Many professional players have admited that faster formats are more reliant on intuition than technique. Magnus Carlsen can be quoted on that, in the Wolfgang Wee podcast, just to name one example. So to everybody saying classical and rapid/blitz require the exact same skills, that's definetly not the case. You can get away with a lot of mistakes and blunders in faster time formats, that's how Hikaru does his "trash opening speed-runs", or how Magnus goes through an entire bullet tournament playing f3, Kf2.
I believe chess, like any piece of culture, has irreversibly been subsumed by the short attention-span crisis, making the more profitable side of it a sped-up, watered-down version of itself. But that doesn't necessarily mean tradition is dead. The grandmaster level, the 2700 "SuperGM" level will always demand a classical, traditional chess education. If you wanna play just for fun, that's great, that's part of chess culture too. But the Carlsens, the Dings, the Nepos, and the Hikarus, (i.e. the players making high-level tournaments for us to watch and enjoy) will only continue to exist if a fundamental piece of chess tradition continues as well.
There's not a situation where the only two options are either brainless blitz or 4 hour marathons. Magnus himself recently said that he expects for "classical to be phased out at the top level". The idea that classical games will always live on forever, and that they are the only thing that should matter, is just ludicrous.
Again - why 90 minutes for most classical games? What's so magical about 90 minutes that has demanded it exist as the time control for the most prestigious games (except, of course, the World Championships, which need even more time? Why not 4 hours on each side? Why not make Chess take multiple days? And - why not make it take less time?
Again, you are just thinking of the current time control as "true chess" despite most people not playing it and the best player in the world saying it will probably go away soon.
and one reason why bullet is played online is because it is much harder to cheat on bullet then classical
and plus bullet chess is still chess
@SayChessClassical. is it written in a rulebook that says chess has to be played slow or what the core values of chess are? bullet chess is chess just as much as much as classical. if chess was first invented with the first-time control being bullet, then everyone would say that the core values of chess is to play fast. just because some dude 100 yrs ago played chess slow does not mean chess has to be played slow.
edit, i agree with
@chessfan124And then we wonder: "Why do so many of the younger generation have such short attention spans?" (with many getting diagnosed with the likes of ADHD)...
This all looks like gatekeeping to me. Participation in chess should be celebrated. People should enjoy their chess in the ways that please them. Creators should monetise their chess content as they see fit. We should be celebrating the present spate of popularity, not complaining about some perceived threat to the game.
In some people's eyes, a game of rapid online chess played by a 1500 might not have the value of a six-hour classical game played by GMs. But that rapid game is me playing, and to me it is valuable. I'm not expecting people to respect my ability, but my taking part in the sport is a good thing.
The only fear I have is a monopoly. Chess dot com are acquiring other platforms and putting their prices up. They limit access to chess activity with their paywall. If they were the only online chess facility, they would limit how many games a free account could play each day. It's a good thing Lichess is here as an alternative.
@Hedgehog1963 said in #37:
> This all looks like gatekeeping to me. Participation in chess should be celebrated. People should enjoy their chess in the ways that please them. Creators should monetise their chess content as they see fit. We should be celebrating the present spate of popularity, not complaining about some perceived threat to the game.
>
> In some people's eyes, a game of rapid online chess played by a 1500 might not have the value of a six-hour classical game played by GMs. But that rapid game is me playing, and to me it is valuable. I'm not expecting people to respect my ability, but my taking part in the sport is a good thing.
>
> The only fear I have is a monopoly. Chess dot com are acquiring other platforms and putting their prices up. They limit access to chess activity with their paywall. If they were the only online chess facility, they would limit how many games a free account could play each day. It's a good thing Lichess is here as an alternative.
I agree that participation in chess should be celebrated. My intent is not to gatekeep but to encourage a balance between online chess and preserving the game's depth.
These chess shorts are literally causing chess to explode and become mainstream. Numbers are up and many kids & adults are now discovering chess and joining the community. This is a good thing! The fact is, chess is a very, very difficult game and even in classical format it can be very difficult to find the best moves. That isn't going to change, so classical will always be a thing. I think the newbies first enjoy the faster paced and only later, once they are hooked, start to appreciate the slower formates. Chess is safe and better than ever IMO. :)
-Stacia
Here is my take on this topic:
As my old chess coach once said, "All players can play at the level of the masters. The difference of an ordinary player and a master is the time it takes to execute good moves."
Firstly, It is important to understand WHY we play classical chess and speed chess. We play classical chess to train our calculation, logical thinking, and strategic thinking. We play speed chess to train our intuition and board vision. The advantages of playing classical chess and speed chess are different.
Chess masters play speed chess not simply as a form of enjoyment. They play speed chess to train themselves, whether it be to train their opening preparation, their intuition, etc., for classical chess. Playing speed chess allows them to train their mind to think faster, allowing them to make quick decisions faster.
Certainly, speed chess is not a bad thing. However, completely transitioning away from classical chess is not a good idea. It masks the true reason why people play speed chess: as a type of training for classical chess.
Now, I am going to talk about something people might find controversial. Personally, I think GothamChess (Levy Rozman)'s methods of bringing chess to a wider audience is not necessarily good for the game. Chess is a game of strategy. It is a slow game, requiring years of playing to become a master. However, with the increase in the popularity of quick games, where anyone can become a good player in just hours of playing, chess is set an expectation that is simply unrealistic.
I am certainly not saying that GothamChess is all bad. The attention he brought to chess has definitely risen the popularity of not only speed chess, but also classical chess. However, it is important to understand that classical chess is and will always be the true time control of chess.
