Long Live Classical Chess

[Hans Jung]

https://en.chessbase.com/post/long-live-classical-chess Interesting points.- or is it just me in old age.

[Fred Henderson]

hmmm....

Certainly in OTB competition I would like to play the old time controls, for us it was usually 40/2 then rest of game in 30 min. Because it is "better" chess. That is what I started with. Maybe the changes make chess more lucrative for the pros, but it does nothing to help me.

I don't think it's about getting old, a better description might be that we are "old school": And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

The author talks a good line, but I can't see how much of what he says supports his case for longer time controls, except for the following short paragraph...

Isn't it more satisfying to beat a stronger opponent in classical than rapid chess, because it requires more and because the element of luck plays a much smaller part, although luck even in classical chess cannot be entirely ruled out?

[Pargat Perrer]

hmmm....

Certainly in OTB competition I would like to play the old time controls, for us it was usually 40/2 then rest of game in 30 min. Because it is "better" chess. That is what I started with. Maybe the changes make chess more lucrative for the pros, but it does nothing to help me.

I don't think it's about getting old, a better description might be that we are "old school": And there ain't nothing wrong with that.

The author talks a good line, but I can't see how much of what he says supports his case for longer time controls, except for the following short paragraph...

Isn't it more satisfying to beat a stronger opponent in classical than rapid chess, because it requires more and because the element of luck plays a much smaller part, although luck even in classical chess cannot be entirely ruled out?

There is no way in chess to force a win. Wins and losses happen because of mistakes. Therefore to my mind nothing can be "satisfying" about beating a stronger opponent. It just means you got lucky because that opponent timed his or her critical mistake to happen against you.

It seems that the economics of chess force the shorter games to rise up in popularity. The sponsors of chess pay attention, and the shorter games are more popular to watch, so the decision is already made. Since shorter games increase the human mistakes, watching chess becomes something of interest only for the groupies who follow particular players (usually the younger rising stars) with passion. It thus becomes a cult of personality. The game of chess itself doesn't factor much into it, it's been pretty much exhausted. You don't hear anything really about some young new player who is adding something to the theory of chess ... which is really taken completely over by computers.

There will always remain chess clubs to play longer games in casual play and some limited number of tournaments that can continue without sponsors.

As a side note, I notice many chess commentators talk about "blood over the board". It is a marketing gimmick, as I don't think there has ever been blood spilt during a chess game? Now if chess had fights like hockey.... well there is chessboxing. And I do think chessboxing is interesting from a boxing perspective. It adds a strategy to boxing to slow the opponent's mental thinking, which the chess portion would make very important.