Hasn't it always been like this?
No. The games of players like Fischer or Tal or Kasparov were never called boring by anyone.
But when the world's best player is a boring guy with a boring style, there is always talk about boring games, too many draws, the death of chess.
Hasn't it always been like this?
No. The games of players like Fischer or Tal or Kasparov were never called boring by anyone.
But when the world's best player is a boring guy with a boring style, there is always talk about boring games, too many draws, the death of chess.
You guys are asking too much here you expect the world's best player to play perfect chess but then go on to say too many draws are boring, when they don't play perfect game and there is a decisive result you just start to downgrade the player, what standards are these?
Kasparov was the world's best player for two decades, and he had an interesting and inspiring style. Karpov or Carlsen are similarly great players, but not inspiring at all.
Hasn't it always been like this?
No. The games of players like Fischer or Tal or Kasparov were never called boring by anyone.
But when the world's best player is a boring guy with a boring style, there is always talk about boring games, too many draws, the death of chess.
You guys are asking too much here you expect the world's best player to play perfect chess but then go on to say too many draws are boring, when they don't play perfect game and there is a decisive result you just start to downgrade the player, what standards are these?
Kasparov was the world's best player for two decades, and he had an interesting and inspiring style. Karpov or Carlsen are similarly great players, but not inspiring at all.
I think it could be argued that it is circular in nature. Steinitz was the first, Karpov likewise, very small incremental advantages..... Against more explosive talents like Fischer and Kasparov.
Chess has never been the same, it is constantly evolving.
Rapid being the "main" time control is mistaken, since it cannot result in good chess. However, people have become slaves to technology. One day that will be understood and time increments will be stopped.
But it's unrealistic to only play classical games - rapid, blitz, and bullet have their own merits as well, and I definitely wouldn't call them "lesser" than classical. I definitely agree that classical should be the default for professional play (and it mostly is), but it's certainly still possible to play blitz at a high level.
I also would add that watching classical is much more interesting than watching blitz or bullet, as the time control is too fast to allow for any commentator analysis.
Stop crying about it! Quack, quack!
Rapid being the "main" time control is mistaken, since it cannot result in good chess. However, people have become slaves to technology. One day that will be understood and time increments will be stopped.
But it's unrealistic to only play classical games - rapid, blitz, and bullet have their own merits as well, and I definitely wouldn't call them "lesser" than classical. I definitely agree that classical should be the default for professional play (and it mostly is), but it's certainly still possible to play blitz at a high level.
I also would add that watching classical is much more interesting than watching blitz or bullet, as the time control is too fast to allow for any commentator analysis.
To be honest I'd rather watching rapid instead of classical.
sorry omar please forgive and unmute me in franchesco club
@OmarVahidov Go watch rapid no one is stopping you. To be honest your opinion is not important. Mr. self proclaim professional chess player. Wahahaha.
@OmarVahidov Go watch rapid no one is stopping you. To be honest your opinion is not important. Mr. self proclaim professional chess player. Wahahaha.
I'm not going to say anything, you're just emberassing yourself by making your 3rd toxic comment here. 👌
hi omar my man hey hey! you did forgive me right? yeah.
The worst thing that has happened is Rating, it ruins everything. Also Chess has got boring for me too literally all my games are the same, I play OTB because it's fun and different and when it comes to online chess... well...I stick to variants. Also i don't play that often anymore because of my study's on wild cats and my success in life makes Chess less fun nor important.
It's not 'fun' anymore MAINLY because of unpunished blatant cheating. Heck if you ask support you can create an alt acount by their permission which imo should be heavily cracked down on. Because i've come across too many low elo alt accounts at my rating and half the time they're friends with their main account. Ands i'm sorry but if you like hikaru his speedrunning videos kinda most likely unintentionally promote the use of sandbagging in the low elos. But onto the fun part. I believe another reason to why this game has lost it's 'fun' is because of paywall. I thinks the max amount of free game reviews should three per day not just one. And the lesson thing should be shortended.
Hasn't it always been like this? The early coffee-house players were brash, fiery chess-hustlers who enjoyed tactics - the finer points of positional chess hadn't been developed. And then came the early masters who thought it through and did things properly - like Steinitz. Maybe the coffee-house players thought Steinitz was boring and too professional, too?
There have always been characters, as well as those who play in a way that is dull but excellent. It's the same in tennis; the world needs McEnroe's, and will always look back at them with pleasure, celebrating their personality and the vivacity that they brought to their game.
But there are three things that stand out in chess. Firstly, professional chess has been an utter fiasco for so many years, completely dominated by politics and the manoeuvering of people and countries with enormous egos. The public can't really take professional chess seriously in the way they might take football, swimming, diving, cricket, or curling seriously. Secondly, it's very slow to watch. And thirdly, it does seem to be bad for the mental health of those who do it. It seems to be quite hard to be very good at chess without also being unhappy.
I'm not sure about the future of professional chess; maybe it is a game better in the hands of amateurs, enjoyed casually; it's too slow and specialist for TV. It's really only captured public fascination twice: the moment when big blue was surpassing the great masters (an act of overtaking that will only happen once), and when chess was being used as a proxy for the cold war, which was hardly a healthy situation. But by the fireside of a cold winter's evening, chess is very much alive.