It's obv 1000x better to watch than slow ass paint drying chess tournaments where you can literally just take a half hour break multiple times during the show because nothing ever happens. With this show I literally wouldn't leave my computer in case I missed a single game.

Seriously guys I feel like I'm living in the time before hole card cams when the entire poker community went nuts about how they would destroy poker.

Anyway here's a blog post I wrote where I found a key position in every round:

https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/20...itz-challenge/

Here's another blog post I wrote where I tell everyone to STFU and start supporting the idea of more serious blitz tournaments.

https://gregshahade.wordpress.com/20...-time-control/


Also Yugo....I saw your comment in the last thread. I have the absolute best possible format for a blitz tournament. It would be completely off the hook if it ever happens, and since the STL blitz has ended I've convinced a few influential people of it's awesomeness, so maybe one day.... But just imagine this tournament, but it lasts longer and is much more exciting.

Oh yeah one last thing. Even though I find the idea of following a tourney that has 6 hour games to be relatively boring, I don't think that blitz should supplant Classical chess.

They both compliment each other very well, and they both need to thrive. Ideal would be three titles:

Classical
Rapid
Blitz

all of which are taken very seriously and include major tournaments and a world championship cycle.

I have thought about it myself why blitz is not being taken so seriously yet. One reason might be because one can't get titles without classical games. But the change is already on the way as a small blitz tournament is the norm before super tournaments.

"While Kasparov definitely had some part in it, the blitz tournament was the most popular event in the history of St. Louis."

I agree with your general point, but lol at this. Kasparov was 98% of it, if not more. If it was just a normal top 4 tournament following the main event, almost no one would have watched.

Too many people love the beauty of chess dearly to make blitz a thing.

I think there are pretty much no reasons not to see if this would be super exciting and well received even without Kasparov playing. Two things are necessary, right? $ and motivation of some key organizer already doing major things.

Hopefully someone gives this a very serious try with an entertaining format (e.g. not the "weekend swiss" style of the world blitz championship) and we see how it does without Kasparov playing.

I think such an event would be very exciting, although I do think that Kasparov was the main reason the event had the opportunity to be so popular. Without him I'm not sure many people end up watching and get caught up in the excitement. Also, I think Kasparov made everyone take it more seriously. Even with a $50k prize fund, Naka seemed to not be taking the event fully seriously at all until day 2 when he finally hunkered down.

If such events can happen perhaps the potentially best blitz player in the world will actually take blitz seriously. I mean, every interview Naka dismisses blitz even though he should be most excited about it gaining in popularity.

I definitely think Kasparov was the main reason the St. Louis Blitz was awesome.

I'm all for more blitz events, but the coverage has to improve in a number of ways, IMO. Simply taking the format we're used to for classical events doesn't work very well, which is why other blitz tournaments in the past haven't been as exciting to follow.

A few thoughts:

- Emphasis on engine eval during the game is pretty bad (especially in a fast game).

- Switching between blitz games as they happen is distracting (we don't follow either game too well).

- A third commentator could follow the other game(s) in the background and give a quick recap with the most interesting positions before the start of the following round.

- Use of the analysis board should be used only to illustrate main tactics and ideas for the audience. The game might be a dozen moves ahead if we spend too long looking at variations.

- At all times we should have the players/board visible - to me, seeing the players moving the pieces and their expressions is key.

i've participated in a number of top-flight blitz events. it's a fun diversion but the main problem is that games tend to be around 2600-caliber, or even lower, by classical standards. we don't want that to be what we're remembered for.

Great ideas by curtain.

I'm fascinated by this desire to make chess more popular and mainstream. I don't know, I kind of like it as it is and that includes it not being super popular. I don't really get the desire to make other people like the game more, especially if it means I would like it less (which is what would happen if blitz were the main draw).

yes to all of this.

curtains, i don't know how you can say the coverage of this was good. i had heard maurice ashley was bad, but wow. i watched the live stream replay of the immortal game, which could have been one of the coolest televised chess moments ever. instead it was just absolute chaos, and awful.

ashley was constantly screaming about the engine while variations being played out on the board while missing moves. it changed what could have been a very very cool moment with So (potentially) surprising the commentators at every turn, to simply a contest to see if he could match the engine analysis. i don't think engines should be featured whatsoever, and if there is only a single board on screen, then i don't think pieces should ever be moved to demonstrate ideas (feel free to spout moves or draw tons of arrows though).

The excitement of the Stlouis blitz came from three factors:

1) Kasparov (50%)
2) Never really had a chance to watch top flight blitz played on live stream before (30%)
3) Actual game (20%)

It was very exciting yes; in some ways it feels to me like the WPT was. If you'd never seen it, it was an amazing spectacle. However, after a little while, it got pretty boring to watch because it's all built around that one shocker moment (someone wins/loses with significant consequences). I don't think it's sustainable to grow the game or provide long term anything.

I'm all for a faster time control; I'd love to see a classical tournament with something like G/20+20sec.

The best part of the coverage was getting to see Kasparov walk off in a huff after a game. The second best part of the coverage was the other Kasparov things.

I think that blitz is ok for occasional chaotic fun, but in general I prefer watching classical games just because it's easier to follow the analysis. And I'm sure that the more casual the fan, the more they're going to be lost trying to follow and understand what's going on in a blitz match, at least in real time.

^ How about rapid chess (e.g. 15 min + 10 sec or Punker's suggestion of 20 min + 20 sec)? It's not too fast for analysis but not too slow either.

Imo the main reason lot of players like blitz better is simply because there is less "GM finesses" due to the lack of time.
Hence the game becomes more "pure" and understandable for the main stream.

Clearly the comments about Jen's voice were heard and considered. She's seriously improved from the last time I heard her. Maurice.... First off take the engine away from that man. He was completely lost in the games and sounded far weaker than he is. I think that's because he never got to get 'into the game' as he was more focused on Stockfish than the games. And speaking of inflections. John Madden meets WWF, on uppers, was just ridiculous and felt as fake as it looked. Kasparovisms are what keep people low brow entertained, not acting like a3 is the most impressive thing since GSP got helicopter punched TFO by Serra in the first round.

Maurice Ashley is, by a country mile, the worst thing about US Chess coverage. The sheer effrontery of him calling out Nakamura, to his face, for taking a draw with Black vs Kamsky was nauseating.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03t3jmz

A radio piece on the trash talk friendly chess scene in St. Louis, and the tournament.

made me lol, tyty

That was pretty good. Kind of weird to be able to picture half of the people he's talking to and not the other half.

LOL at the caption's description of St. Louis

tv/video broadcast is the key as chess for most of us is a visually oriented game

really, chess needs to restructure the game/pace to fit tv imho to gain mass popularity

so the op point well taken that classic chess is too slow for that media

yet, is blitz may be too fast too

something in the middle, with a pace like that of american football, with a move/play required every 45 seconds or so--that gives time for the commentators to breakdown the action for viewers---Maurice Ashley with his touch screen monitor is excellent and has the ESPN style exciting delivery to add to the show, he gets his analysis down in about a minute, very succinct---and i am bored with Serwan and his Mister Rodgers style analysis

I prefer rapid chess and true classical by FIDE standards far more than blitz. Blitz is extremely addictive, fun, and absolutely has it's place as a great training tool but I simply find 15+ min games to be more fun and engaging to both play and watch.

20+20 is a cool time control. So is 25+25. 15+10 is the "standard" FIDE rapid TC but I've been playing more 12+3 lately because that's what ICC's USCF quick rated games are. 12+3 and 15+0 have been my blitz lately. I need to spend a lot more time on long games at this point, actually.

I think rapid is the best of both worlds maybe 15+3