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

That last bit isn't pure conjecture. It can be tested. It would be time consuming, but possible to verify IM Shahade's claim. Today's chess players already play a different game from when Alekhine and Capablanca played. There are no longer adjournments, and the time control is already faster than what they played. And yes, even with faster time controls today's players are better!

His argument about online chess not being slow is irrelevant. People don't play slow chess online because of engine abuse paranoia and that's it. How many more people participated in your state chess tournament than in your state blitz tournament? Here it was around 200 more.

<Chess can learn a lot from poker. First, chess media and sponsors should emphasize it's glamorous aspects: worldwide traveling, parties and escape from real world responsibilities> - Shahade, Jennifer.



It's something in the family, isn't it?

It most decidedly CANNOT be tested: the first five world champions are all dead

Lori's Husband, the players may be dead, but their moves can still be analysed and compared to the moves played by top players today. But that's another topic. 

conjecture -- the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture

SmyslovFan: Yes, your claim is conjecture. Even if it can be tested -- and I'm curious how you expect that to be done -- it remains conjecture until then.

I agree with Turbofish. Slow chess will never die and I for one am glad. It's a bit like cricket with the 5 day test being slow chess and one day cricket being fast chess. Plenty of room for both types of chess,plenty of room for both types of cricket.

The best available means of testing Smyslov's claim that current WC's would play better than past WCs even at faster time controls is the work of Dr. Kenneth Regan who has developed a method of estimating FIDE ratings based on game collections, which he terms Intrinsic Performance Rating (IPR).

Dr. Regan has analyzed past WC matches. His results show that Steinitz, Lasker and Euwe played mediocre chess compared to current WCs, but the IPRs for Capablanca and Alekhine were in the same league as today's champions.

1921 WC
Alekhine  IPR 2812
Capablanca IPR 2730

2010 WC [the most recent match tested by Regan]
Anand IPR 2787
Topalov IPR 2805

Of course, Regan's work is new and still under development but I suspect his approach will eventually be considered sufficiently reliable for comparing chess play across the years.

In the meantime I don't take it for granted that Carlsen could routinely play better than Alekhine at a G/60 time control.

<SmyslovFan> the absolute level of middle game plans, subtle manoeuvering, deeply hidden tactics, endgame play, transition into the endgame will be better than Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine with 25 minutes on the clock?

You're serious?

No. You're kidding. I knew it. 

<Peelslowlyandsee> bitching like an euphoric teen. I liked that :-)

You can learn more about IM Shehade from this proposal, than on any perceived "boringness" of classical chess. 

Just to remind you that the big classical chess tourneys has, and has always had, people glued to it worldwide, analyzing the game, marveling at the concepts - in websites, and formerly, in magazines, books and other publications. 

Another subtle point is the following:

People who follow high level chess tournament admire the leading chess players. 

The big guns are doing something marvelous - and we are allowed to look over their shoulder and marvel at how they do it. 

Imagine WE, the spectators, telling THEM how to go about it, because WE want it to be more interesting!

The more I look into IM Shahade's input, the less I like it and the more it really looks like "a tantrum". 

Top chess players are famous for throwing tantrums throughout history. Bobby Fisher immediately pops into my mind!

The reason many of the top chess players excel at blitz is BECAUSE they excel at slow chess.  Fast time control games are fun, and they do serve a purpose, but you will never become a world class player without having lots and lots of slow games under your belt.

Fast time control games would probably be great for the e-sport genre on twitch, but then so would chess boxing.  I think Shahade is way off the mark.  He must be going through some kind of personal chess crisis or something.

Maybe the Tour De France should be reduced to only 500km because 3519km is just too exhausting.  If they shortened it up to only 500km, more people would want to compete or watch the race according to Shahade's line of thought.

I agree with this .  I like to play blitz and rapid and classic chess and dont want to give up any of them .  In Portugal the most popular time control was G/20 rapid chess , usually 7 , 8 , or 9 round swiss events where there was never but one section and the tournies there seemed to always have 100 players or more . It was great fun and you didnt have to keep score and there was no increment or delay . The 5 sec delay seems useless to me , like tits on a bull . 

@Mindwalk  Try the time control of G/90 but with 30 sec increments ( not delay ) from the first move . The end result is typically games of 4 hours maximum and neither player can ever stop keeping score , which I like . This was a very popular FIDE time control while I was living in Europe and I liked it best . 

In an earlier article Shahade noted that in high-level European tournaments participants play only one long game a day versus two long games a day in the US.

Shahade's distaste for slow time controls is partly based on his dislike of playing hard grinding chess for 10-11 hours a day.

I take his point. I can't think of any other sports aside from long-distance cycling and triathlons which require such hard, long hours as professional chess.

One serious game per day isnt restricted to only the high level FIDE tournies in Europe , many Opens are also only one round per day , I played in quite a few of these events myself and was spoiled by them . 

No idea what that has to do with chess, but judging by your posts i understand.

Imagine if Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine (not to mention Botvinnik forward) had played in today's age when could train with computers rated 3300+.  You think they wouldn't be rated 2825+ themselves?

I have a lot more fun playing blitz chess OTB thats for sure because its calculate calculate calculate. And positional motifs mean a little less when you can throw your pieces at your opponent and hope for the best, and the better calculator wins.

I agree that a 4+ hour games should be relegated to the history books. They are painfully slow.

One hour max should be enough for anybody. And, personally, I think 30 minutes is plenty. More than that and I get "ansty".