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

I think it's terrible the challenger has to hit big home runs out of the park early if he loses just 1 or 2 games against Carlsen he has very little wiggle room to come back it's unforgiving at the end it's like that's it ? his opponent was just getting started come on.

Take a look at some of the games from the World Rapid Championships that took place last month:

And take a look at this great endgame played between Carlsen and Ivanchuk!

Imagine, having a world championship match that's the best of 50! That's not dumbing things down.

(#43) Case closed.

Wait just a second there. Maybe FIDE is wrong here....or are they infallible ?

Smyslov fan your arguments are not especially convincing..Nobody proposed a best of 50 final and yes,there are quality rapid games out there.

While I don't agree with rapid chess replacing slow chess as a standard, arriving at this conclusion because of anything FIDE does or says is certainly not a "case closed" situation.

FIDE is a joke.

"Meanwhile you get to play a large volume of chess games. A four day tournament could be sixteen games. A super tournament between the top players in the world could be 36 games instead of just 9. A world championship match could easily be something like 50-60 games. In fact speeding up the time control and including more individual games would actually drastically reduce the amount of luck/variance that occurs in one single chess event, and you would get to enjoy more chess games."

~Greg Shahade https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/slow-chess-should-die-a-fast-death/

Hold the phone. That sounds exciting. Why can we not have both types of championships, slow and rapid, with the latter being an extended series? I am not familiar with rapid championships--I know that such already exist, but not how they are formatted. A long series for rapid Chess could offer the same dramatic build-up that so many appreciate.

This is how IM Shahade responds to the complaint about the quality of chess:

1. If chess games are too fast, then players will play so much worse: Every single top 10 player in the world will play just as strong, if not stronger, as the first 5+ world champions if the time control was 30+5. Do you know how freaking good Magnus Carlsen is? Do you realize how good he is even with 30 minutes for the entire game? He’s certainly still 2700 FIDE+, it’s just a question of where he would fall in that range. He would absolutely demolish someone like Alekhine even giving 2 hours to 30 minute odds. I suspect the average true strength of play would drop by about 100 FIDE points, but I am so happy to sacrifice 100 points of skill for a game that takes 20% as long and allows you to actually enjoy yourself and relax at a chess tournament. Many of the deep and interesting combinations that you see in top level tournaments, would also have been played in rapid games.

https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/slow-chess-should-die-a-fast-death/

As black you resign after 1Nf3 or 1g3 ? That's awesome!!

I don't think that quality is a problem, but why would you want to erase classical chess ? Why not have both co-exist. People who are into rapid chess can play rapid chess, and people happy with slow chess go with slow chess.

IMO, sitting and watching GM's play a standard time control game of 40/2 is entertaining.  You can sit there, analyze, figure out what move will be made, and have a nice quiet whospered conversation on what is oging on.  

Faster time controls are fine, and they have a place in chess.  But they shouldnt replace longer time controls.  If you dont have the patience to sit down and play for 5+ hours then the game isnt for you.  

Okay everyone. Think about it. FIDE doesn't officially recognize (blitz) the most popular form of chess on the planet - by far ?

Do you wanna watch your chia pet's afro grow (slow chess) or what's in your wallet ?

Maybe there's something wrong with FIDE and not with us ? And if so, then why are they doing this to us ?....it all seems so totalitarian. 

I actually think quality is the problem.I think if you ask the top players they will all tell you that only Classical chess is high quality chess.

....then the game isnt for you.

Whoa....wait a second....they're two completely different games !

And maybe that's why FIDE has taken the high road on us.

I really appreciate all these comments, especially from those who disagree without being disagreeable!

speed, blitz, bullet, long chess can all coexist.  There is no need to have any discussion on why longer time controls need to go away.  What i meant by ..."then the game isnt for you" is if youre just into chess for fun, entertainment, passing the time, etc.  then the faster time controls are the way to go, but if youre into chess for something more serious, then longer time controls are needed.

In response to the OP, Shahade has the right to his opinion.  However, to say that slow chess should die because he doesn't like it?  He can go f himself if he really believes that.

Oh, and your 30+5 proposition, if you mean "+5 Minutes per move", fine!  Otherwise, shut up and go play your stupid internet chess little Greggy boy!

Have there been studies on the quality of chess at different time controls?

I think I play better in a slow time control -- I certainly don't feel as pressured. But I also know I rehash my analysis a lot, so I'm not sure it adds up to better.

Though I'm thinking here of 1-2 hour games vs 3-4 hour games. Blitz is a different beast. I know I don't play nearly so well there.

"I couldn't remember what to play here,but in a rapid game you shouldn't worry too much about minor details",Vishy Anand from his book "my best games of chess".(out of 57 annotated games only one is rapid.The rest are classical.Wonder why...)