IM Greg Shahade: "Slow Chess should die a fast death"!

How to attract and find sponsors is the real issue.Nobody gives a rat's @$$ about the spectators.

Isn't attracting spectators a significant means of attracting sponsors?

He wasn't one of the few advocating the removal of classical chess. He was simply having a discussion with me about why FIDE online arena might be perfect for him since he can't sit in a chair for 1+ hours anymore.

It's not about "eliminating classical chess".  There won't ever be laws against playing at slower time controls.  It's about trying to make chess more viable commercially, more fun for its players, and more interesting to watch instead of watching both players stare at the board for 10 minutes between every move.  The argument about playing strength makes no sense to me.  If all people cared about was playing strength, wouldn't they just watch Komodo vs. Houdini (or the equivalent)?  We want to see high level games, but so few people can even tell the difference between a high level rapid game and a high level standard game that it doesn't seem like a logical argument for most people to make.  I also agree with Shahade that tournaments would seem much less intimidating for new players if the games weren't typically between 3-5 hours.  The USCF was struggling financially before the Sinquefield boom, and still has trouble breaking even and maintaining the status quo on its budget, and a large part of this is that new players are scared off by the idea of the typical weekend tournament: 12 hours of chess on Saturday, 8 hours on Sunday.  People will still play slow chess even if things change.  But I think one of the most important points that Shahade makes is that when people want to have fun, they play blitz, and when people want titles, money, or to be serious about improving, they play classical.  Think of Kasparov talking about how gruelling and physically taxing chess is and retiring around his 40th birthday - not to mention his famous quote "Chess is mental torture".  Chess should be enjoyable for all of its players.  

EDIT:  Also, for Reb, I agree that they need to speed up baseball...  Watching the batter step out, adjust his helmet, unstrap and restrap his batting gloves, etc after every pitch gets old fast.

"Chess should be fun,let's make chess enjoyable and be happy as dogs with two tails,yeaaaah!!!!

Very good, valid comments by both. But, I think, there needs to be some sort of tradeoff. Let's keep in mind that the whole issue is not only about optimal time control but also making chess more popular with the masses and bringing more MONEY into chess. Imagine how cool it would be if the crowds were cheering for their favorite chess player or their favorite chess team?!

Chess needs to be exciting and it can be. For those reasons shorter time controls like 1 hour per player may indeed turn out to be optimal. The time is enough for players to think, commentators provide analysis, and advertisers insert their ads and sponsor players. There's a lot of Money in sports industry but very little money in chess. Has anybody ever thought why all efforts of trying to popularize the game failed?

By the way, somebody mentioned that there are already shorter time control tournaments. From what remember reading, it was these events that attracted more spectators...

A good ads campaign + a short time control World Chess Championship that's well organized and televised will generate lots of views. By the way, it may be worthy to enlist other sports stars who would be commenting with GMs. There will be lots of beginner questions to be true but, these questions will be important to draw audience who knows next to nothing about chess.

Of course, there's also another point of view that perhaps it's better for chess to remain a fringe sport. But that, as they say, is an altoghether different story.

Sounds  like chess will replace religion as "the opium of the masses"...

Fair point. I agree that it will be much harder for players to play in Karpov style. Still possible but harder. But, think about it, what kind of chess is more attractive? The sacrificial one, of course! Even with inaccuracies the sacrifical chess is more attractive and inspiring - especially for those who are begining to learn more about the game.

Well, it's the 21st century here. I think we could all be better off if we are less religious and more intellectual yet open minded. Personally, I believe in God but I'd rather spend 2 hours playing chess than listening to a preacher. There had been so many scandals with lots of these 'moralists' that I, and many others, don't even wanna be associated with them. I think that in the Future most people will not need to attend a religious institutions and will keep their religious beliefs to themselves - meditation comes to mind (I, for example, do meditate by myself). Time can be used more efficiently. Playing or learning chess is but one example. Heck, even trolling might be better than listening to most of these old men, LOL!

To be honest I find accurate chess more attractive and inspiring than the kind of chess you mention.Hope you don't mind.

Slow chess is pure chess. I only play fast chess on the internet to avoid engine users, and even then its hard:

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1338573703

I had 2:43 left on the clock in a 3 minute game. But yeah this guy can beat GM Joey 4 games in a row.... right!

I don't understand why people want to speed up baseball, either. You want to replace extra innings by something quick?

It seems to me that people who want it to be *fast* don't really love the game. They just want to be entertained for a little while. Emphasis on *little*.

(Now, let's see the firestorm of protests *that* comment engenders!)

Mindwalk, it's not a question of replacing extra innings - extra innings are great.  It's a question of keeping the game moving by limiting the number of timeouts that a batter can take in an at-bat so that a 9 inning game doesn't stretch into a four hour ordeal, half of which doesn't even involve playing the game because the batter is repeatedly taking a 20 second time out after every pitch.  Not about not loving baseball, more about shortening the time between plays.

Is this an effect of the always-on-a-cellphone, always-have-to-be-doing-something, never-just-relax-and-be-at-ease culture we seem to be building?

No, it's not - just did some googling and came up with this graph on an article about how baseball is actually slowing down.  It's not about our perception or cell phones (whatever that has to do with it?), it is literally getting slower.  In other words, people 40 years ago who went to a 9 inning baseball game could expect to be there for, on average, a half hour less than a baseball game today.  The reason people are annoyed is not because they have short attention spans, it's because the extra time has nothing to do with baseball - longer commercial breaks, more delays, et cetera.  

This is like saying marathon running should die, we should only do 100m or 200m sprints. I mean, who's got time for a 3 - 4 hour marathon, right? Yet millions of people still do it. Some athletes are good with sprints, others are good at marathons, some can even do both. He's entitled to his opinion, and should therefore stick to fast chess if he prefers that, but leave slow chess for the people who still enjoys that. It's two different disciplines for different types of people.

slow chess is boring, everybody knows that, it´s not  a secret,  for Magnus Carlsen is only a work,  that´s why these guys are still playing  slow chess.  

Slow chess is the past of chess ,  the future is in rapid chess.  If we want to watch it in  TV     then rapid chess is a requirement,  slow chess is good to sleep but no to watch it  with popcorns. 

renatonel   has not to dissapear,   the real problem is you can not be a GM with only rapid chess, you need to play slow chess zzzz and then pay to the fide mafia  the title which you won over the board.   That´s the real problem, and it´s not fair, slow chess is boring , i´ts  scientifically proven .     

People are asking for new  serious  world championships  in rapid chess,  50 or 60 games instead of 11. 

If you are good in slow chess you have to be good in rapid chess too ,   this is also scientifically proven.   You can see Hikaru and Magnus in the top 1-3 in the three ways.

hell im 2000 USCF which is pretty crappy and i still get bored of classical time controls.

My blitz would probably be much higher if there were more blitz events in the area. 

And even at chess clubs, playing super long time controls with extra delays is completely unnecessary. Most chess clubs are on weekdays, which means i will more than likely have a mandatory meeting at work early in the morning.

What am i going to tell my boss?

"Sorry sir i was busy pushing around pieces of plastic yesterday night and had to miss the meeting"?

that'll get me a one way trip to the unemployment office.

i´m completely sure if another creature in universe  more evolved than humans are playing chess right now,  i´m sure they are playing their "world " championships in rapid chess or even in bullet.   ¿ Why ?  Because everytings tens to speed.