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

You are right about most people's first contact with the game being watching others play. But it isn't tourney chess they are watching. It is friends and family playing casual, unrated games or games in the park, again unrated.

A better argument would be from biology. A player cant maintain their best play for 5-7 hours.

That is demonstrably false.  Did you watch the last super grandmaster tournament, the Sinquefield cup, is was a dull affair, it really was in comparison to the chess Olympiad which was awesome!  Money does not produce chess of a better quality, great players produce chess of great quality.

I for one, will not travel to a tournament that has strictly fast time controls. Having a speed chess side event is perfectly fine, but should not be the main event.  

If you dont have the patience for something then dont get involved in it, or demand it needs to be changed.  

Chess is thousands of years old, and has survived for a reason.  Quit trying to ruin the game.

Its not assumption that market exists for chess. And its not assumption that no one is interested in playing or watching classical chess when given a choice. Its demonstrated everytime when people are given a choice online to watch(on youtube) or to play(on chess sites). You are assuming that someone or anyone can just start a venture to take advantage of this market situation. I think you are wrong on that point. Everyone and anyone cannot put in the initial investments to attract the eyeballs of huge crowd to make it profitable. And then, there is always inertia. Until someone shows that its possible, everyone will dillydally. Once there is a successful venture, everyone will follow bandwagon blindly. So, initially, you need someone bold enough to take the risk of starting such a venture and rich enough to afford it. Then, it will be successful. And people pushing for it should be those who are interested in chess as players or audience.

Let me again give the analogy of cricket: there was lot of dillydallying before starting a 20/20 league. But, there was a man called Lalit Modi who pushed for it and made it a success. It was a huge money-spinner. And then, immediately, such leagues started springing up all over the world. Before that league cricket was simply seen as nothing. So, basically, you need a rich and bold entrepreneur interested in chess(someone like Lalit Modi).

no, no. I didn't mean that quality of chess is higher in the tournament with bigger prize money. I meant to say that once the money starts flowing into the game, the quality of the chess will increase all over because it provide financial security and interest to all the participants. 

True. But, I think hardcore fans of classical chess will actually try to portray it as the beauty of that format rather than its drawback. I think the lack of interest in people and players is the best argument. But, I agree with you that its biologically very difficult to play for such long periods.

You can't compare cricket to chess. Unlike cricket, chess' appeal isn't dependent on its worth as a spectator sport.

T20 generates more interest as batsmen attack much more to compensate for the few number of overs. Chess players are under no such obligation in shorter time controls.

League cricket(particularly 20/20 variety) was considered even more ridiculous than shorter format chess. Yet, today, league cricket is what sustains the cricket. The so-called purists continued to ridicule it for years and only accepted it when it was clear to them that most people preferred that format. And the same is true for chess as well. Just that chess has not had its Lalit Modi yet.

''And the same is true for chess as well.''

..Anything to support that statement?

It's very probable that what works for cricket may not work for chess, as the two are very different games.

I already agreed that there is a market for chess and for fast time controls, but it is a supposition that fast time controls are in high demand or would make chess more popular.

Go look at all the events held and rated. Longer time controls are more common. Organizers are free to hold pretty much any time control they want and the rapid and blitz events happen but not at the level they would if the demand was really there.

As I have said a number of times, if the demand was there and there was money to be made from it then it would exist today. Nothing else is stopping it from happening. 

So, go out and hold rated fast events. If you pull in a ton of players consistently, make money and pay decent prizes, then come back and show us. The fact that you are not seeing people doing it at scale pretty much shows that the market isn't large enough.

Firstly, its not just about chess. Long and slow formats are just not popular in any game or activity in this day and age. In every activity, people in general prefer a reasonably shorter format with action packed entertainment even as so-called purists glorify really long boring formats. Because people don't have lots of time to waste. And because the long formats tend to be boring(and end in draw like test cricket or classical chess).

Secondly, cricket had just one 20/20 world cup to show that 20/20 was viable and immediately Lalit Modi seized the opportunity. Chess online shows that there is tremendous interest in chess of blitz and rapid. And it shows that there is no interest in long format games except the FIDE tournaments where the classical chess is forced as the titles are given only for that format making it seem that ratings in other formats are secondary. So, FIDE rules and titles are keeping the slow chess alive artificially. Given a choice, neither the players nor the audience wants to play or watch slow chess. Even those people who pay lip service to the slow chess play fast chess(blitz, bullet and rapid) online and put out its videos.

The overall money discussion is more likely to make chess a little more popular, or at least if there was a way to pay top players where they don't rely on tournament winnings, coaching, or sponsors would do more than decreasing time controls. It would increase the likelihood of promising players continuing in the game rather than having to only play when they can fit it into their schedule.

The problem in any scenerio is finding the money.

Martin,

I think we are talking past each other. I am trying to say that market exists but so far there has been no entrepreneur to establish the successful model. Once a successful model established, everyone will follow. But, very few people will want to take the the initial step due to the lack of precedent. And it can't be done by small players or clubs. It needs lot of initial investment. So, yes, there is something which is stopping people: money. I can't do it and I don't think you will be able to do it either. I think you are missing the scale I am talking about. I am not talking about some local club chess. I am talking about international tournaments and global audience or national tournaments and national audience.

Once a successful model is established at the top level, then it trickles down.

The current market for OTB disagrees with you.

Online is different; no travel, little expense.

Converting online, casual players to OTB isn't as easy as you think it will be.

Money can be found by the right entities like national clubs or FIDE if they organize proper format chess and promote them to get sponsors for TV audience. You need a proper sport administrator cum entrepreneur. Other sports and games went through this transition when they had such personalities. If chess is lucky to have someone like that at the top, then it will happen.

The first step is to convert this online interest into audience for chess. That itself will generate revenue for chess. Right now, even that much has not been accomplished due to the boring nature of classical chess.

That's what I'm saying, entrepreneurs with money aren't flocking to support fast chess. There are some supporting chess in general but most aren't making a lot money off it, even at higher levels. Money is being made on current chess but if the market really existed for OTB someone with the means wouldn't just leave all that money sitting on the table.

If I had millions to spare, I would still run events but I guarantee the longer time controls would outnumber fast ones based on the market I see in my area.

Just becuase you and others dont have the patience for long time controls, doenst mean you need to ruin the game of chess and make it faster.  Tournaments have speed chess side events that are fun to play in.  You have online chess, you have many avenues for bullet/blitz,etc.

This is just further proof of the study that has shown that goldfish have a longer attention span than people.