Do most beginners prefer longer time controls?

This is why your unilateral claim of utter defeat is so laughable.  You won't even Google a single number I put up and poke around.  That is the definition of willful ignorance.

"... there are 600 million to 800 million chess players in the world ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2016)

https://www.chess.com/article/view/can-anyone-be-an-im-or-gm

As much as I appreciate your insight and extensive chess knowledge, your statement is in essence, nonsensical. Regardless, of how you want to define the term "time control" it will always indicate a certain period of time that forcefully determines the end of a game when said time period has elapsed.

If, as per your suggestion, the majority plays without any time control at all, that logically implies they do not adhere to any time limit whatsoever, thus granting each player infinite amounts of time, which by definition would violate the most basic rules of chess, stating that both parties must continue to play until a drawing or check mate position is reached.

If you still remain unable to recognize that irrefutable logic, then I must reluctantly move on.

I don't have to google anything, since it was you who made such a very specific claim, stating plain numbers.

Obviously such a definitive piece of evidence must be easily producible.

Provide a source, or even any official, publicly available site that will confirm your claim.

Otherwise simply admit your dishonesty, because we both know that figure is as real as John Travolta's hair.

Is this an argument about language usage or about other aspects of what is going on in the world? Both? Neither?

That's fine we're more concerned with the second portion of his claim which states that "only a few million players use clocks", in comparison to the hundreds of millions who don't, according to him.

It is obviously impossible for him to determine any such number as nobody knows how many people playing at home, in parks, online or even offline etc. actually use clocks.

But he continues to make a fool out of himself by refusing to admit this undeniable fact, while bringing forth new reasons why he can't produce a simple source for this claim.🤭

He originally confused the term "time control" with "clock", I believe.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-is-considered-a-beginner-rating?page=5

7 million people have a chess.com blitz rating. Within the chess circles I played in, which was where I was recommended chess.com and so isn't even representative of the average chess circle (more chess.com users then average) a lot less then 10% of players used chess.com (and not all of them had a blitz rating). They all used for a large number of games chess clocks. This means that by no strech of the imagination (all my numbers are the most pessimistic they would be an all the factors I've decided to ignore suggest my number should be higher) at least 60-70 million chess player have used chess clocks.

That's my logic that suggests your number as wrong. If anybody thinks a few million people use chess clocks could they now site some kind of source.

Is the set of chess.com blitz players entirely inside the set of chess circle players? If not, how does that influence your thinking?

@JamesAgadir Precisely. His claim of only a few million chess players using clocks is not only factually incorrect, but also logically impossible, when merely considering the members of online platforms alone.

He has falsely constructed this figure in order to support his fallable argument, as he has done in the past and with various other points during this discussion. 

That is obviously why he refuses to provide a source for his claim and challenges others to look up his incoherent and clearly non-existant fabrications.

Pathetic, tbh.😕

I don't really get the question, could you rephrase it? My point was there are 7 million chess.com blitz players. chess.com blitz players represent a small percentage of all players that use chess clocks (at most 10% I would estimate based on the many chess players I've met). So at least 70 million people use clocks (or have within the last few years).

• 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.😌

@btickler simply confused the term "time control" with "clock", I believe he thinks they are both the same thing. 

The physical clock is an instrument used to both illustrate and enforce the time control of a match.

But that does not justify making up some bs to support your argument.🙄

Funny how he accuses others of dishonesty while literally lying about statistics and embarrassing himself while refusing to provide proof, when the truth is so easily proven.

 @Colby-Covington could you go into depth more on what the difference is between the time control and a clock.

Is it that time control is just not only just a timer but could have an increment based time that a clock would not have?

Sounds to me like hairs are being split over something quite irrelevant , imo its just basic , if you do not agree to infinite move time , then it has a time control , if it is just verbal "hey hurry up in a non time controlled game then it is still not time control , imo time must have a time limit by a clock simple , thats what time is right we meassure it on a clock not a sun dial , but if you want to add another debate by all means lets play sun dial chess , just hope it does not cloud over

@Little_Eth Sure, the term "time control" refers to the specific period of time which will end a game of chess once it has elapsed.  For example 3/5/10 min for Blitz games or 15 min for Rapid, etc.

A physical clock is used as an instrument to both illustrate and enforce this aforementioned time limit.

One is a conceptual idea the other a physical object.

@btickler conflated the meaning of both and then lied about a fictitious statistic in order to facilitate his fallacious argument.

@Colby-Covington Thank you

That's the point.

Any game of chess that does not explicitly grant each player infinite amounts of time, must logically have a time limit, regardless of that limit being verbally or non-verbally established.

That is really just very a basic logical implication, it's either 0 or 1, infinite time or finite time.

Verbal time limit is not a time limit imo as it is not governed by a clock and has no precise cut off point , it is just an agreement to not take too long that is all it is an agreement , not time control , time control absolutely without question must have time involved , hence the name 'Time " !

I have had games with no clock to keep time , but trying not to take too long , and usually ends up at 20 to 30 minutes , but I have had one game a while back with the same friend that went for a record 4 hours , so this verbal agreement is hardly time control by any stretch of the imagination , time controls stops at a very specific time down to the second , whether it is a 3 day or 5 minutes.

Here is another way to clearly define the difference , you can not lose on time in an agreed game with no time , there really is no debate here time is time and losing on time define it

Look, it's a simple logical exercise.

There is either infinite time or finite time, there can be nothing in between.

Two players either have no time limit, hence infinite time to make a move or the opposite, which means a time limit and thus finite time to make a move.

There really is no argument here, because it's logically irrefutable. 

Yes exactly