Why are over-the-board time controls so long??

“bruh” what

Coolout, how come you’re the Buddha?

Oh wow, the future sounds wild!

I'm playing Chess960, otherwise known as *Any-of-various-people-who-have-suggested-it* Random.

I have played a dozen or 15 games and have drawn one and won the rest. I'm getting a picture of it and the picture is that it will never supplant standard chess because standard chess employs the optimal layout for the pieces. It's therefore less enjoyable.

Firstly, when it's possible to understand and know something, there's no need to be bothered about the opinions of "super-gms". It is a fact that the faster the speed element, the greater will be the element of randomness in moves. That's because an alternative to that is impossible.

<<<Magnus himself said during the WCC press conference that knights are  "unpredictable" in blitz.   That doesn't mean unpredictable for the player making the move.    That would be crazy to suggest,  he means its harder to predict what your opponent will do because they have more options.>>>

If it's true then it's logically bound to be true equally for both players. Again, an alternative is not possible.

You sometimes have some good ideas and interesting thoughts but you really need to develop your critical awareness, so you can filter out the nonsense more accurately. There's a lot of it and it detracts from the good ideas you have. Creativity is directed, for greatest impact; whereas random creativity depends on random pairing of idea and purpose. There's a Christmas thought for you.

     These are a couple of points you repeatedly refer to and are completely mistaken about. You admit that blitz games are filled with more mistakes than classical, meaning that someone playing the same moves in a classical game that they do in a blitz game would be handily defeated, making the quality of chess played in blitz inferior to classical.

     In what other field is inferior quality preferred to superior quality? Do you like listening to music filled with wrong notes? Would you hire a housepainter that missed spots, left noticeable brush marks, and splashed a few drops of paint onto your windows or floors? Would you patronize a pizza chef who used sugar where salt was needed and left the pie undercooked? Would you prefer living in a building whose architect and contractor made a lot of mistakes, or would you prefer one where things were done correctly?

     If the aim of the beginner is to learn to play well, concentrating on the version of the game where mistakes and inaccuracies are more common is hardly the way to go about it. Yes, classical is harder. Learning to play chess well IS hard. The ambitious student is therefore better served learning how to do things RIGHT even though that will entail greater effort. Sitting at the board, under less time pressure, trying to figure out what just went wrong and looking for a way to get out of difficulties will let a player learn a lot more chess than zipping through a bunch of games without understanding what's going on.

     As for creativity, it is obvious that a player is going to have to come up with much better ideas if he expects to overcome an opponent who will be able to take the time to analyze them more thoroughly.

In that case, you're defining sporting as random, in which case, snakes and ladders is a sport.

There are a couple of members here, hcorlE and relkciTb, who would benefit from a generous application of your humour, because they are examples of people who always think they're right, whatever the subject and whomsoever their adversaries may be. You would perform a great service to the community by engaging them in conversation and appraising them of what their opinions should be. Because they would benefit from it.

By defining it as less predictable, aren't you defining it as more random?

(Yes, you are. Random = unpredictable.)

<<Exercised skill has no effect on things such as drawing cards or rolling dice.>>

How do you know that if we concentrate on a number and roll the dice, then that number isn't more likely to come up? Can you know that isn't true or is it an unsupported assumption?

Did you understand that if you continue to try to make arguments by calling other people's ideas "shameful" and other such things, then you're very rapidly forfeiting the right to be respected and taken seriously?

This is why I'm recommending practising your debating skills on the two people afore-mentioned, because they share your assumptions to a far larger extent than I do or than many others do. Those assumptions may include the supposition that it's morally wrong to present some argument or another. I don't agree with them or with you, unless the argument's dishonest and there is no good reason to present a dishonest argument.

I'll leave you with those thoughts too, because it's getting late here. Goodnight.

 <<If its not your cup of tea,   then don't watch speed chess.  Again when you disparage others by putting down their game mode and acting as if players are making random moves,   then it is you who is acting not only immoral,  but extremely selfish.  Shame on you.>>

Practise debating with those who share your assumptions about morality and your methods of "debate". Try to calm down, when you're talking to those who don't. Try not to write such things, except for those who will appreciate the attention they're getting, so that they're given the chance to behave as you do. Can't you read backwards?

My concession is merely that there are others who operate on the fringes of rationality too, even though they may seem very erudite and knowledgeable; and that it would be more entertaining if you took them on. I'm not arguing against you because there would be no point in doing so. Like them, you don't know when you're beaten because you don't accept that anything you disagree with is valid. I still like you but that's the truth, so far as I can see. Goodnight.

     If you seriously believe that even the best blitz players don't make more errors under time pressure than they do with classical time controls you are delusional. So a player doing the same thing in classical as they do in blitz will be the one that blunders most. This is the meaning of inferior quality.

     You and I may have different tastes in music and food but the skilled chef or musician knows when they have done something wrong, throwing out that sauce or making a second take in the studio. Architects make mistakes that cause inferior earthquake or storm or fire resistance and sometimes their insurance companies pay dearly for them, among other things. It is EXACTLY the difference in quality between hurried work and painstaking attention to detail and re-checking conclusions that makes for an analogy between blitz and classical.

      Now you DON'T dispute that classical is better for learning chess. So the countless times you have pooh-poohed other posters for saying so were just jokes?

     I have never called speed chess random. That is a flat-out lie. Please show me any instance where I said that. 

heya i just wanted tell you to that the length of your arguments went over light years already and no normal person is able to read it...

i appreciate that you are all polite and so but there is the time to stop wasting more of your time...

just an advice of one silly fox...