https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/20...-a-fast-death/

He also later proved that people hate romance and deep meaningful relationships. You see guys, when men and women meet in Internet chat rooms there is almost always an immediate push into sexual innuendo and camming. No one ever suggests to have candlelit dinners or long romantic walks on the beach through the Internet!!! Internet behaviour is 100% absolute proof all these take it slow relationship people are faking it!!

.... UGH.... so OK seriously he's come up with a lot of great ideas in the past and hes absolutely right that a lot of things don't change simply because people are unwilling to change. I think his ideas for randomly pairing swiss tournaments and shortening amateur chess tournaments to a more reasonable slow time control are spot on. Advertising a chess tournament in a vacation destination and then having a schedule of non-stop chess was ridiculous. (Maybe the CCA listened they shortened their games a bit.)
...But his opinion here kind of just throws all common sense out the window. First of all G/30 live tournaments already exist and if no one wanted to play slow we'd see G30 tournaments flooded with entries and slow tournaments get little to no entries. Is this happening?, No. Also maybe, just maybe someone who is clicking 2 buttons on the friggan Internet to play a chess game might be less interested in investing 4 hours of his day to a game over someone who is getting in a car and driving 30+ minutes to a LIVE tournament. When I go to tournaments I want adequate time to think and play a nice and long quality game. Some players wanna play fast.... this is why BOTH exist.

Well, maybe you will get him to respond here but isn't a major part of his argument that there needs to be a fundamental switch before a faster time control is taken seriously?

One thing I think he might miss a bit is at the top level there likely won't be much of a ratings drop but at lower level I think there might be a very large one. E.g. I wouldn't be surprised if an 1800 player plays a *much* sloppier game at 60/10 than at 120/30 or whatever the comparison should be. More than just 50 or 100 rating points. But maybe that's not true, I don't really know.

Also, your post is super hard to read, lol.

I agree with everything he said. 100% of the chess I play right now is 3 minute blitz. The only tournaments I would consider entering are 30 min rapid tournaments or faster. If I want to watch an online commentary on a game I am more interested in watching a rapid game, that way I'm more confident I will not have to watch one player try to bore another into submission with the Berlin Wall or Slav Triangle or whatever.

More accurate chess does not equal better chess from a spectator point of view. Games between engines are usually boring. Theres simply no reason other than tradition to allow people hours to think.

What???? Slow chess is where immortal games happen

I remember when I was starting to play chess seriously, going through like Kasparov's best games were inspirational for me

Sure, I lose concentration when I'm not playing blitz, but slow games has its appeal too

Oh, one other thing I've noticed is when I first started watching John Bartholomew's videos, I'd really look forward to the standard games b/c I assumed they were much higher quality. But the blitz are relatively high quality too, certainly enough where I should get something out of his thought process and analysis, but watching them takes so much less time.

It's really made me wonder how big a difference there really is in quality and whether it matters nearly as much as I thought — I think most of it may be in terms of comfort. E.g. Until I'm used to playing shorter in-between time controls, it certainly feels like I just don't have time to play quality chess, and of course it will be lower quality, but in the end, once I'm comfortable with it, it probably will simply be more fun.

Immortal games could happen at 30 min plus 5 sec increment too. We wouldnt know because virtually all the games GMs play against each other are long time controls. Also with rapid games more games would be played, increasing the chances of good games happening.

I don't mind a little shortening of the time control. Now that we have delay or increment technology, there is no need to have tons of extra time to play out drawn games. This used to be important just in case your opponent tries to torture you for 238 moves in an opposite bishop ending (that link is missing the last 58 moves). I also like the idea of having one time control for the whole game, instead of an arbitrary addition of time at move 40 or wherever. I just don't think we need to go all the way to G/30. Making the 6 hour games into 3-4 hours would be a big improvement though.

Maybe just play everything as 1/1. That time control would be kind of amazing, actually.

Lichess 0/1 is even more amazing.

I pity the beauty of chess, but the only way to make it playable online for real money is to continuously alter the rules to make it anti-engine and make the time control bullet so that fish lose slower. In OTB real money play, it's easy to ban engines but the time control still needs to be fast to make edges thinner.

And yes, as the poker industry shows, most fish prefer fast games that they can play on breaks, on commute, whenever.

As for dating,

Short time control is soooo crappy
No so called "classics" or immortal will ever happen if Morphy & co play 40 minutes/game

From the Wiki article on Morphy:

Jesus, in some of the games I've seen of people playing against Morphy, I hope for their sake they didn't take 8 hours to make those moves.

Morphy had all the time in the world to think about his moves while it was his opponent's turn.