I am with tradition, because longer time control better quality of play. This as a rule of thumb. Also I am against tie-breaks. The FRC WC ended in an armaggedon game. What scary looks the Classical WC decided in an armaggedon or even blitz. Tradition said that the WC cycle is the way to dethrone the WC. If the match is even, the WC hasn't been dethroned and keeps the title. It was like this from Lasker-Schlechter, passing through Botvinnik-Bronstein and ending in Kramnik-Leko.
But I have an idea. The OTB faster format that Magnus suggest and we don't really know what it is and how it works, it could be tried in a Magnus-Alireza friendly match. Magnus recognized many times that Alireza is the best rounded of the coming generations. So this friendly match sure would find strong sponsoring and compete with the official Nepo-Ding match, which I am eager to follow and enjoy as I enjoy all chess played at the higher level.
From the Blitz&Rapid WCs I didn't follow a single game. Just know that Magnus won and he blundered something big vs.Artemiev.
I think you nailed it with the tea leaves. The cynic in me thought that Chess.com tweeting a quote from Magnus about blitz being more important than classical was very strategic. A shame for Ding and Nepo, who've worked so hard to get there. For me, the slower the better. It's no surprise that chess is going the way of everything else and getting faster and faster to hold our decreased attention spans, but that makes me want to resist it even more. I'll watch and support Ding v Nepo and try to ignore these increasingly obnoxious distractions (don't get me started on chess boxing...)
Well, no-one watches a marathon race from beginning to the end, that does not diminish its prestige or value. Besides chess is not a "spectator" sport, it is a participant sport. When you watch/follow a chess game you actually participate since you are thinking about moves and lines in each position. That is a very unique characteristic for chess and distinct from other sports.
I wonder if chess could take some cues for other long-running sports. For example, what is is that people love about Nascar? What do the broadcasts look like?
I am a big fan of the slower time format. And why change it ? If you want to see faster time control chess, just watch Rapid and Blitz world championships. Why change classical to have another blitz wc ? Makes no sense. I think there are a lot of people liking the slower time control. We are the silent majority
"Chess is more popular than ever, but even the most diehard fans aren’t going to sit through a six hour game end-to-end. "
This statement surprised me. What is the basis for it?
Also, what difference does it make if fans sit through all 6 hours or only four or five hours? Some will tune in late and watch to the end and some will tune in early and leave after 3 or 4 hours. Others will follow the whole game.
The faster the time control the more it cheapens the game. The biggest misconception is that faster time controls will make the game more popular. Hardly. Chess will never have the popularity of the many sports that millions tune into. It is too esoteric a game. I can see why top players may prefer it though. If you want to play for big prizes then why not enter a 3 or 4 day tournament than a two or three week one? Less work for the same money.
Well I'm probably in the top 99.99999% of the population in how interested I am in chess, and I don't think I've ever watched a classical game beginning-to-end. Maybe some people do. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that faster time controls would make chess more popular, but whether popularity is even a good goal is up for debate.
I don't agree with the premise the classical world championship should be the most viewed event. There are different time controls for everyone taste and you could make a new combined championship. Whatever gets the most viewed is independent of the sporting value insiders will give it.
Why throw away an old tradition when it could perfectly still be played, albeit with a bit less interest?
I agree 100%, a larger audience will be drawn to high level chess if more emphasis is put on the faster time formats. People who know close to nothing about chess would be interested in watching the players moving fast on the board especially under a time crunch, and because all games are recorded anyone could go back and analyze the games afterwards, same as they would a classical game.
I was thinking about the comparison to golf, which is also slow, and requires some knowledge to really understand the nuances. What's the draw for beginners? "Ball go far." To get new fans interested in chess you need that initial draw that can be appreciated even if you don't know the game. Having the players move really fast is by far the most obvious way to do this.
100% agree, fast = exciting = new fans = new chess players (who hopefully eventually realize that playing bullet and blitz games won’t help them improve as much as longer time frames, puzzles, tactics, etc). For people who understand chess more than the average person, we are aware that classical time formats can produce better moves and ideas simply because the players have more time to think, but this still wouldn’t attract nearly as many new fans of the game as the faster time formats.
I am with tradition, because longer time control better quality of play. This as a rule of thumb. Also I am against tie-breaks. The FRC WC ended in an armaggedon game. What scary looks the Classical WC decided in an armaggedon or even blitz. Tradition said that the WC cycle is the way to dethrone the WC. If the match is even, the WC hasn't been dethroned and keeps the title. It was like this from Lasker-Schlechter, passing through Botvinnik-Bronstein and ending in Kramnik-Leko.
But I have an idea. The OTB faster format that Magnus suggest and we don't really know what it is and how it works, it could be tried in a Magnus-Alireza friendly match. Magnus recognized many times that Alireza is the best rounded of the coming generations. So this friendly match sure would find strong sponsoring and compete with the official Nepo-Ding match, which I am eager to follow and enjoy as I enjoy all chess played at the higher level.
From the Blitz&Rapid WCs I didn't follow a single game. Just know that Magnus won and he blundered something big vs.Artemiev.
Thanks for the excellent article, as always :)
Great article Nate! It’ll be interesting to see if the format ends up being closer to what Magnus wants, ironically after he bows out.
I think you nailed it with the tea leaves. The cynic in me thought that Chess.com tweeting a quote from Magnus about blitz being more important than classical was very strategic. A shame for Ding and Nepo, who've worked so hard to get there. For me, the slower the better. It's no surprise that chess is going the way of everything else and getting faster and faster to hold our decreased attention spans, but that makes me want to resist it even more. I'll watch and support Ding v Nepo and try to ignore these increasingly obnoxious distractions (don't get me started on chess boxing...)
Well, no-one watches a marathon race from beginning to the end, that does not diminish its prestige or value. Besides chess is not a "spectator" sport, it is a participant sport. When you watch/follow a chess game you actually participate since you are thinking about moves and lines in each position. That is a very unique characteristic for chess and distinct from other sports.
I wonder if chess could take some cues for other long-running sports. For example, what is is that people love about Nascar? What do the broadcasts look like?
I am a big fan of the slower time format. And why change it ? If you want to see faster time control chess, just watch Rapid and Blitz world championships. Why change classical to have another blitz wc ? Makes no sense. I think there are a lot of people liking the slower time control. We are the silent majority
You don't seem that silent to me 😂
"Chess is more popular than ever, but even the most diehard fans aren’t going to sit through a six hour game end-to-end. "
This statement surprised me. What is the basis for it?
Also, what difference does it make if fans sit through all 6 hours or only four or five hours? Some will tune in late and watch to the end and some will tune in early and leave after 3 or 4 hours. Others will follow the whole game.
The faster the time control the more it cheapens the game. The biggest misconception is that faster time controls will make the game more popular. Hardly. Chess will never have the popularity of the many sports that millions tune into. It is too esoteric a game. I can see why top players may prefer it though. If you want to play for big prizes then why not enter a 3 or 4 day tournament than a two or three week one? Less work for the same money.
Well I'm probably in the top 99.99999% of the population in how interested I am in chess, and I don't think I've ever watched a classical game beginning-to-end. Maybe some people do. I think it's overwhelmingly likely that faster time controls would make chess more popular, but whether popularity is even a good goal is up for debate.
I don't agree with the premise the classical world championship should be the most viewed event. There are different time controls for everyone taste and you could make a new combined championship. Whatever gets the most viewed is independent of the sporting value insiders will give it.
Why throw away an old tradition when it could perfectly still be played, albeit with a bit less interest?
The title "World Championshp" still has a lot of cache. This event should be chess's crown jewel, one way or another.
I agree 100%, a larger audience will be drawn to high level chess if more emphasis is put on the faster time formats. People who know close to nothing about chess would be interested in watching the players moving fast on the board especially under a time crunch, and because all games are recorded anyone could go back and analyze the games afterwards, same as they would a classical game.
I was thinking about the comparison to golf, which is also slow, and requires some knowledge to really understand the nuances. What's the draw for beginners? "Ball go far." To get new fans interested in chess you need that initial draw that can be appreciated even if you don't know the game. Having the players move really fast is by far the most obvious way to do this.
100% agree, fast = exciting = new fans = new chess players (who hopefully eventually realize that playing bullet and blitz games won’t help them improve as much as longer time frames, puzzles, tactics, etc). For people who understand chess more than the average person, we are aware that classical time formats can produce better moves and ideas simply because the players have more time to think, but this still wouldn’t attract nearly as many new fans of the game as the faster time formats.