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

So because binary doesn't want to die during the game, he is wrong to enjoy playing for 5 hours? Or some messed up troll analogy logic like that?

Just simply take a look at longer games and rapid/blitz whatever and compare them. Even from the same players, you'll see a HUGE difference in the quality of their play.

Why on Earth would anyone want faster games in exchange for their quality?

Why would you want to market chess? The fun isn't in actually watching two players blitz moves out as fast as they can, it's the analysis AFTER the game.

And when you go over the games, you'll realise how incredibly rich slow games are.

You don't see blitz games in books or lessons. There's a reason for that.

They are going that way for better, or worse. It won't affect me, because I really don't play anymore, however, I could never play speed chess effectively. It will become more commerialized as well. Its coming. Be careful for what you wish for is all I can say. You just might get it, and they will.

Yeah, imagine a bunch of post mortems where all you hear is "I don't know if this was good, but it's blitz, haha" five times a minute. Yeah. That's what the viewers want to see.

I've watched Kasparov's ultimate blitz challenge against Nakamura, So, and Caruana, and while it was fun to watch it, I admit it, the analysis was complete garbage.
Most of the time the computer didn't even register the moves correctly, and the commentators didn't even know what was going on (thanks to the awful camera placements) until the games were over and they reconstructed the games from the digital board's memory.

It was absolutely madness, the commentators checking a sideline while the games is already five moves past the position we see. And the cameras are pointing at Kasparov's nosehair, yeah I want to see that when I'm trying to enjoy the games.
Quick cuts to their hands, their fingers as they press the clock, how they adjust their ties, I mean come the heck on, is this really what you guys want?

 Chess is fundamentally different from spectator sports in that good and bad play is not intuitive. In ball sports, even someone who doesn't know the rules can appreciate an athlete who runs faster, jumps higher, and puts the ball into the goal. Chess is nothing like that. The joy in chess is in playing and analysis. It's a mistake to try to make it entertainment, and it's a mistake to diminish this joy by cheapening the play.

I agree I love the analysis by GM's The Sinquefield cup this year was fantastic, I didn't even bother on the speed chess portion after the regular tournament. Many of the games on this site is speed, or blitz, I don't bother even trying to listen to them. Even when Magnus was playing it.

Rapid chess played by grandmasters would make a great live spectator game and 30+5 is perhaps a good control for that. Blitz is too fast to see what is happening.

The concept of the televised "Master Game" series was to have a slow chess game then replay it to the public with the players giving "live" comments on their moves. They did however bring in rapid time controls for "replays" when it was a knockout tournament, and also the time controls were short after the first 40 moves.

I would like to see more rapid chess, I wish I could watch rapid games between masters and grandmasters on chess.com, all I see is 3 minute chess which is too fast for me to follow properly.

Of course the difference between watching "live" and watching highlights is that in highlights one can pause and look at the interesting moments, and also if it's a round robin tournament one can pick the best games to show.

Most spectators would probably want to watch a game where someone won than a drawn game. Of course you can't arrange that if broadcasting a live game, but if you are showing highlights of a round robin, it's very likely that some of the games were won-lost rather than them all being drawn.

I think part of the "fear", is that at a slow time control, with the quality of the modern chess player, you are just going to see "totally perfect" chess and that will end up as a dead draw. Perfect isn't always beautiful.

True. But, I think you are underestimating the problems caused by longer formats.

Ok, let me list them out:

- games are boring and end in draw: An avg chess game is about 40-50 moves. 4-6 hr game means that a player gets about 3 minutes per move. If you add both sides per move, its about 6 minutes. If you give 6 minutes to a player per move, there is a good chance that the game will end in draw unless one of the sides simply performs below par. Since most top level games end in a draw, they re-inforce the boring image of chess and audience stays away except some hardcore fans. The first contact that most people have is watching the games. Then, they go to playing it. Right now, the sheer boredom stops most people from ever trying out chess in the first place thinking that its just a very boring game. 

- time waste: unless people have a really lot of time on their hands. Its very difficult to play such a long games. So, only really serious players will play it and most probably they play long format only because they want FIDE ratings. Most normal people wouldn't have the time in their day-to-day lives to play such long format games in their local chess clubs or even online games.

- very less number of games per tournament: since each game takes a such a long time. The number of games are severely limited in every tournament affecting the overall marketability.

- low finances due to lack of popularity: this completes the cycle. Only the top most players make money out of chess. Most others have to play the game on their own expenses.

Basically, chess has been turned into a small market with some hardcore niche fans who don't want or don't care if chess becomes popular widely. These hardcore fans vouch for the 'beauty' of longer formats because its a way of showing that they somehow appreciate chess more than others. Some of them also seem to like the chess to remain unpopular to make themselves seem special. But, even these people(despite all their claims) when given a choice, prefer the bullet, blitz, and rapid as seen on online sites. As Greg Shahade points out when the players have a choice, they clearly prefer shorter formats at all levels on all sites. Now, they may not be demanding shorter formats due to the peer pressure or prejudice or inertia or whatever. But, the preference is clearly seen as players of all ratings play all kinds of formats except the 4-6 hr format.

The point I am trying to make is that these long formats have already shrunk the chess fanbase and playerbase to only a few people who vouch by this long format. Masses simply think that chess is some boring game that ends in a draw. Its a vicious cycle which causes the chess become poorer on the whole. Ideally, these longer formats with small niche audience should be sidelined and the shorter formats should be given the centrestage and promoted aggressively.

Finally, its not just chess, really long formats in other games have also suffered a similar fate. Thats why I gave the example of cricket test matches. The only exception that I can think of is golf. But, golf is totally an elite rich man's game and it makes no pretensions about it. I don't think chess is meant to be an elitist rich man's game.

"with some hardcore niche fans"

You mean chess players? Anyway, calling people hardcore and niche, that is, name calling, is a terrible argument. It's like downplaying a world champion by calling them "nerdy" instead of "brilliant."

"Some of them also seem to like the chess to remain unpopular to make themselves seem special."

I gave you the real reason (in my case), but thanks a lot for ignoring it, jerk.

I'm aware of why they want to go that way. However, I won't be following it.

I will just check you tube videos then, that are not speed, nor blitz.

I need to freaking practice more first before I play 😬😬😬

I need to freaking practice more first before I play 😬😬😬

Seriously, though. We have numerous sites, books printed each week, theory evolving, heck, we're even on a site with 15 million accounts. What more popularity do you want?
The account number on this site alone is greater then quite a few countries' whole population.

Really, what's here to change.

You seem to be confusing facts with your personal opinions and prejudices.  The slow game is alive, well and popular, even if Greg Schahade disapproves. 

Furthemore, the fact that "slow" chess exists does not prevent fans of chess at faster time limits from playing at the speed they prefer.

Seems to me that you are one of those people that would like to ban activities that they dislike, or even those for which they have no enthusiasm, because otherwise what wolud be the point of your long list of things that (according to you) are wrong with slow chess?

1. Where did you get that from? What fanbase has shrunk because of that?
2. Only a few people? You mean literally the tens of thousands who actually play in serious tournaments?
3. That's just your opinion, not the masses'.
4. That's again just your delusion. Give us numbers if you're so sure.
Because I'm certain that's just wrong and based on diddle doo nothing. 

I've never played a 4-6 hour game. Longest I've played is maybe 2 hours. All the same, there is something rather ugly in fast chess for me. Even in rapid, like 30|0. I can never calculate everything I want to calculate, and have to go by (usually faulty) intuition. I still enjoy it, but it doesn't feel clean, I suppose. I want to be able to really delve deep and think for 30 minutes on a single tricky move, and I like that chess is like that at the very top in most tournaments. Sure, they can play to a great standard in rapid and blitz, but you'll almost always get even better in the long games. While most people won't be able to sit in for the entire thing, I find much of the coverage of long games entirely engaging. They're always analysing potential variations, showing you what the players are calculating, explaining things. I'll admit that the most enjoyable stuff to watch has been the blitz battles, but I don't think that's a reason to make everything blitz. 

The masses may know what chess is but many don't know all the rules anyway. At the professional level there are a lot of draws, but at the amateur level, where most of the players are at that will play in most events, regardless of time control, decisive games are common.

Again, if there is a market and money to be made with quick chess, why hasn't it been done at a large scale? Where are the masses clamoring for this style of event? They don't exist and the money isn't there either .... or you would see it being marketed and being successful already.

You don't see them because you overestimate the appeal and market. For most people, chess is a game. A game that is very complex and one they are unwilling to spend significant time trying to get good at or spend a lot of money on.

Can chess grow? It absolutely can. It has happened in the past. The main difference today is that there is a lot of competition for people's attention and money, things that are more approachable and understandable. Shortening the time controls doesn't make chess easier to understand.

While we are about it, lets do awy with those boring 90 minute soccer games and play 5 minutes each way ... and replace all those stupidly long Olympic races with the 10 metre dash.

And while you are at it, play those soccer games with a 16 pound bowling ball and make the 10 meter dash be with bricks tied to your ankles and thumb tacks pointed upward cover the entire track and runners must run barefoot.

Long story short. Of you don't like the long game, quit chesd. Don't follow in Greg's footsteps and be a schmuck about it. Take up tic tac toe instead if you are ADHD and don't have the patience or interest in fighting it out over the course of 5 hours. Respect the players that actually enjoy the game. Dingbats that try to eliminate the game just because they don't like it and not letting those that do continue to enjoy it is just as bad as those clowns that smoke and think they have a right to do it wherever the F they please with no regard for the health of non smokers. Many of us are either asthmatics or have other forms of respitory issues, and many others simply don't want to inhale the disgusting sh*t you breathe out.

So all you people that want to discard the game, go shove it and join the cancer stick advocate with no regard for others because you are just as bad as them!