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

<Umirin> when your rating will go up by several hundred points, you'll see that positional considerations prevail also in blitz. 

A strong player will positionally refute all of your attacking attempts, even in blitz, and with a smile. 

You will be desperately trying to find that "winning shot" with 1:09 minutes on your clock, when he will sit backwards, up a couple of pawns or maybe that bishop you sacrificed on h6, with 3:53. 

It's all for a good cause, though. 

I was fortunate enough, when I was rated in the 1500s and 1600s, to have a couple of good-natured 2000ish players who made themselves available for blitz often. 

I would attack and sacrifice, and I was astonished at how well they could find defensive ideas. This is how I learned defense at a higher level, and my rating saw a parallel increase. 

I would also get remarks from them - one that I remember particularly, was - "This move is an A+ in tactics - but an F in strategy" (on finding a brilliant combination winning a pawn, but totally destroying my own position...)

When all is said and done, once the 2000 player finally made a sacrifice, that was really the way to win the game. Of course it was more positionally justified than my own attempts...

Sure, <Harvey> you start banging walls when it's any longer. I'm with you, brother :-)

Then dont play 4+ hour games, problem solved.

Rapid games are good for club weekend Swiss events, not bigger state tournaments where money is on the line..lots of money. More prestige = long time control

There should be more Blitz tournements running just before or just after major classical tournaments, but never in their place (nor rapid).  Players spend the 5 hours thinking because they obviously feel they can come up with the best moves by doing so, otherwise they'd ignore the clock and play faster anyway.

I always enjoy a good 5-hour evening of coverage from the CCSCSL of the Sinquefield Cup or US Championhips.  Though I would say that one reason I enjoy those is because there are numerous games going on simultaneously to be interested in.  The World Championship live commentary interests me less because it is all just one game.   With 8 parallel games you're unlucky to have 8 dull games, with just 1 and sch high stakes it can often happen.

If mr Regan thinks that Lasker,one of the strongest players in the history of chess,as strong as Capa and possibly slightly stronger than Alekhine played mediocre chess,then it is reason enough for me not to take seriously any of his conclusions..    You don't become World Champion for 27 years playing mediocre chess.

I think that if the time controls were 1 hour for each players that would make chess more interesting and more of a spectator sport. Players would still have decent thinking time while audience will also know that it's gonna be 2 hours tops (and that is important). The sponsors will also be happy since the events can be on TV and there will be time for a few short commercials too. So, all of that will also bring more money in chess.

Did I also mention that chess itself will become a more fighting game? Players will have to take more risks, play a bit more aggressively since they're gonna be racing against the clock at the end if they don't. And, even when it comes to the race, that will also make a good spectator sport. So, overall, I think that my idea might be an optimal solution...

Harvey, maybe you should seek an assessment....if fact I think it's about time, don't you ?

I think I located the problem here folks. It's this sudden modern desire for chess to appeal to the masses with low attention spans. We don't need to change anything, chess has been changed eniugh already.

I no longer play 4+ hour games...so "problem solved" is not an issue.

My comment was a general one, not a personal one, in regard to bringing chess out of the 19th century, an era before electricity, cars and fast women.

I've got your "assessment" right here:

Well Harvey, you're known as someone who lives in the past. So it all fits.

As most of us (I think) I only play blitz or correspondence in the internet, but I also play some official 90/30 OTB games wich sometimes last about 4 hours, and it's surprising how time flies there...

Lala, is this the real you?

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?

lorishusband: Personally I agree, but there is no test for that.

I thought it remarkable enough that Capablanca and Alekhine played 2800 chess in their own time without today's training aids, at least according Regan's method.

Right well I was initially responding to somebody else SmyslovFan who was saying that todays's top players could give time odds to the first four champions and still win.  For which, as you say, there is no test. 

If mr Regan thinks that Lasker,one of the strongest players in the history of chess,as strong as Capa and possibly slightly stronger than Alekhine played mediocre chess,then it is reason enough for me not to take seriously any of his conclusions..    You don't become World Champion for 27 years playing mediocre chess.

electric_limes: Revisiting Regan's paper, I see I spoke too quickly. Lasker's full record of IPRs according to Regan:

1894: 2570
1896: 2317
1907: 2869 (!)
1908: 2603
1909: 2811 (!)
1910A: 2735
1920B: 2467
1921: 2525

You can see Lasker's IPR varies considerably but includes two 2800+ peaks. Which makes some sense, since because Lasker played the man as much as the board. Regan's technique compares moves to computer engine ratings, with no consideration of psychology.

Anyone curious about Regan's work see:
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/papers/pdf/Reg12IPRs.pdf

Thanks for the response,I appreciate it.

Myth.  Or so I'm told.

This should have been the end of discussion. What argument can there be with this?