In pre-clock times many games, particularly those of strong masters, took MUCH longer to play than classic time-controls would allow. Morphy complained about the many hours he had to sit waiting for his opponents to move (probably because they couldn't find a way out of the attacks he launched). Some of Tal's brilliancies were found to be unsound upon later analysis. (But if the world's top players couldn't figure a way out even with plenty of time to calculate I say hooray for Mikhail.) The same thing applies to the "brilliancies" in today's top-level speed games--a player will have prepared a difficult line that his opponent can't counter with little time to think. These ploys wouldn't succeed in a classical game as they are often unsound. This is why you don't see blitz games included in collections of players' greatest games--they are of inferior quality. Why sacrifice the quality of play for flash and excitement? The elite players somehow seem to be able to outplay their opponents in classical time controls in order to win tournaments and matches. I would rather see the BEST chess rather than the most exciting. So would enough other chess devotees to keep classical chess the gold standard.
If classical chess's future is dubious how can we make classical chess more interesting?
@Reyansh: The quote button is fascinating, isn't it...
@Reyansh: The quote button is fascinating, isn't it...
Why does @Reyenesh2014 just keep quoting with nothing to respond with?
Tell me how many WCC games from the 20th century will be remembered? I’d put the over-under at 1 and take the under.
@Reyansh2014 and @whereknight both reported.
Why @whereknight I reported @Reyanish2014 but why @whereknight
@Reyansh2014 and @whereknight both reported.
Why @whereknight I reported @Reyanish2014 but why @whereknight
Post #81.
@Reyansh2014 and @whereknight both reported.
Why @whereknight I reported @Reyanish2014 but why @whereknight
Post #81.
good point
And how well has classical chess served famous grinders like Fabi, Ding, or Anish? They’ve dropped off the map.
Not sure who "us" is refering to... The chess community? As you can see here there are different opinions.
Well, I don't expect anyone to watch anything. But I don't necessarily believe that getting more viewers is more important than 125 years of chess culture, or than determining a world champion who is really the best player in the world.
That is not to say there is no place for twitch streamers. I have subscribed to Naka's channel.
And I actually like watching Blitz matches too, it is, indeed, more fun than slow chess. But I will not care about the results tomorrow, let alone in 50 years...
Do NOT spam and post too long in length and irrelevant content, please.
Chess.com is a friendly community! Please be on your best behavior as you interact with others. Failure to follow these rules may result in your comment being removed or the account closed.
What are the rules of behavior for Live Chess?
- Be kind: Treat others how you would like to be treated; they are human like you.
- Be helpful: Build others up, don't tear them down; everyone has needs.
- Be forgiving: Everyone has bad days and we aren't always on our best behavior; give everyone the patience and tolerance you would want.
- Be tolerant: Other people have opinions
Thank you so much for your help in keeping Chess.com a pleasant place to be!
AbuseReport
And how well has classical chess served famous grinders like Fabi, Ding, or Anish? They’ve dropped off the map.
Oh really? Since when?
And isn't Magnus considered to be an endgame grinder?
Wow, I just found out the future of classical chess is dubious. Hundreds of years down the tubes 
As Magnus Carlsen said that the future of classical chess is dubious.
Capablanca said something pretty similar.
The game is much bigger than any players opinion imo, even if that player is the best in the world. Kasparov used to make all kinds of pronoucements about what was going to happen to chess.
Watching streamers play, or watching slow classical chess, there's room for all of it.
And how well has classical chess served famous grinders like Fabi, Ding, or Anish? They’ve dropped off the map.
Oh really? Since when?
And isn't Magnus considered to be an endgame grinder?
Ya. Last time I checked, Anish won the MrDodgy Invitational, Came 2nd in Chessable Masters, and 3rd in Legends of Chess. He qualified to the quarterfinals of the Skilling Open and was still able to play some wonderful chess in the Airthing Masters. Fabi came second in Clutch Chess, came second in U.S clutch chess, would have played the U.S championship if candidates had been rescheduled earlier, and had decent results in the MC chess tour. Ding Liren has to stay awake until 4:00, which is never healthy. Even then, he still has had some nice matches and games. He also did really good in Danzhou, as well as Anish.
My take is that they simply have to encourage players to win more. Much like the others, I think a win with white should be 3 points, win with black 3.5, loss zero, and draw 1. If players play out of their skins, they get more points.
And the Dubov-karjakin game was classical, not rapid. Thank you for helping my point.
Thirty years ago the international football (soccer to Americans) became convinced that defensive strategies had become too sophisticated and effective, leading to too many dull games as inferior teams could fall back into a "shell" and hold on for a draw. Their solution was to change the win=two points, draw=one point on the standings table to win=three points, draw=one point, making a win and a loss worth more in the final standings than two draws. If FIDE did the same thing it would incentivize players to go for the win. This wouldn't keep NikkiLikeChikki and her ilk from being bored by long games, but I would suggest they wait until the games have been analyzed and published--then there would be no difference.
And how well has classical chess served famous grinders like Fabi, Ding, or Anish? They’ve dropped off the map.