Opening Theory - Good or Bad for Chess?

@Manglecopter:

I doubt very much that short(er) time controls will attract masses to chess. Short games are funny for a change but also very superficial and it becomes boring very soon if you watch them all day long. Short games are in some way replaceable and not the game itself is important, its only the result that matters.

So my opinion is that a complete change of time controls to rapid/blitz will be the end of chess.

Every player needs time to play a pointful and thought-out chessgame. Weaker players need even more time than stronger ones but also the strong players are unable to produce great games without enough time to think about plans and moves.

Bullet/Blitz chess and even rapid chess is just some kind of gambling. Real chess has to do with serious brainwork. Limited time is just an inevitable circumstance - not more not less.

Best wishes
Nada

I never mentioned bullet, even 5+0 blitz would probably be too fast and chaotic to commentate on for a serious game with strong players, if you read Greg Shahade's article i linked earlier, you'll see how he explains what a good time control for chess geared toward the spectator might be. Even 10+0 is probably too fasr. When I say fast time controls I'm basically talking about rapid. Also the idea that games well be less rich because they don't last 7 hours instead of, say 2, is just wrong. Read the article and you'll understand.

@Manglecopter:

The article of Greg Shahade is just absurd. His arguments are basically: Long chess is bad because its boring and wasting time. You dont think so and you like to play long chess and all your friends like it as well? Thats not true because in ICC most people like to play fast chess!

What kind of argumentation is that?!

Yesterday I played a tournament game with 90 min. + 30 sec. increment. At the end I was in time pressure and I needed this time badly to create such a game, full of ideas and plans. I would be never never never able to do something like this in 30+5 time control. Maybe sometimes with some luck, but thats not the same!

Forget the given engine evals, most of the time Lichess-Stockfish is not deep enough to understand my moves!

http://de.lichess.org/d0WYRKaj

Nada

960 all the way. The purest form of the game. It really forces you think about the fundamental forces of chess.

I'm poor - sub 1500 in everything but 960 shifts my brain into a different gear.

Have fun eveyone!

@manglecopter

"shrinking prize money", "shrinking viewership", "no one wants to watch it", "no one wants to play it". You are making so many false claims that i wont try to debate Greg's suggestions with you. Do some research, come up with numbers and realize that there are more sides to each story.

Maybe even try to watch a chess broadcast. May i suggest the upcoming U.S. championship? You may find out that you are one of many thousands watching classical chess, you may even find it exciting.

I find it obsolete. First, it kills the beauty of the game, allowing players to memorize openings and etc. Second, why would you invest time to study something that earns you nothing and would allow you to get better at a massively outdated and cynical strategy that requires hours of your time which has become an asset more precious than gold in the 21t century?

@Manglecopter,

my chessclub is organizing a rapid tournament every year, it is well known and even the local press is writing about it. In spite of that there are absolutely no specatators there, because nobody is interested in chess except the players itself.

And exactly these players are the ones who are watching events like world chess championship or big tournaments. They are sitting partially for hours in front of their home computers, watching broadcasts and have a nice time because its very entertaining for them!

So its totally wrong to claim that nobody is interested in long chessgames and the quality of ches they are standing for.

Of course my game is not made to impress any GM. Thats not the point. The point is that I am proud of such a game because it took a long time for me to be able to play like that - thanks to long chess. Never ever I would be in a position to do something like that if I would have made short games all day long.

Best wishes
Nada

@endofgamz:

"many of the greatest games ever played are pre-engine"

This statement is totally wrong. Many of the famous historical games are pre-engine of course. But there are really allot of great games available and not only opening wins by some deep preparation.

Besides of that preparation is a part of chess. In former days there were no engines but people still did preparation and played their favorite opening lines. Games had often a long break and in this time players and their helpers analysed the position deeply.

In facto so deep that in many of those games the endgames are much better played due to that than nowadays because the players are often in time pressure in complicated endgames and thats bad for the quality of the games.

Be better informed before you claim something wrong into the wide open!

Best wishes
Nada