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

My humble opinion is fast chess is more for casual players who don't want to spend a lot of time over a chess board. After all i think chess is still the thinking mans game and not as much as for the nimble and fast with their hands. Its only possible to work out a very quick sequence of moves if one has already some familiarity with a prepared or familiar line, but for someone who is just working on his skills, its too discouraging or daunting to keep on losing because you fed your pieces including your king unwittingly or by the slip of the mouse or fingers.

Even if Shahade's argument makes some sense, it totally falls apart at the amateur level. No one can improve without slow chess. They just have no time to think and notice what they're doing wrong that they can reasonably fix in 30+5. The glaring flaw in Shahade's whole thing is that people love classical chess, because it is the only place that you can really unlearn some things and learn others.

And if Shahade doesn't want to grind out 10-hour days, he doesn't have to. He can do that however often he wants. That's no excuse for fixing something that isn't broken.

Rapid chess is a different game from slow chess and blitz chess.

I'm sure  SmyslovFan is correct that now FIDE handles official blitz and rapid chess ratings, IMs and GMs will play more and more official games at those time controls. The chess world will get more experience with elite players playing one-hour-plus games. Conceivably there could be a movement towards rapid chess.

It's still hard for me to imagine rapid chess supplanting slow chess. Aside from tradition, the main virtue of slow chess is that it provides the roughly optimum time control for humans to play their best chess in a single sitting.  That's what many of us want for ourselves and for professional players.

slower time controls should not die, just because most poeple don't have patience to play slower time controls. I know that thw world wants everything instant. I think one of the beauty of chess slow to reasonable time controls  90/10 is not that slow when you are playing over the board. I prefer 45/45.  I think rapid play something like 25/10 is good.

I've found Shahade's USCF articles good. Here's one: http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11614/675

Shahade is an IM who has also founded US Chess League and US Chess School, and teaches private students.

https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/about/

IMO Shahade has more credibility than most to speak out on the larger issues of chess.

Slow chess should never ever die, especially not getting sacrificed for the sake of more popularity or for entertainment value.

True chess is slow chess. You don't find 'immortal games' and other gems in blitz or even in rapid.
You don't find fast games in books, they don't add to theory, they're not remembered or analysed for generations to come.

True chess is slow chess.
I'd rather keep the number of the audience the way it is now, because this audience truly understands chess and admires it for what it is.

Let's say tv channels would start broadcasting bullet or blitz games regularly, pulling more people in. 
What would that say about chess?

This new wave would only understand fast chess. They wouldn't apprecieate the artistic beauty of long games that simply don't happen in fast time controls.

The whole picture of chess would change dramatically.

We still can express our opinions, can we not?

Of course, but that doesn't make all opinions equal.

Just because Shahade is an IM, doesn't mean what he says or proposes is a good idea.

I defend Shahade even though I disagree with him because I do consider him a serious player and teacher making an interesting proposal which he supports well, though not so persuasively that I agree.

I don't get the constant barrage of attacks Shahade has received here to the effect he is a know-nothing fool who just wants chess faster because he is superficial and doesn't understand chess.

Maybe because he was really being a jerk himself.

I have no objection to people's creating blitz tournaments, rapid tournaments, and whatever other time control tournaments they want to.

I do have an objection to people's eliminating slow play tournaments and turning slow play tournaments into fast play tournaments.

What is needed is top notch commentary to make tournaments more appealing.  Great commentators are few and far between.  The best are people like Seriwan who pitches at a level and a pace that warms you to the game, GM Daniel King is another great commentator. The worst are GM's who simply look at a series of plausible continuations, subject them to falsification and essentially explain nothing about the position at hand. Its not the fault of slow chess, its the way its being presented.

Bullet or Speed chess is for the 'instant gratification' generation;  Might as well pull out an old machine and play Ms PacMan. 

INDEED

First, Shahade is recommending rapid chess -- 30+5 time control -- not bullet or blitz.

Second, blitz has been around since chess clocks and many of the greats played huge amounts of blitz, Fischer particularly. 

Fischer once bumped his plane reservation a day so he could stay up all night playing blitz with Tal.

Rapid still ruin the quality of the game.

Thanks for saying this so boldly, Greg Shahade. Its crazy to see people defending this awful and idiotic long time controls that are so boring that they literally kill the game and its following. And if so much time is given, no wonder that most games end in draw. If long time controls are so nice, why don’t they play a single game for entire year and see what happens!
This long format was invented and suited for 1850-1920 when everything was much more slow. Its definitely not relevant in today’s day and age. Let me give a similar example from another game: Cricket. Cricket has test matches which runs for 5 days. Yep, a single game actually goes on for full 5 days(originally it was supposed to go on for a whole week). These are the kind of formats that were invented during 1850-1920. The whole point of such formats is to waste time because they seem to have a lot of time on their hands or they don’t have much entertainment options. So, people had lot of idle time on their hands to waste with no good entertainment options. So, its understandable that they invented such long time controls. But, today, people have lot of entertainment options and not enough time. So, no one is interested in long and boring formats. Just like classical chess format, no one wants to watch test cricket and its dying. But for some strange reason, authorities and players keep wanting to keep test cricket alive. Test cricket also has its fanatic defenders who just don't want to accept that the format is not relevant anymore. But, atleast in cricket, there are other formats(shorter formats) which have good following(and earn money) to keep the long and boring tests alive. At least, they should do the same in chess as well. Rapid chess has the potential to be really popular(and great money spinner for players and coaches) which can keep these boring classical chess games alive. Otherwise, chess is headed for a demise sooner than later. Already, chess has an image of being boring and nerdy game. Who has the time or patience or interest to watch a game for 4-6 hrs? Even a hardcore follower is not going to follow many games. Chess needs to be made TV friendly by prioritizing the rapid formats. It has a potential to be immensely popular. Its so sad to see that such a nice game being ruined by an idiotic format. I completely agree with you that the only reason anyone would want to play a single chess game for 4-6 hrs is if they are forced to do it. Voluntarily, they would play a chess game for 60-90 minutes max.

Well, long chess is relevant to me, an actual chess player.