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

Sort:
Ashvapathi
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Ashvapathi wrote:

 

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.

 ...

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. 

 

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.

 

Well, Chess has to be promoted by Chess players and federations and clubs. And if they promote a boring format, then obviously people won't be interested. How can people clamour for a better format when they think that all chess is boring like the long format?

About the rules and understanding, it grows on people. No one starts off as a master of a game they are watching or playing. They start watching or playing it if its interesting. Then, they slowly learn it more and more.

Can chess grow? It absolutely can but not with the longer formats. People are obviously interested in chess(or for that matter any other good game). A classical format of 4-6 hrs game is meant to be a time-waster and only small number of people would be interested and afford to waste so much time on a single game. Players might still want to do it because they get a FIDE rating and feel that they have achieved a difficult task. But, for audience, most of those 4-6 hrs time is spent watching the players thinking. So, for spectators(live or TV or online) watching players think for 4-6 hrs is just not worth it. Neither movies, serials, TV shows, competitions, or games go on for 4-6 hrs every single time. If they did, then their fate would be similar: a small set of people vouching for it and making sure it remains unpopular.

 

Due to lack of money spinning chess format, chess as a whole remains impoverished(except the really top guys). And I think thats the reason for keeping entry fees in tournaments and paid rated games. Even if there was no entry fees, it would still cost money for the players and apart from time. So, all of it means that chess gets restricted to a small set of players who can afford the time and money. And it has no audience literally even though given how high profile it was. It should have a huge audience and people should be able to make lots of moolah to allow them to concentrate on their chess without worrying about other things. When people complaint about fall in quality due to shorter formats, they also should factor in the fall in quality due to lack of financial compensation for players in general. Chess is lucky to have lot of patronizers. It should be using this to create a permanent money spinning vehicle for itself.

 

Chess was at its height of popularity during the time of Fischer vs Spassky with all the cold war hype. Chess could have used that attention to gain a formidable market for itself. Instead, other lesser popular games of the time have become huge today. Chess was arguably bigger than cricket or football in 1970s. Today, cricket and football are huge. That means an average cricket player or football player can concentrate on his game as his finances are taken care of by the game. Meanwhile, chess is relegated to sidelines slowly. And its no rocket science to see why . I think the only reason is the really long format. It makes it unaffordable for players and uninteresting for the audience and unprofitable for federations.

VoltairesAssistant

ThrillerFan wrote:

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!

Well, that pretty much sums it all up.

Martin_Stahl
Ashvapathi wrote:

 

Well, Chess has to be promoted by Chess players and federations and clubs. And if they promote a boring format, then obviously people won't be interested. How can people clamour for a better format when they think that all chess is boring like the long format?

...

Can chess grow? It absolutely can but not with the longer formats. People are obviously interested in chess(or for that matter any other good game). A classical format of 4-6 hrs game is meant to be a time-waster and only small number of people would be interested and afford to waste so much time on a single game. Players might still want to do it because they get a FIDE rating and feel that they have achieved a difficult task. But, for audience, most of those 4-6 hrs time is spent watching the players thinking. So, for spectators(live or TV or online) watching players think for 4-6 hrs is just not worth it. Neither movies, serials, TV shows, competitions, or games go on for 4-6 hrs every single time. If they did, then their fate would be similar: a small set of people vouching for it and making sure it remains unpopular.

...

 

First, I can't speak to chess in your region. What I can say is about US chess and my area. 

 

Here, anyone can run any type of event. The federation doesn't push one time control over another. Organizers are free to run whatever they want and they have to run events that draw players.

 

The market is open. There are some organizations running events for profit. They run events with long time controls and side events for quicker times. Do you honestly think that if they could make more money with mainly quick events they wouldn't be doing it?

 

When I organize an event I have to balance a number of factors. Location costs, entry fees, time controls and number of rounds. I have some players that like faster time controls and some that won't play if it isn't longer. Some that want one-day events, some longer. You have to cater to the market and we are not going to suddenly create a bigger market by shifting to only fast time controls.

 

Your rating discussion really doesn't matter. Both FIDE and the USCF rate fast time controls. If you had argued titles, that would be a valid point.

 

Even if you found an infusion of funds and were able to offer free events, with fast time controls and cash prizes to the top finishers, I doubt you would see a lasting increase in players. Unless you were paying cash all the way down the rating bands.

 

But, feel free to prove us wrong. Go out and organize fast events and show everyone how it works. That is a perfectly valid option for anyone to try.

Ashvapathi

Martin Stahl,

It can't be done by small federations or organizers or players as they don't have the initial investments needed to promote the game at large scale and and then earn the profits later. It has to be done by the big federations(or FIDE) and top players. It takes considerable amount of money upfront to really earn profits later. And eyeballs are easy to attract by participation of big players. In all other games or events, this is the general case. And many big events depend on TV or online audience as their main money earners. Even though, such big events and games have huge live audience, they are considered pittance when compared to the revenue generated by TV & online audience. A rapid or blitz or bullet games with top players and FIDE involvement has the potential to be a huge money earner(and increase the popularity of chess in a jiffy) if they promote it aggressively with lots of glamour thrown in. Right now, they do it in a half-hearted way treating it as if its a small fry. I don't even think the games are broadcast when these rapid championships are held. If the rapid, blitz or bullet chess of top-level becomes generally popular and profitable, then the smaller federations will follow suit. But, these small federations and clubs cannot lead the way(atleast no in a big way). Even if some federation does it, it will remain insignificant overall.

 

About the titles: yea, the official titles only reinforce the idea that only classical chess rating matters and ratings and championships in other formats are irrelevant. So, the shorter formats(with potential to make the game popular and earn money) are disregarded and not promoted due to strange snobbery.

 

About the money and small players: its a trickle down effect. And the trickle down effect is seen through out a field. If there is lot of money at the top, then the quality increases for everyone in the field. If the money at the top itself is constrained, then it exponentially decreases as we go down the rating ladder or coaches(support system) or administrators ...etc. And that affects the quality as well.

Martin_Stahl
Ashvapathi wrote:

Martin Stahl,

It can't be done by small federations or organizers or players as they don't have the initial investments needed to promote the game at large scale and and then earn the profits later. It has to be done by the big federations(or FIDE) and top players. It takes considerable amount of money upfront to really earn profits later. And eyeballs are easy to attract by participation of big players. In all other games or events, this is the general case. And many big events depend on TV or online audience as their main money earners. Even though, such big events and games have huge live audience, they are considered pittance when compared to the revenue generated by TV & online audience. A rapid or blitz or bullet games with top players and FIDE involvement has the potential to be a huge money earner(and increase the popularity of chess in a jiffy) if they promote it aggressively with lots of glamour thrown in. Right now, they do it in a half-hearted way treating it as if its a small fry. I don't even think the games are broadcast when these rapid championships are held. If the rapid, blitz or bullet chess of top-level becomes generally popular and profitable, then the smaller federations will follow suit. But, these small federations and clubs cannot lead the way(atleast no in a big way). Even if some federation does it, it will remain insignificant overall.

 

...

 


FIDE doesn't really have the money to do it.

https://www.chess.com/news/view/is-fide-going-bankrupt-3846

 

The USCF, while not completely cash strapped, doesn't have the money to do it.

 

There is money to be made with chess. However, most of that money will remain focused at the top with the top players and in scholastics (and everything around that). There is money in holding tournaments too but the pool isn't as large as you believe.

 

This is becoming quite circular. If chess was as marketable and as growth ready as you think it is and it could be primed by fast events, it would have already happened. They already stream top games and events online. Lots of people watch it. There are eyeballs on the game and there are advertisers out there. People have been trying to make the game more mainstream and it hasn't caught on. Mainly because competitive chess isn't that attractive to as many people as you imagine.

 

Heck, I'm with you. I would love to see chess get more popular and see more people play OTB. I just really don't think dropping the time controls, as a default, will do it.

CrimsonKnight7

In my opinion, if they really want to improve the popularity of chess, one way that may help. Since it is mostly guys that play. Start sponsoring more women tournaments, and give them bigger prizes. There are numerous beautiful women players, and more guys will definitely tune in...That is just human nature. So therefore it will make chess more popular, and the real reason will be because of the increased participation of our wonderful women players.

This is not meant to be sexist, racist, nor offensive in any way, it is just stating a fact. Thats my opinion on how to increase popularity in chess, especially among males. If more women played, more men would definitely be more interested. Just human nature.

chesster3145

Not even maybe. Do you know why people get 3 minutes per move in serious tournaments? It's because they can't play a good, proper, hard-fought game of chess at 30+5. They're throwaway games, where below 2200-2400, both sides will make major mistakes and hardly calculate anything.

The reason classical chess is still going strong is that although it is tiring, it is the only way to play good games. Besides, the grind is part of the fun.

SmyslovFan

I have just read about 90 posts, and almost all of them miss a really obvious point:

Chess is already speeding up!

Twenty years ago, most tournament games were played a 40 moves in 150 minutes. The Olympiad that just finished was played at 40 moves in 90 minutes with 30 minutes for the rest of the game, plus 30 seconds increment per move. 

Twenty years ago, it was quite possible to play a 9 hour game that would be adjourned two or even three times. I know, I played such a game. Now, all games are played in a single sitting and few games last more than four hours. Today, we can predict how long the longest game in a round will last, and there are no adjournments. That's a great achievement!

Chess is already speeding up. Greg Shahade is suggesting this is a good thing, and chess should continue to speed up. He's not recommending bullet chess, he's saying the ideal time control should be less than two hours total time. I personally like the three to four hour game. But I agree with his assessment that chess is already speeding up, and it's not a bad development.

Elubas

It wasn't 40 moves in 120 minutes?

Elubas

I would hate it if 30 + 5 games became the norm. It's just like how blitz cheapens the game, just slightly less extreme.

SmyslovFan
Elubas wrote:

It wasn't 40 moves in 120 minutes?

I'd have to check the FIDE rules for 1996. But I do know that Fischer played 40 moves in 150 minutes in 1972. I don't think that changed for World Championship matches until after 1996. 

USCF games tended to be played at faster time controls than FIDE games.

But the general point that chess time controls are getting faster is indisputable. 

CrimsonKnight7

Thats what it was when I played. (40-120). I could play 30 minute speed chess. That was about it. Its going to happen, look at this site as a prime example, I would bet blitz greatly outnumbers the other ways.

I just hope it doesn't become an over-commercialized circus. I don't know, it won't affect me, and my playing days are basically over, and the majority will decide regardless what I think.

I hope they will be happy, because from my experience, once it changes, it won't ever go back. Buckle up folks, its going to be a wild ride. Good luck.

RoobieRoo

Its not time controls that make it dull but closed tournaments with the same pool of players, that's why the last Sinquefield Cup was such a crashing bore.  Compare that with the Olympiad when we had a much broader and diverse pool of players and we got some truly great chess. Chess that we could even relate to!

u0110001101101000
SmyslovFan wrote:

I have just read about 90 posts, and almost all of them miss a really obvious point:

Chess is already speeding up!

Twenty years ago, most tournament games were played a 40 moves in 150 minutes. The Olympiad that just finished was played at 40 moves in 90 minutes with 30 minutes for the rest of the game, plus 30 seconds increment per move. 

Twenty years ago, it was quite possible to play a 9 hour game that would be adjourned two or even three times. I know, I played such a game. Now, all games are played in a single sitting and few games last more than four hours. Today, we can predict how long the longest game in a round will last, and there are no adjournments. That's a great achievement!

Chess is already speeding up. Greg Shahade is suggesting this is a good thing, and chess should continue to speed up. He's not recommending bullet chess, he's saying the ideal time control should be less than two hours total time. I personally like the three to four hour game. But I agree with his assessment that chess is already speeding up, and it's not a bad development.

This post is about 100x more reasonable than his first blog about it.

CrimsonKnight7

Time control does affect quality of play, and the commentary quality as well  Robbie. I agree partially with you however. Having more, and even varied players both male, and female would spice it up even more. Make no mistake though, time controls decreasing, is going to affect the players ability, as well as any possible commentaries done.

At least that are happening at that time, especially if they are also switching from game to game. And I actually liked the Sinquefield cup this year, lol. I didn't bother with the blitz format they had however. I tried, it was them laughing, and switching positions, I couldn't tell what was even going on.

GnrfFrtzl

But do we actually need to spice it up?


I, for one, believe that chess is simply not meant to be entertaining for the masses.
There is a place for romantic novels and thrillers, but there is also a place for classical literature.
You don't see them on the same shelf, so why should we put chess in the mainstream?
It simply doesn't belong there.

CrimsonKnight7

They don't for me per se Gnr. However they are trying to increase chess's popularity, so they can commercialize it even more than it is now. Its not upto me, it will be the younger ones that are going to decide this issue, and the way its looking to me is, it is definitely going to happen. I don't believe many of them understand the full consequences though. There won't be any going back, once it changes.

They should really think about that one. They are just looking at dollars now, and thats all they see.

GnrfFrtzl

Changing the format of chess is basically like when publishers re-translate classical novels for the younger generations, replace archaic words with modern ones, and so on.
The whole atmosphere of these books are ruined for ever.

Twenty years from now my experience and memories of Thomas Hardy's books will be completely different from those who read it now.

I don't want this to happen to chess.

CrimsonKnight7

I completely understand your sentiments good sir. Nor do I. However we are nothing but dust in the wind, and all they see is money, and with that will come change. It will also end another chapter of chess history forever. They say chess has to grow to survive. Its not up to me, and my thoughts, will not sway them. Such is life. I hope they enjoy it, really. Best wishes to all.

Ashvapathi
CrimsonKnight7 wrote:

Thats what it was when I played. (40-120). I could play 30 minute speed chess. That was about it. Its going to happen, look at this site as a prime example, I would bet blitz greatly outnumbers the other ways.

I just hope it doesn't become an over-commercialized circus. I don't know, it won't affect me, and my playing days are basically over, and the majority will decide regardless what I think.

I hope they will be happy, because from my experience, once it changes, it won't ever go back. Buckle up folks, its going to be a wild ride. Good luck.

 

The hard fact is that no one would really play a single game for 4-6 hrs unless they are forced by some regulations. Otherwise 30-90 minute games are the norm when people play voluntarily. Since, 4-6 hrs game is artificially enforced its not interesting for players leave alone audience. 4-6 hrs format is a relic of the past with no relevance to the present.