I agree Martin, I have a hard enough time even if I do play with long time controls. However so many want speed chess now, I see it happening.
I never could play speed chess. It ruins it for me personally. It like cheapens it.
IM Greg Shahade: "Slow Chess should die a fast death"!
Sort:
Sleeplessinmuskogee wrote:
Even the NFL and FIFA would hardly make a dime without corporate sponsors. No sponsors means the price to participate in tournaments must go up, chess becomes a rich man's sport and less popular than ever.
NFL & FIFA makes lots of mullah compared to FIDE. And they make money because people are interested in their product. Hardcore followers will always be few and far. Most people would be looking for some good time. If there is something more entertaining, then they will move on to that. People are interested in it because its short and entertaining. So, all rich games and sports make an effort to keep it entertaining as they know that their riches are dependent on popularity. On the other hand, Chess community seems to have an elitist snobbery of trying to keep chess boring and away from mass popularity. Its as if some people are attracted to chess because its not popular with masses and they want to keep it that way by making it as boring as it can be.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Sep 12, 2016
0
#785
No one is forced to play long time control tournaments. There are also blitz tournaments and e.g. G/60 tournaments.
And yes, I've played casual OTB games 3-4 hours... usually they can't be so long though because one of us would have to go so we'd have to end the game early... but we'd usually play 1 game for a few hours, then analyze that 1 game for and hour.
0110001101101000 wrote:
No one is forced to play long time control tournaments. There are also blitz tournaments and e.g. G/60 tournaments.
And yes, I've played casual OTB games 3-4 hours... usually they can't be so long though because one of us would have to go so we'd have to end the game early... but we'd usually play 1 game for a few hours, then analyze that 1 game for and hour.
So, you agree that no one would play a 4-6 hr game if it were not forced artificially by FIDE? Normally, people would play for 1-2 hr. 3 hrs if they were really into it and even that would be rare. The only reason anyone plays a single chess game for 4-6 hrs is because of FIDE regulations.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#787
I wish time controls were even longer. I wish it were like the days with adjournments and games would last multiple days. So you're wrong, I would play 4-6 hours, I would also play even longer. It's really a pity how much the endgame is neglected in faster time controls.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#788
The few games I have played that lasted 5 hours I really enjoyed.
0110001101101000 wrote:
I wish time controls were even longer. I wish it were like the days with adjudication and games would last multiple days. So you're wrong, I would play 4-6 hours, I would also play even longer. It's really a pity how much the endgame is neglected in faster time controls.
yea, it would be even better if the game would never end. The player that dies first will lose.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#790
Ashvapathi wrote:
Ok, let me ask a hypothetical question: if FIDE completely stopped 4-6 hr classical format and only played rapid games, do you think people will still continue to play that format anywhere else regularly?
Bullet, blitz, rapid & even correspondence games are popular among chess players. People play them in non-FIDE games. I suspect that classical format games are played only and only in tournaments(or in preparation for tournaments) due to FIDE regulations. So, that means that this insanely long classical format has been kept alive artificially by the chess authorities. So forget about the common people, even chess players wouldn't be playing this long classical format if FIDE didn't force it down their throats.
If the demand was there for only fast time controls, then the majority of events would be the fast time controls. Instead. what you see is the faster time controls normally get added to longer tourneys as side-events. At least in the US that is true.
I run rated tournaments and play in them. While I enjoy some blitz and rapid, as I mentioned, I prefer longer games. G/60 at a minimum. G/90+30 is a nice TC for me and I like G/120,d5 too. No one is forcing organizers to hold long time control events.
Martin Stahl,
the longer formats are being pushed even as they are less popularfor some dogmatic reasons. Thats why I gave the example of test matches in cricket. It is the same situation in that game as well. No one watches Test matches and they are dying a slow death. The authorities are trying to keep it alive by increasing their number. It is an artificial ventilation. But, the situation in chess is worse because cricket has some shorter format leagues which make quiet a lot of money as they are very popular. I don't think chess has any such shorter format leagues which are popular and make money. Because the shorter formats are treated as side events and not given the priority and they are not popularized. So, the short formats that have the potential to make money and popularize the chess are relegated to sidelines while long format gets the centrestage in chess even though it severely limits the game's popularity(and thereby slowly killing the game).
Sep 13, 2016
0
#792
Again, if no one wants to play longer time control events, then there would be very few of them. If there is more demand for fast events, then someone will step up and run them. There is a demand, since people play in them, but that demand is not replacing the longer events; it is supplementing them.
There are also rapid and blitz only events. It is a free market and if your supposition is right you would expect there to be organizers stepping up to reap the rewards of all the sponsors and new players that are going to step in and make chess more popular. It isn't happening because chess just isn't that popular overall.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#793
What might help popularity is if no one needed a paid membership to play rated chess. Get rid of that hurdle and you might see an increase in players.
why
hi everybody
Sep 13, 2016
0
#796
I don't think you have much experience with amateur chess Ashvapathi. Clubs are all over the place with shorter time control tournaments. Organizers need players to fund these events, so they will use whatever time control is popular among the players.
In fact in my experience organizers dislike long time controls because it's harder to predict when all the games will be finished for a round.
my opinion is, I love chess just the way it is
Ashvapathi wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"If you take any activity and extend it to 4-6 hrs. It will become boring."
Um, well, not necessarily if the person really enjoys the activity. People can have huge amounts of stamina when it comes to something they enjoy. Tennis commentators don't mind watching 4-5 hour matches, in fact they crave it, in fact, I crave it. Anyway, when it comes to chess, it's extending the game that long that makes it so interesting. I can actually wonder about all the little details of a position that I would have to skip over in a rapid or blitz game. That's what blitz is often like to me. I skip over lots of very interesting features going on because I have to focus on the priorities. But I do that because I have to, not because I want to. And because I skipped so many interesting features of the position, logically enough I find the game much less interesting.
In Tennis, 4+ hr game is an exception, not a norm. And since its an exception, it generated interest. But, if you make every tennis game last for 4+ hrs, you can be sure that tennis will be as popular with people as chess right now is. Infact, chess has been able to withstand this nonsensical format because of its intrinsic beauty and accessibility to people.
Two huge disagreements I have with that. Number one, no, I think the complete opposite would be the case with tennis. That would be heaven for many tennis fans. Anytime a men's match is about to end quickly for example, they will loudly cheer on the other guy most of the time, even if they don't want him to win! They just want a match.
Number two, it's interesting that you mention beauty. That's precisely what you risk being taken away when you play time controls so fast. Cheap tricks will become the norm, rather than genuinely brilliant concepts.
Ashvapathi wrote:
Sleeplessinmuskogee wrote:
Even the NFL and FIFA would hardly make a dime without corporate sponsors. No sponsors means the price to participate in tournaments must go up, chess becomes a rich man's sport and less popular than ever.
NFL & FIFA makes lots of mullah compared to FIDE. And they make money because people are interested in their product. Hardcore followers will always be few and far. Most people would be looking for some good time. If there is something more entertaining, then they will move on to that. People are interested in it because its short and entertaining. So, all rich games and sports make an effort to keep it entertaining as they know that their riches are dependent on popularity. On the other hand, Chess community seems to have an elitist snobbery of trying to keep chess boring and away from mass popularity. Its as if some people are attracted to chess because its not popular with masses and they want to keep it that way by making it as boring as it can be.
You just can't compare chess to the NFL or NBA. They are way too different. And, yes, different enough that you can't just do a few marketing schemes to suddenly make watching chess like watching basketball. I don't see why you think that's realistic. You've played chess before, right? You should be able to understand just how different chess is from basketball.
And you're jumping to a wrong conclusion when it comes to "snobbery." No, I would prefer it if chess was popular. But I also value integrity. It would be great if chess was both popular, and didn't have to change. But if I had to pick one, I would pick it not changing. Because that's important to me. When you take away too much of the beauty of chess, that's important to me. I'm sorry.
Ok, let me ask a hypothetical question: if FIDE completely stopped 4-6 hr classical format and only played rapid games, do you think people will still continue to play that format anywhere else regularly?
Bullet, blitz, rapid & even correspondence games are popular among chess players. People play them in non-FIDE games. I suspect that classical format games are played only and only in tournaments(or in preparation for tournaments) due to FIDE regulations. So, that means that this insanely long classical format has been kept alive artificially by the chess authorities. So forget about the common people, even chess players wouldn't be playing this long classical format if FIDE didn't force it down their throats.