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

Lets be clear: people like chess. People like playing chess. People like watching chess. But, they don't want to play or watch a single chess game for 3-6 hrs. And I can understand why. They don't have time. And it becomes boring to play a single for that long, leave alone watching it. And chances of draw are exponentially high in a long format.

IM Greg Shahade is absolutely right. Slow chess should die a fast death. Infact, it would have been dead if it were not kept alive artificially by FIDE tournament rules. I say use rapid as FIDE main tournament and immediately you will see that 'classical chess' would be dead. And it would do much good to chess if this classical format dies. Chess would become more popular and richer and player quality will improve due to more money and interest.

But chess has already had widespread media coverage for years, with the internet to boot.  Getting rid of slower formats does nothing except get rid of the slower formats.

Again, there are plenty of people who love to watch blitz games (I do myself), so the interest is already there. I really don't see why slow chess should suffer as a result of this.

Its about priorities. The popular formats should get higher priority. Formats that no one watches should not be given such a big deal and formats which people have shown that they like watching and playing should not be sidelined.

Not too long ago we had forums on how only the slow tournament chess was "the only real chess".

Now, some opinion swings a different way. The truth is all rates of speed for chess are fine. People may have preference for a certain rate of speed or certain rates of speed--but so what?  To each, his own--whatever floats your boat--different strokes for different folks.

So you're basically saying that if something doesn't get media coverage and people don't watch it, then it's totally pointless for it to exist? 

No, it can exist. But, it should not be hindering other more promising formats from flowering by sidelining them.

Sure, but you got to agree that most people like shorter formats and therefore they should be promoted and given higher priority, so that chess can gain money and popularity which will lead to increase in quality.

I wouldn't say that coverage of longer games has sidelined the popularity of fast chess, but then again I mostly just play chess rather than watch it.

I wouldn't say that most people like shorter formats, but rather most people only have time for shorter formats to increase their experience playing every day.  Not everyone can sit down for four hours every day and play chess, but a lot of people will play a couple of 3 minute blitz games daily.  

+5. Totally agree.

Lets look at cricket, it has test cricket (many days), one day(50 overs) and twenty twenty (twenty overs)  Can it be said that the level of cricket at 20/20 is better than the level of cricket in Test matches? Or that test matches should not be played because people like 50 over one day and 20/20? Hardly, twenty twenty is nothing more than the cricket equivalent of blitz, its hit and slog.  Now while some people may find that form of the game 'interesting', personally for me its rather one dimensional and the longer format of the game provides a more multi faceted experience due to elements entirely absent from 20/20.  I understand that those who want and demand instant gratification delight to see hit and slog over extra cover for six every ball, but there are others that think that it has cheapened the game and made into nothing more than a one dimensional game with none of the more subtle nuances of test match cricket.  I think the analogy is sound when applied to chess also.  Shahade failed to recognise this and made a rather dogmatic statement.

I ran an analysis of Ashvapathi's last rapid game.

White's average error rate was 1.55.

Just saying.

This is a Trumpism. That is, it's a demonstrably false statement that is easily proven false. Fischer said many things. It's far more important to see what he did. He grew up playing blitz in the New York chess clubs. He was the best blitz player of his generation. 

But this isn't really about blitz, it's about a faster time control that allows a serious game to be played that can be completed in two to three hours rather than 4-6 hours.

Forgot about that one. He did play blitz in Washington Square Park when he was younger. My mistake.

Thanks for comparing classical chess with test cricket. It was exactly what I said in my first posts on this topic thread.

Please notice that money in cricket is earned by 20/20 and fifty over matches. Test cricket kept alive by the money of 20/20 and fifty over matches. So, cricket can afford to subsidize test cricket without much damage to cricket as a whole and to cricketers. But, there is no such money earning format in chess. There is only classical chess while the promising formats of rapid and blitz are sidelined. Imagine the plight of cricket if 20/20 and fifty overs were sidelined, then Cricket would also be in need of donors just like chess. The solution is to prioritize and promote rapid and blitz chess. And pragmatically recognize the fact that the classical chess is an outdated relic which is played only for the purpose of tradition. The future of chess is brighter with shorter formats. The longer formats can also be subsidized if the shorter formats become popular and earn money. And overall quality improves as players and coaches can become financially secure.

This wrong belief that longer format means higher quality is just wrong. The longer format only wastes time. Its boring and hence unpopular. Games end in draws. And the quality of the chess goes down due to lack of money in the game.

What does it mean? What was the error rate of my opponent? And how is it relevant? Anyway, all your stats in all formats is less than my stats. Just saying. (Though, I don't think its relevant)

If the situation was ever reversed and blitz/rapid became the most common time control then I think you would see fewer people playing OTB. While I might play in a side event of quick or blitz, in conjunction with a longer TC event, I am much less likely to travel any distance to play in one. I bet a lot of players are similar.

Online, the situation is easy. No travel, no large monetary investments. You can get a bunch of games in short order. You can't really make the argument that fast speed popularity online means that the same level of popularity would carry over into OTB events. Well, you can make the argument but it doesn't make it correct. 

I run events and I don't have people requesting I run faster time controls.

We already discussed this point once. My point was that you only get people interested in classical chess to these tournaments in the first place. And then there is a peer pressure by eulogizing the boring classical chess to the extent that anyone talks about promoting shorter formats get ridicule. Thats the reason IM Greg Shahade's blog was brave, honest and pragmatic. Kudos to him for that.

About your point that people won't travel for shorter formats:

I don't completely agree with that argument. Shorter formats can mean more games. More popularity among people and hence bigger money prizes. All of it can result in more participation in general at all levels. Similarly, when chess becomes less popular for audience to watch, then the playing numbers also plunge because most of the people's first contact with the game starts with watching the game.

Your whole supposition hinges on asssumptions. There is a market for chess. If the market needs are not being met the someone will step in and meet those needs.

So far, the vast majority of OTB rated chess is in longer time controls and you can only fall back to tradition and peer pressure.  Which are just assumptions. 

If there is an untapped cohort of players waiting for more rapid and blitz events, where are the organizers running them successfully with a lot of attendees?  If they existed, the official bodies would take notice and there would be a feedback loop with more and more of the events being held, edging out longer events.

What are the real reasons it isn't happening? Reason one is that players prefer online for the format and don't want to incur the expenses involved to travel to those types of events, at least not consistently. Reason two, the demand, for OTB, is nowhere near what you think it is. 

 Save chess by destroying it is silly -- especially when it doesn't need saving. It's healthy.

Fast time controls already exist online.

Greg's idea was dumb (like most blogs heh). Even he mostly recanted in his part 2.