people do when they actually have to figure out something not readily available.
You would like a single link to a source of information that you can grasp immediately without any effort on your part. Of course, you would. Everything I posted is verifiable with even the most cursory level of searching around.
Meanwhile, you resort to your usual...casting aspersions ("little debate", "utter defeat", "unintelligible, unrelated ramblings"...all standard for you and all meaningless to anyone but you) and unilaterally declaring things you are not the arbiter of. When you declare yourself the "winner" (and this is hardly a debate...I have presented information and you have done...nothing), that's when it becomes obvious you're anything but.
Please, provide a link to the source from which you have determined...well, pretty much anything you've ever posted here would be a start...because from an outside perspective it all seems to emerge from one source .
Now, take these preceding 4 paragraphs and read them again but from the point of view that you are not always right, and that the words are calm and measured. Then let it percolate a while.
- btickler wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:btickler wrote:
100s of millions play, a few million use clocks
Please, provide a link leading to the source from which you have gathered this groundbreaking piece of information.😌
I used several different sets of numbers, and I correlated them and derived some conclusions, you know, the way people do when they actually have to figure out something not readily available.
You would like a single link to a source of information that you can grasp immediately without any effort on your part. Of course, you would. Everything I posted is verifiable with even the most cursory level of searching around.
Translation: English;Phrase - "I made it all up."
Colby-Covington wrote:
You specifically claimed that the majority of chess players do not use any time controls at all [...]
OMG. Yes...stay with me here....because it's true. The majority of chess players do not use time controls (as defined by FIDE, or any chess rules or governing body, or any reasonable chess player, or any reasonable person with even a smattering of knowledge about chess) at all.
It's pretty insane that you are going to continue to try to contort your way around this obvious and glaringly true fact. I feel like I should be slowly backing out of the virtual room about now...
This is one I meant , and the next one