this was posted already
"Slow chess should die a fast death
Sort:
Slow chess will die slowly... not fast like many think. Majority of those who enjoy watching fast games are PATZERS.
Mandy711 wrote:
Slow chess will die slowly... not fast like many think. Majority of those who enjoy watching fast games are PATZERS.
Slow chess? Standard Chess? Dying? Bah!
Jan 19, 2016
0
#5
ovayo_tembani16 wrote:
Agreed
not this again 😔
Jan 19, 2016
0
#8
I thought of Greg a day or two ago when I was watching Tata Steel and in two different games they were on move 17, and all 4 players had already lost over an hour off their clock.
It's true that with faster time controls (G/60) the quality wouldn't suffer enormously, but really, they're thinking about something. Just because Greg retired from serious chess doesn't mean it's the best choice for everyone.
Although because he wrote a part 2 where he quickly changed his stance, he probably wrote this with the idea of being contentious, and not as a seriously considered opinion.
coffeethyme wrote:
ovayo_tembani16 wrote:
not this again 😔
Agreed
Agreed, this topic was already thoroughly discussed in:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/im-greg-shahade-quotslow-chess-should-die-a-fast-deathquot
Martin_Stahl wrote:
And in post 5
Sorry everyone, my compaint about redundancy was redundant.
Lasker1900 wrote:
Seriously, Greg Shahade seems like a nice fellow, but who really cares what he thinks?
^ This.
Just read this.
Personally I don't agree with his thesis.
I LOVE those 4 and 6 hour games where you have time to analyze all the variations PLUS "slow chess' (actually it's called standard) has given us most of the opening and end game theories by which we play today.
https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/2015/11/02/slow-chess-should-die-a-fast-death/