Classical Time Control Is Dead

Obviously, with the results from the recent World Chess Championship match, Magnus Carlsen, the greatest Chess player the world has ever known, has been unable to defeat a low rated 2700 player in classical time control in match play. Gone are the glory days of Lasker, Capablanca, Karpov and Kasparov. Adjournments? Ha, ha, ha. The Chess World needs to reassess the time control situation, considering present day training methods, where top players possessing virtual photographic chess memory ability are using chess engines far beyond the skill level of any player, to prepare their games.

Games may go to 45/45 or 90/30 format in the future. I think many of us are right though: classical chess is on the downhill slope of being the featured format in international tournaments and matches. In a way, this is beneficial. Entertainment value, etc as well as a different style of prep for shorter games. But it just doesn't feel right that classical time controls are probably going away for the most part.

It is sad, of course, but it's just a whole different thing nowadays, compared to the eras of the past masters, when there were still entire systems being discovered, like the Marshall gambit, etc. I think Chess has a great future as a mind competition, and if shortening the top level time control gets more people at least watching the games, I mean, it can't hurt having the average person start being a fan and a practicer of reasonable, rational and practicle thought. In order for the human race, collectively, to advance, if that is even possible, the average person needs to get beyond belief systems that are based on emotional fiction. I'm hoping for the best.

\:

 

:/

 

Wow. 3 years ago

Chess should be played as it was originally intended.  It is not a spectator sport.  People will always admire a true Grand Master, regardless of whether they watched a tournament on TV or not.  Part of the allure for chess is the great deal of time it can take for a Grand Master to move a piece, followed by a lightning fast move.  The whole idea of time is to fit a generation that grew up on instant gratification.  Maybe it would be good for these younger folks to learn the real meaning of patience.

Classical games should live forever. This is just fantastic for brain storming with time.

Chess is a strategy game, not a pattern recognition game.  For that reason, I don't think rapid and blitz game should be rated at all: it's impossible to make proper strategy in speed chess.  For the ADHD Twitch children, Blitz will always be there; but that is not true chess, and will very likely not be seen as such.  Fischer stopped playing because Classical time controls were too short then; and now they're even shorter.

 

By the way, try Correspondence (in this site called 'Daily') Chess.  Really, it's amazing; you can play it in your spare time much better than stupid bullets.

 

Pattern recognition is fundamental to playing the game. Here's a more in-depth look -

https://www.chess.com/article/view/pattern-recognition-fact-or-fiction

I Agree, 1 hour is long enough to plan, but not too long so that it gets grating.

Chess was played for centuries before chess clocks were invented.  I doubt most of them were blitz games.

Classical should die. It’s boring and drawn too often. Computers now play the best chess, so even the highest quality human games aren’t as well-played. Humans are good enough so that even rapid games now are generally as accurately-played as classical games used to be. Five hour draws stink.

There are so many draws in classical that the matches are ultimately decided by rapid and blitz at the highest levels, so just do away with the middleman.

There is no down side to eliminating classical chess other than annoying the dinosaurs. Let it rain meteors.

Well said maxwell, smart too.

The topic may be four years old, but it’s more relevant now than ever. The pandemic has shown us that watching chess can be entertaining.

Watching a classical match is like watching election returns—it’s long stretches of nothing happening punctuated and tedious analysis. It’s horrible.

The trade off for the only marginally higher quality games is draws, boredom, and unwatchability: small benefit at a tremendous cost. Kill it with fire.

 

As a Brit I respectfully disagree with your comparisons to politics. Nothing is as boring as listening to our Government talk about Covid. 

Absolutely not.  Whenever I watch a top level rapid game on that youtube channel, I'm like, "how are these people so high rated?"  Then I realize it's not classical.  Then I go watch something else.

I don't know how you're capable of telling a rapid game from classical game besides the annotations of "white was probably in time pressure at this point and missed a +8 continuation and settled for a +3"

@bbmaxwell Umm... you’re not spectating the games from 100 years ago, you’re watching a summary of the gameplay. It’s like watching only the highlights of football, not the game itself. It’s impossible to spectate a game that involves staring at a person’s face for 30 minutes while they think. Could you imagine how horrible The Queen’s Gambit would’ve been had the players moved in real time? The series would’ve been 40 episodes of nothing happening.

Also, you’re watching only a handful of games from a large historical period; of course you can find great games in a pool of thousands.

Finally, what made those games such great theater was that they were filled with inaccurate play, leading to spectacular mates. Classical today features more precision, and thus more draws, leading to loads of clunkers.

As I said before, if you want to watch the best possible chess, it’s not going to be from humans, so why even try. Keeping a match under an hour total is just way more fun for everyone except those who enjoy watching tectonic plates shift.

My opinion is this. Classical time controls are necessary. Why do I say this? Well, you know how you say that faster chess is more entertaining? If classical chess ceases to exist, speed chess will be of lower quality as well, because by getting better at classical, players play better speed chess as well. Take away the classical, there will be no need to go deep into position and future generations of players will ultimately be weaker, as there will be no need to study in depth.