If we keep slow chess, then people have a choice: play fast chess or play slow chess, or play both.
If we get rid of slow chess, then people have no choice.
Personally, I want at least two minutes per move in an over-the-board, rated game, but already, that's vanishing.
I thought chess was supposed to be a game of thought, not of instant reaction.
It's understandable that a 1500 player wants "action".
Why does an IM promote such a view, is beyond me.
Too bad that adjournments had to go with the passing of the 1980s. But please keep time controls as long as possible for all meaningful games.
There's a Rapid world championship and a Blitz world championship. Great and exciting events.
But there's nothing quite like classical. Getting rid of that is really a horror for chess.
<JeromeWT> you're right buddy... you don't have to teach me that - I was there when it happened and I remember well the reason.
But chess won't die. Computers aren't going to kill it. People like chess.
Are IMs trolling chess.com now! 
I think its an excellent thread BTW!
<JeromeWT>
If there was something in what you say, Gelfand wouldn't lose to Anand in 14 moves just in WCh 2012...
Actually the memorized computer line is the easiest thing to play in faster time controls... it is there that the opponent doesn't have time to "think for himself" and defend or alter the course of the game.
If you ever want to use a "vicious" line on an opponent, make sure you play it in 3 minute blitz or in bullet. Then it's a killer. The problem starts exactly when they have time to think about what you're doing to them.
In summary, your proposition looks attractive on its face - but every serious chess player will tell you that long time control chess is a fight in every level.
(except when they're trying to draw in nine moves - but that's another story).
If you ever want to use a "vicious" line on an opponent, make sure you play it in 3 minute blitz or in bullet. Then it's a killer. The problem starts exactly when they have time to think about what you're doing to them.
Right, thats what Im saying. If you wanted to try a new move or attack, you'd be more likley to do it with a faster time control, right? Thats what the chess fans want to see, more improv, less homework.
Who said that's what chess fans want to see? That's not something that's been established as fact. Regardless, this isn't the NBA, a pair of Nike's, or McDonald's. The "fans" don't dictate what goes on at the highest levels in chess.
"The standard time control is so long you can basically play just one chess game per day. Yes, I know that in the United States we actually play two slow chess games per day, but I consider this a pretty barbaric practice. But again, this is only because I’m crazy and enjoy having time for meals, exercise, a small amount of relaxation per day and sleep."
Greg forgot to include the time he'll need to play Hearthstone, poker, and of course tend to his blog/facebook/other assorted online activities.
Greg's problem isn't slow chess, Greg's problem is he hasn't yet learned how to prioritize his time effectively.
Greg is wholly correct.
Most people far too myopic, afraid of change and far too instituionalized in their mindsets to realize this was already happening whether or not Shahade spoke to it.
Well no, I can be aware of what a change is trying to do and still see the costs in getting rid of beautiful classical chess. It's not hard.
I actually have quite a few blitz wins from the last five years that I still relish - wins over masters and IMs, wins that have stories related to them, wins with beautiful play that I saved and/or published, wins over much stronger players, "watershed" wins when I suddenly discovered that I'm not afraid of a player who used to pwn me... etc.
Yeah but if they were in classical you'd probably feel at least 6 times as good.
Ok. Here are my two cents. I do think that 5 hour games are too long - both for players and for spectators. What if the total maximum time was 2 hours? Every player would have 60 min on his or her clock and that's it... I would point out the advantages of such a system.
1) It's not too long & tiring on the players.
2) It's still reasonably long enough time to make good moves.
3) It's more watchable (very short ads could be played too).
4) The players would still need to take some risks, and manage their time properly.
5) It will increase the number of wins and losses.
6) More people will be playing tournament chess.
7) Including me. :)
Thoughts on that?
Nice picture in #133, RJC. I'm copying that. I hope you don't have a trademark on that & aren't gonna sue my behind. :)
Sometimes I just have nothing to say
Sometimes I just have nothing to say
Don't worry, RJC. Often a picture is worth thousands of words. :)
If you ever want to use a "vicious" line on an opponent, make sure you play it in 3 minute blitz or in bullet. Then it's a killer. The problem starts exactly when they have time to think about what you're doing to them.
Right, thats what Im saying. If you wanted to try a new move or attack, you'd be more likley to do it with a faster time control, right? Thats what the chess fans want to see, more improv, less homework.
No, Jerome, I'm not getting to you.
Coming to the chessboard with a prepared variation IS homework. It is NOT improvization. I don't know how come you understand the opposite of what I'm telling you.
Ok. Here are my two cents. I do think that 5 hour games are too long - both for players and for spectators. What if the total maximum time was 2 hours? Every player would have 60 min on his or her clock and that's it... I would point out the advantages of such a system.
1) It's not too long & tiring on the players.
2) It's still reasonably long enough time to make good moves.
3) It's more watchable (very short ads could be played too).
4) The players would still need to take some risks, and manage their time properly.
5) It will increase the number of wins and losses.
6) More people will be playing tournament chess.
7) Including me. :)
Thoughts on that?
Well I just think having 2+ hours makes for a more satisfying game, at least as a player. There are enough factors in a chess game to warrant giving players that much thinking time. It allows a player to have a deep think about their opening strategy for instance (they can think 30 min or longer and still have plenty of time left), which is cool because the opening sets the stage for the rest of the play.
As a spectator, though, sure, your idea is interesting. 60 minutes is certainly no blitz game. Strangely it seems like we either try super fast time controls or super long ones (classical) when it comes to presenting chess, but I don't really see an in-between approach being tried, and it probably should be.
I liked it when you played 2h for 40, plus 1h for 20, plus 30 minutes for the endgame.
I like it less and less the more they cut the time short - to 2h for 40 plus an hour for the endgame, and then to 1:30 for 40 plus an hour, and then to 2h KO
G60 is neither here nor there. It counts like classical if you're rated under 1600, I think... (at least by FIDE rules - USCF is a different organization).
But when I was just starting in tournaments and had U1600 I sure appreciated having some time to think. G60 would still be pretty stressing even back then. I would prefer to play G25 or G25/10 (like in my match with CP6033 now) and have it count towards my rapid rating.
I actually have quite a few blitz wins from the last five years that I still relish - wins over masters and IMs, wins that have stories related to them, wins with beautiful play that I saved and/or published, wins over much stronger players, "watershed" wins when I suddenly discovered that I'm not afraid of a player who used to pwn me... etc.