Blitz is how chess is supposed to be played normally. I can understand people wanting to play long format chess once in a while. But, it is not something for everyday use. Who has the time or patience to play slow games regularly? Maybe rapid games can be played once or twice a week. And truth be told, it's not even fun(compared to blitz) to play them regularly. Maybe old people prefer slow games... which is understandable. But even old people will play rapid. No one plays classical time control when given a choice. As for championships, they should just abandon classical format and shift to some kind of rapid format(like 30 min + 15 sec increment). With a 15 sec increment, flagging would become pretty difficult. An avg game would take about 80 min to 120 min. And thus, it would be viewer friendly. Classical format(3 - 5 hrs) is just not viewer friendly. And therefore chess is forced to depend on donations and charity. Slow chess should die a fast death to save chess.
For anyone who enjoys blitz chess: I'll never understand you.
You know you have won the discussion when the person your discussing with ignores your comment and talks about spelling.
Anyway English isn't my forte and I'm using a tiny apple device so I guess two or so mistakes can be forgiven?
You know you have won the discussion when the person your discussing with ignores your comment and talks about spelling.
Anyway English isn't my forte and I'm using a tiny apple device so I guess two or so mistakes can be forgiven?
You are a shame for the motherland comrade.
You are right that the games may not be as nice to look at under analysis. I was just making the point that if you enjoy the act of playing chess, all the same principles are at play during a blitz game with less emphasis on calculation and more on intuition. You are still trying to outmaneuver and tactically outwit your opponent. Also if you enjoy the romantic games of Morphy or Anderssen then blitz allows you the opportunity to play in that manner moreso than a classical game would. That is the appeal of blitz to me. It comes from playing the games not from analyzing them.
Blitz is how chess is supposed to be played normally. I can understand people wanting to play long format chess once in a while. But, it is not something for everyday use. Who has the time or patience to play slow games regularly? Maybe rapid games can be played once or twice a week. And truth be told, it's not even fun(compared to blitz) to play them regularly. Maybe old people prefer slow games... which is understandable. But even old people will play rapid. No one plays classical time control when given a choice. As for championships, they should just abandon classical format and shift to some kind of rapid format(like 30 min + 15 sec increment). With a 15 sec increment, flagging would become pretty difficult. An avg game would take about 80 min to 120 min. And thus, it would be viewer friendly. Classical format(3 - 5 hrs) is just not viewer friendly. And therefore chess is forced to depend on donations and charity. Slow chess should die a fast death to save chess.
Your appeal is not to the brain but to something quite a bit lower, the adrenal glands. The implementation of your ideas would entertain the spectators and obviously yourself with quick "fun," which as everyone knows is the highest level of human achievement.
Chess began in India, but the country should hang its head in shame to see what superficiality it has produced in the form of one Ashvapathi. Yes, India has the rightful claim to the invention of this 1,400 year old game of kings, and with your help India will also have the rightful claim of killing it.
You know you have won the discussion when the person your discussing with ignores your comment and talks about spelling.
Anyway English isn't my forte and I'm using a tiny apple device so I guess two or so mistakes can be forgiven?
And if you have to make excuses why you can't spell, then in this tit-for-tat you failed to look far enough ahead, which you are probably not used to doing with blitz and all.
I find blitz more fun because I have got used to playing fast. It also means that you don't have to calculate all the move and you can play in a more laid back manner. Especially in friendlies where you can just go for it.
You are right that the games may not be as nice to look at under analysis. I was just making the point that if you enjoy the act of playing chess, all the same principles are at play during a blitz game with less emphasis on calculation and more on intuition. You are still trying to outmaneuver and tactically outwit your opponent. Also if you enjoy the romantic games of Morphy or Anderssen then blitz allows you the opportunity to play in that manner moreso than a classical game would. That is the appeal of blitz to me. It comes from playing the games not from analyzing them.
I think that's a very fair and accurate assessment, Mr. Rao, and in the age of computer perfection the chance to play like "Morphy or Anderssen" is appealing. Unlike all the others posting here, you make a cogent argument for blitz.
For better or worse, I'm just the opposite of you for my attraction to chess is in analyzing games and not playing them. To use a fine arts analogy, my games are mere scrawls on the wall of a limestone cave, but to play and analyze the games of the greats is to view a Vermeer or a Van Gogh, a Dali or a Hopper for the first time.
To put it another way, playing "classical" chess -- I remember the days when you didn't have to quality the word chess with an adjective -- gets me a wee bit closer to the artistry present in the game, but for me and no doubt for most of us our play remains a scrawl.
Blitz is how chess is supposed to be played normally. I can understand people wanting to play long format chess once in a while. But, it is not something for everyday use. Who has the time or patience to play slow games regularly? Maybe rapid games can be played once or twice a week. And truth be told, it's not even fun(compared to blitz) to play them regularly. Maybe old people prefer slow games... which is understandable. But even old people will play rapid. No one plays classical time control when given a choice. As for championships, they should just abandon classical format and shift to some kind of rapid format(like 30 min + 15 sec increment). With a 15 sec increment, flagging would become pretty difficult. An avg game would take about 80 min to 120 min. And thus, it would be viewer friendly. Classical format(3 - 5 hrs) is just not viewer friendly. And therefore chess is forced to depend on donations and charity. Slow chess should die a fast death to save chess.
Your appeal is not to the brain but to something quite a bit lower, the adrenal glands. The implementation of your ideas would entertain the spectators and obviously yourself with quick "fun," which as everyone knows is the highest level of human achievement.
Chess began in India, but the country should hang its head in shame to see what superficiality it has produced in the form of one Ashvapathi. Yes, India has the rightful claim to the invention of this 1,400 year old game of kings, and with your help India will also have the rightful claim of killing it.
Are you being serious? lol
"But seriously, I can excuse speed chess as pure recreation, but not to decide some Classical Chess championship."
I'm with you Bob. If the WC match is tied after so many games, then the champion retains the title. That was how they did it before.
I think allowing speed games to determine the world championship is an abomination. Yeah, in the past if the match was tied after 24 games, the champion would retain the title and the challenger would get a rematch the next year. That was better than the current tie-break system. However, especially considering that nowadays the match is only 12 games (classical), I think it would be much better to add two games if the match is tied after 12 and then two more if it's still tied after 14, etc.
"But seriously, I can excuse speed chess as pure recreation, but not to decide some Classical Chess championship."
I'm with you Bob. If the WC match is tied after so many games, then the champion retains the title. That was how they did it before.
I think allowing speed games to determine the world championship is an abomination. Yeah, in the past if the match was tied after 24 games, the champion would retain the title and the challenger would get a rematch the next year. That was better than the current tie-break system. However, especially considering that nowadays the match is only 12 games (classical), I think it would be much better to add two games if the match is tied after 12 and then two more if it's still tied after 14, etc.
The WCC has been on a path toward trivialization for years due to FIDE President Ilyumzhinov and various monied interests. Fischer wanted 10 outright wins for his rematch in 1975; take a look at his letter to FIDE in 1974:
The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match. If the score is nine wins to nine wins, draws not counting, the champion retains title and the match is declared drawn with the money split equally. Versus the old system of the best of 24 games wins the match (12.5 points) and if 12-12 the match is drawn with the champion retaining the title and prize fund is split equally. Draws do count in this system.
The unlimited match favors the better player. This is the most important point, because in the limited game system the match outcome can turn on a very low number of wins, giving the weaker player a chance to "luck out." Also, in the limited game system the player who takes a game or two lead has an advantage out of all proportion. This creates an added element of chance. The player who wins the match should be the player who plays best over the long run, not the player who jumps off to an early lead.
Unfortunately, FIDE soured on even six outright wins after the aborted Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984. When Ilyumzhinov took over as FIDE President he took it the opposite direction with "knockout tournaments of short matches." Anyone remember Alexander Khalifman, WCC Champ in 1999, except as a writer? People were still following Kasparov's "Classical" Chess cycle.
Frankly, I don't know how many formats Ilyumzhinov has proposed over the years, but I have no doubt the sponsors like the shorter 12 game match with Rapid, then Blitz and eventually Armageddon if the draws keep on coming. They look at it as a sports match, and indeed that's what it has become.
As Mr. Rao has pointed out, shorter time controls favor the more intuitive player rather than the deeper thinker, but Magnus Carlsen has proven to the world he is both. We can be thankful for that, at least.
"But seriously, I can excuse speed chess as pure recreation, but not to decide some Classical Chess championship."
I'm with you Bob. If the WC match is tied after so many games, then the champion retains the title. That was how they did it before.
I think allowing speed games to determine the world championship is an abomination. Yeah, in the past if the match was tied after 24 games, the champion would retain the title and the challenger would get a rematch the next year. That was better than the current tie-break system. However, especially considering that nowadays the match is only 12 games (classical), I think it would be much better to add two games if the match is tied after 12 and then two more if it's still tied after 14, etc.
The WCC has been on a path toward trivialization for years due to FIDE President Ilyumzhinov and various monied interests. Fischer wanted 10 outright wins for his rematch in 1975; take a look at his letter to FIDE in 1974:
The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match. If the score is nine wins to nine wins, draws not counting, the champion retains title and the match is declared drawn with the money split equally. Versus the old system of the best of 24 games wins the match (12.5 points) and if 12-12 the match is drawn with the champion retaining the title and prize fund is split equally. Draws do count in this system.
The unlimited match favors the better player. This is the most important point, because in the limited game system the match outcome can turn on a very low number of wins, giving the weaker player a chance to "luck out." Also, in the limited game system the player who takes a game or two lead has an advantage out of all proportion. This creates an added element of chance. The player who wins the match should be the player who plays best over the long run, not the player who jumps off to an early lead.
Unfortunately, FIDE soured on even six outright wins after the aborted Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984. When Ilyumzhinov took over as FIDE President he took it other direction with "knockout tournaments of short matches." Anyone remember Alexander Khalifman, WCC Champ in 1999, except as a writer? People were still following Kasparov's "Classical" Chess cycle.
Frankly, I don't know how many formats Ilyumzhinov has proposed over the years, but I have no doubt the sponsors like the shorter 12 game match with Rapid, then Blitz and eventually Armageddon if the draws keep on coming. They look at it as a sports match, and indeed that's what it has become.
As Mr. Rao has pointed out, shorter time controls favor the more intuitive player rather than the deeper thinker, but Magnus Carlsen has proven to the world he is both. We can be thankful for that, at least.
I think Karpov was right when he said a world championship match to 10 wins was enough chess for a life time. My opinion...The format of the first to 6 wins was the most beneficial.
I don't intend to spend my time here insulting people, I simply want to discuss the topic at hand. Would you like to discuss that? If so, why not check my other comment rather then trying to undermine me? If not, why are you in this thread? You are literally proving my point by ignoring my topics of discussion and throwing bad shots at me. Seriously. If I was here to engage in this I'd go to off topic.
I didn't think a chess discussion was too much to ask. But obviously it was for some people, unless you would like to get back on topic?
I don't intend to spend my time here insulting people, I simply want to discuss the topic at hand. Would you like to discuss that? If so, why not check my other comment rather then trying to undermine me? If not, why are you in this thread? You are literally proving my point by ignoring my topics of discussion and throwing bad shots at me. Seriously. If I was here to engage in this I'd go to off topic.
I didn't think a chess discussion was too much to ask. But obviously it was for some people, unless you would like to get back on topic?
You wrote in Post #54 "It [speed chess] dosen't (sic) take away the asthetics (sic) of chess- that is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion" and I wrote in Post #39 "It seems to me chess, like many other activities, has followed the dictates of today's popular culture and gone from the intellectually aesthetic to the kinesthetic." (see kinesthetic learning)
So, what's to discuss? Never the twain shall meet. I'm not saying there isn't a separate aesthetic, an unusual beauty, to movement as in ballet or gymnastics, but that's not the primary aesthetic of chess, which lies with the conception and not the physical execution.
Due respect was given to Mr. Rao, and I concede his points on blitz, but read Post #80 because that's all I have to say on the matter.
Blitz players are typically young and immature. They don't take the game seriously so they play an extremely casual variant of chess that FIDE and the national associations don't even award any titles or acknowledgment whatsoever for.
There is a world Blitz and Rapid Championship: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=28&view=category
I hate blitz but play it on occasion 
...well, I hate losing in blitz to very stupid blunders and flag falls.
Blitz is how chess is supposed to be played normally. I can understand people wanting to play long format chess once in a while. But, it is not something for everyday use. Who has the time or patience to play slow games regularly? Maybe rapid games can be played once or twice a week. And truth be told, it's not even fun(compared to blitz) to play them regularly. Maybe old people prefer slow games... which is understandable. But even old people will play rapid. No one plays classical time control when given a choice. As for championships, they should just abandon classical format and shift to some kind of rapid format(like 30 min + 15 sec increment). With a 15 sec increment, flagging would become pretty difficult. An avg game would take about 80 min to 120 min. And thus, it would be viewer friendly. Classical format(3 - 5 hrs) is just not viewer friendly. And therefore chess is forced to depend on donations and charity. Slow chess should die a fast death to save chess.
Outstanding troll post, Greg Shahade. 10/10.
Well I'll be damned, CoffeeAnd420, I thought the same thing and didn't say it. I found Shahade's original article on "Slow chess should die a fast death" to be shallow in the extreme.
but blitz isn't really slop it in the pocket, there's a lot of skill. why does everything have to be an aesthetically pleasing endgame study?
There is a skill to everything, but a truncated one in blitz considering the long and storied history of the game. Now blindfold chess is a skill everyone can appreciate, and a blindfold blitz simul against three opponents is quite remarkable. Now that's talent! Watch it here.
Why would you appreciate blindfold chess? It is incongruous with your previous train of logic. It is also a needlessly handicapped form of chess where blunders abound at lower levels. Blitz chess emphasizes quicker tactical awareness and intuition while blindfold chess emphasizes visualization during the calculation process to a higher degree.
At least you're one of the few posters who can put up a decent argument for blitz. As I said in previous posts, speed chess is good for honing one's board vision, and by extension, one's tactical vision. Yes, intuition is involved if you are talking about pattern recognition that has been inculcated and is now intuitive. Of course, that's sort of playing by rote, isn't it?
Yes, I realize that pattern recognition is part of every form of chess and blindfold is no exception, but visualization and, to certain extent, strategic evaluation, is a vital part of blindfold. That's why I said blitz is a truncated form of chess; these qualities are grossly attenuated if not completely absent.
I don't know how you define strategic evaluation but it plays a very large role in blitz as well. Without adequate time to calculate concrete lines prior to ever move, determining what to do is often done primarily by a strategic evaluation of a position. The differences between blitz and classical chess arise from the lack of calculation. From my experience when I first began playing chess, I would also guess that individuals at the lower end of the rating scale don't have the ability to visualize and calculate with much accuracy for very many moves so giving them 1 hour instead of 10-15 minutes might not result in that much of a difference in playing strength.
Admittedly, I used the wrong expression; I should have written strategic planning rather than strategic evaluation. Sure, there are simple things like how can I make my worse placed piece better, but you would never see a game like Nimzowitsch's Immortal Zugzwang Game against Sämisch in blitz.