Time controls should not be in chess.

I 100% believe that time controls should not be in chess. Let me explain why.

Speed does not equal skill. There have been many instances when I am crushing my opponent yet because I can't think fast enough I lose on time.

"So?" you say. "Play faster and you won't have this problem!" Well, playing faster usually means that you blunder more often since you don't think the position through and play the best moves. This is why no-one takes blitz seriously. I want to get as good as I can at chess, but time controls are an artificial difficulty that makes chess harder for no reason.

Phew - rant over. Thoughts?

Then what would we do when someone is in a losing position and simply stops playing?

You need time controls - as wanmokewan says a losing player could just leave the game indefinitely.  Anyhow it adds an edge of excitement and thinking faster than yr opponent is a legitimate way to win.  After all the time control makes it equally hard for each player.  I suggest you play "online" chess aka correspondence where you have days to make a move.  

Yeah, there has to be some time control even if it's a long one, as per yucca's point, even if it's for a week, month or year. As for the value of time controls for blitz and bullet, well those are different games. I love blitz. I know I cannot come up with the perfected strategies in a fast timed game that I can in a slow ponderous one, but thinking quickly and responding in the moment and playing the clock as well as the board and finding the best tradeoffs is a zen-like challenge that I really enjoy. Feels more like mental martial arts. Very realtime. And I don't have to sit around forever waiting for my potentially slow opponent to move.  I can play several games in one day that way or complete a game on a break or in a waiting room, or at a restaurant on my phone, and not have game(s) hanging over my head for days.  It really comes down to what aspects of the game you're looking for and enjoy and the participants in agreement with the terms.

I find 30 minutes each an eternity (normally I play 15/10) But you need time limits, believe me. I used to play chess at home with a friend. He needed at least 10 times longer than me. That unfocused me and drove me mad. I put a condition: if we were to keep playing we would use a clock. If you want more than 30 minutes I believe there are groups which use longer time controls

Good point. I didn't think of that. Some people would be sore losers and would do that.

I guess online chess will never be as good as OTB chess, since this situation wouldn't be a problem for OTB games. It has way too many problems to be taken seriously.

Speed controls are necessary, otherwise someone could take hours just to make a move. That's frustrating.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Actually chess originally was played without clocks.  But practically it's pretty unfair and there's a massive incentive to just take an enormous amount of time on each move.  I quite like increments for the reason that OP stated - i.e. if you're in a winning position and behind in time you have a better chance.

It used to be a game without time control.Was play better back then (prior to Staunton roughly)

There must have been times when one of the 2 run out of patience, it is unavoidable.

Apparently all blunders are caused by fast time controls, which is why blitz/bullet ratings can never have approximately the same rating as standard.

Wait...

Could you imagine watching a tournament with no time-controls? The games would last ten, eleven, twelve hours. It would be unwatchable.

I am reminded of the Morphy anecdote where he asked an opponent(after a long time apparently) "Why don't you move?"  "I thought it was your turn" he replied

Fischer allegedly laughed at that.

Not for the OP apparently. He transcends time. Or, he doesnt watch live chess and just analyzes the games after they have been completed.

I like watching 16 games of Blitz played over 5 hours. Id rather not watch one single game over 5 hours... especially when it's not likely that one game is the one that is deciding the championship.

Imagine if chess were all Armageddon style matches, with the winner of that one game advancing up the bracket (like other sports). They would say the same thing... Armageddon chess is not chess.

I never understood why people think watching 300 hours of "no time limit chess" during the "world championships" would make any sense. I dont even think those people watch chess. I think they just plug in the PGN's and run it though an engine long after the game has been completed.

Why do people who have never played an OTB tournament in their lives always come to these forums making radical suggestions to change chess?

"Abolish stalemate, it's too complicated for me to understand" "abolish en passant, I don't know how a space advantage is supposed to work" "time controls are bad"

You have to gain respect in a field before people want to hear your opinion. This doesn't just go for chess, it goes for any field, and I don't think it's disrespectful to say so. No one would take a high school biology student seriously if he went to a biology conference and made radical proposals. No one would take a little league baseball player seriously if he showed up at an MLB rules commitee meeting and wanted to make the games 4 innings instead of 9.

Your place is study and hard work, not advocacy for radical suggestions. The harsh reality is that you need to get your master title, and then people might want to hear what you have to say.

...And by that point, you will no longer wish for time controls to be abolished ;).

And no one would pay to see a tournament. And no one would know when the tournament would end.

It used to be a very big problem for OTB games.  That's why the chess clock was invented.

In the very early days of chess, there were no time limits and players and spectators alike complained about the length of chess matches. In the 1800s, time limits were established and the chess timers and clocks were invented.

In 1843, several onlookers described a chess match between Howard Staunton and Pierre St. Amant as a test of physical endurance rather than a chess match. It was reported that their 21st match game took 66 moves and 14½ hours. These kinds of purposeless prolongations and deliberate attempts to fatigue and wear out the opponent were commonplace at the time, and an average game lasted nine hours.

First time i agree with you

Doesnt that mean a tournament ticket would be a bargain?

Why am I buying single game tickets, or seasonal tickets, when I could buy one single chess match ticket and watch it for a lifetime?!

REMOVE TIME CONTROLS!!!!!