Slow chess should disappear and be replaced by rapid chess. Rapid chess should not be rapid chess, it should be chess. What should the standard time control be? Something like 30+5 second increment sounds perfect to me. And when I suggest 30+5, please note that I’m choosing a time control this slow only to appease the masses. I think 15+5 is more appropriate.
Why is slow chess so horrible? There are so so many reasons. But the main one is the simplest:
People don’t like to play slow chess!
Now wait you might tell me, “I really do love to play slow chess, and so do all of my friends”.
I have an answer for you: “No you don’t”.The main thing Shahade misses is that slower time controls DO allow for players to get deeper into the positions. We've seen that at our club. We can get interesting games in 15 minute games, but there's a limit to how well we can explore them. Heck, sometimes we can tear into one of those games afterwards and spend an hour going over it! How much better would the game be if that kind of time were spent during the game?
And watching some of you in tournaments recently I can definitively state that longer games allow some of you to get much deeper into a position. Here I'm thinking of Jim McTigue in particular, as with his recent game against Lauren Kleidermacher, but it applies to others as well.
Ultimately, the market has spoken on this front, both at the top level and down at our modest levels - people like slow games for tournaments. There are any number of chances to play at more rapid time controls, both in tournaments and in clubs. I don't think Alex Zelner's rapid tournaments do any better than he game 90 tournaments attendance-wise, at least not when I was regularly playing in them. So I don't think we need to get rid of the slower time controls just yet.
I think it has value to distinguish between club and tournament time controls. I'd prefer to have at least an hour (preferably more) for a tournament, but if that were the club time control I'd probably stop showing up. It's not that I wouldn't mind the time, but I don't want to sit around for a long time just waiting for a game to end so I can play one.
ReplyDeleteTo make matters worse, there are some players who will just sit and burn time in a bad position they've gotten themselves into, and then blame the clock for the loss. The longer you give them at the club, the more they will just sit.
I suppose it is all about context and balance.
I feel very differently, as I enjoy slow chess. Many times, it'll take me a day, and sometimes it takes two days or longer to make a move. In addition to analyze the board, what I've been doing these days is an equivalent to playing blindfolded.Millionaire Chess Tournament
ReplyDeleteMany enjoy slow chess. I get the most out slower time controls myself, though I must confess I don't play much postal chess. I might try it again, but I need to re-evaluate what I was doing earlier this year, and the longer I'm away from it the less I feel like doing that re-evaluation!
ReplyDeleteRegardless of my own particular postal troubles, there are many different time controls, from bullet to postal, for a reason, and the reason is that these are all different ways to appreciate the game.
As for making the game more commercial? I appreciate the efforts of various organizers, but chess is a tough game to understand, and a tough game to appreciate. These will always be limiting factors on the game's popularity, no matter the time control.