Long live classical chess

by Rune Vik-Hansen
1/4/2024 – With new money and new sponsors pouring in, and never before seen numbers of spectators following the games, the tendency is towards faster time controls. Classical games are played with reduced times, rapid and blitz tournamenst are gaining popularity. That provides more action and excitement for chess fans. But is it really the way to go? Rune Vik-Hansen, Norwegian philosopher, argues in favour of long games.

ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024 ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024

It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.


Low participation in this season’s (2023) Club Championship of my local chess club in Norway has raised concerns on how to address the club's financial issues as well as future recruitment, which has consequences for the former, with a reduction in thinking time from currently 90+30 to 60+30 being suggested as a solution.

What arguments are put forward in support of this reduction in thinking time?

Most urgent seems to be the fear of falling behind the zeitgeist, the social development and that we have to adapt to the times we live in, because today everything goes so much faster than before, where elite players as well increasingly participate in rapid tournaments, eventually also with not insignificant cash prizes. Countless are the analogies, metaphors and parallels between ‘chess and life’, but how far should they be stretched?

Question: Is the statement that chess must follow the spirit of the times and social development a premise in an argument not yet made or the conclusion of an argument not yet made?

Beyond the parish pump of chess, unclear is why everything has to go so fast, where the chase after ever shorter chess games in many ways reflects the rest of society's development, where some take interest in an ever higher pace, in fact, to such an extent that one is hardly present in one's own life, not to mention others’. Has the ‘time crunch’ or ‘time squeeze’ finally caught up with chess? Who initiate(s) the bustle in the first instance? Who is the unmoved mover, in the words of Aristotle? What, then, is the aim of this eternal rush? Where to? What is the goal? The plan? Does the hustle and bustle serve a higher purpose?

Paradoxically, man as a species, as is well known, is going nowhere, but rather than making the best of our allotted time, we try to live our lives to the end as soon as possible!? Obviously, who comes first wins, but what was the prize again? In philosophy, on the other hand, the winner comes in last (Wittgenstein (1889-1951)).

The fact that some (nobody mentioned, nobody forgotten!) in the so-called world elite have problems with classical chess should not be someone else's problem? Are we about to make someone else's problem with classical chess our own? In the world of politics, people often talk about countries ‘natural to compare with’ but it is easy to forget that ‘natural’ and ‘right’ are not synonyms. Something being ‘natural’ only means the brain initiates an impulse, inducement or prompting, without requiring any justification, as distinct from whether something is ‘right.’

On what grounds do others take over, or ‘inherit’, elite players’ problems with classical chess?

Amid the hustle and bustle, aren’t we running the risk of losing sight of chess itself, and, not least, ourselves? That the only thing left is the adrenaline rush?

If adrenaline is the most important, perhaps we should as ourselves why we play chess in the first place: self-assertion? Ego-pampering? To gain understanding and insight (learning), create something or solve mysteries, find joy in fellowship during games as well as in analysis, the humor lurking in the surprises, the pride of getting in a preparation? What is left if everything is reduced to ‘I, me, myself and my adrenaline rush’? What about chess as sport, art and science? Won’t chess lose its artistic and scientific aspects if all that matters is adrenaline?

Watch Nakamura and Caruana blitzing in Ferguson, Missouri

And here's a game of really fast bullet chess

Compare that to standard tournament games (Grenke Chess 2019, 5h 40min long) 

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?

In his epistemology and theory of knowledge, Plato emphasised that ‘only what is lasting, is worth pursuing’, or, in other words, not fleeting sensory impressions but insight into the ideas (the non-physical, timeless, absolute and unchangeable essences of which all things are imitations), and which applies to the question of happiness, or ‘the good life’, as well (Gr. eudaimonia, ‘human flourishing’/‘good spirit’).

Today, happiness, in contrast to eudaimonia, (which stood for a well-balanced soul thought to consist of desires and will and controlled by reason, making it possible to take a blow without having to muster all one’s strength), is often construed in terms of monosyllabic words: ‘sex, drugs & rock 'n roll’, where emotions fluctuate from moment to moment; from top to bottom in no time. In the same vein, we could ask if increasingly shorter games are the way to nirvana?

One could only imagine the chase after ever shorter chess games transferred to other areas, say philosophy or music: ‘Squeeze in as many notes as possible per second, irrespective of quality.’ Did anyone say music experience!? (The chess equivalence would probably be ‘bullet’ (1-minute games)). Some may still remember the American blues musician B. B. King's (1925-2015) supreme mastery over the single note? Why would chess be any exception?

What about chess heritage? Are rapid games the ones that spring to mind when we remember players and tournaments, places visited, where we went out, what we talked about? What we want to leave to future generations? And what about the relationship between time spent on a move and the quality of the move? (A fixed relationship may not be present, but experience testifies to a certain connection nonetheless). Will rapid games be replayed in, say, 50-200 years?

If adrenaline is the most important goal, why not cut the chess altogether and keep the clock only with the thinking time 0+1, so we get the rush we are looking for and can get back home as soon as possible? It's not the chess we are looking for anyway, is it? Some express cautious optimism that 60 + 30 is a step towards even faster chess games, but why stop there?

From a philosophical point of view, the very notion of progress and development—an idea that gained momentum with the British philosopher of science Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) whose ‘knowledge is power’ (scientia potentia est) was about controlling nature to improve the lot of people—has come under increasingly strong pressure where more and more people doubt whether the ‘development’ is ‘moving forward.’ In what sense are increasingly shorter games thought to be progress? An improvement? Compared to what? To whom?

The question of reduced thinking time is, perhaps, ultimately a question of value and personal preferences, but the argument can easily be developed: The objection to increasingly shorter thinking time is neither about having enough time to find ‘the best move’, nor that ‘chess should live in a bubble’, but about the transcendence of chess, a philosophical, and to many perhaps a foreign, concept.

‘Transcendence’ means ‘surpassing’, ‘the state of being beyond normal perception’, and just as with classical literature or classical music, there is a timeless quality to chess games, classic, as well as generally good games, that does not make them attached to one place, but still relevant beyond the time in which they were produced, and not linked to the concrete and up-to-date ‘here and now.’

The fact that we keep returning to the classics makes them, in a sense, ahistorical: We play through classical games, because we can still learn from them; we read classical literature, to relive past experiences; we listen to music ‘written a long time ago’, because it still evokes feelings and moods. And the list easily expands: philosophers still debate issues formulated by Plato.

Regrettably, chess is relentlessly physically demanding where the younger guard inexorably pushes the older one aside, But this may to some extent be remedied by staying in shape. Worse is that the pursuit of ever shorter games is perhaps symptomatic of an unfortunate development seen in other areas as well: The ability to pay attention, resist or persevere seems to be seriously weakened, whether we are talking about defensive ability or reading and arithmetic skills (the PISA survey 2022 (Norwegian scores) is anything but uplifting) where the key word is something as old-fashioned and outdated as effort over time. Fancy technology is of little help without the ability to stick with it or put in the necessary effort.

Not knowing any better, one could almost get the impression that there are no alternatives, that no one has free will and that we are not the subject of our own actions: if society moves at a breakneck pace, everything else must also move at a breakneck pace. It cannot do otherwise.

Isn't it paradoxical that a pensive game like chess is often played as quickly as possible? What doesn't that say about our times? In many ways, the fascination with rapid chess is reminiscent of mass tourism: We don't stop to linger, to dwell, but to see for the sake of seeing: if it is Tuesday, it’s Paris, France. It's called ‘development’ but aren't we rather talking about liquidation? Have we become so busy that we're about to liquidate ourselves?

Why not let chess be a haven from all the hustle and bustle otherwise surrounding us? Or is the goal also to suffer a heart attack (preferably two!) during the games, because otherwise we wouldn’t ‘keep up with the times’?

Previous articles by Rune Vik-Hansen

Born in 1968, Rune graduated from the University of Tromsø in 1999 with a thesis on Heidegger's concept of Dasein. Other fields of interests are metaphysics, ontology, theory of science, philosophy of mind, free will and morality.


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 09:27
@Vik-Hansen: ok, I accept the difference you pointed out between emergent and supervenient.
But then I confirm my opinion about time being emergent, because it's clearly physical: as I previously said, time (multiplied by c, the constant speed of light) is one of the 4 spatial dimensions of our universe (which btw is different from the geometric 4D space, because the former has a different 'metric'; we can ignore this technical detail though - sorry for me being unable to resist the temptation to be so accurate).
There's just one mystery: we don't know the reason why we can't go back in time (for the moment at least).
About the evolution of universe, at least according to QM i.e. the theory about elementary particles, nothing is pre-determined: every single event can have more outcomes and you can only calculate the probability of every outcome. So is not necessarily true that classical chess is doomed to disappear in the future.
But the problem is that those who should care more about it (FIDE) are not doing anything serious to prevent cheating and so, as I have already said, I fear we could have big and increasing problems with classical chess tournaments. Well, we can still play chess with friends using any time we like.
Anyway in the world, it's clear that there is a strong 'inertia' toward more rapid events; to invert this would be not easy. "A lot of people would have to work hard for a certain amount of time; or less people would have to work hard for more time", paraphrasing Asimov. :-)
A good start would be to have a better Federation, if possible!
About the last idea you pointed out, I believe it's a very wrong idea! For example we can do a lot of bad things (e.g. destroy the Earth), but it's far better not do do them. And so of course I agree with you that is not necessary at all (nor desirable) to do any determined thing that can be done.

Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 1/8/2024 09:18
To get things clear, I don't mind money to be made in chess. If you are good at it and people enjoy your games, you're entitled to a remuneration. Also when you take the trouble of making these games public, you have the right to get paid for the service. The same for training people or publishing material for others who want help to get better at the game.
However, things change when money gets to be the main motive, regardless of the means, like turning the game into a mass commodity and trying to obliterate all other views of the game, whether it be the way people are playing or the competition of other entities.
Vik-Hansen Vik-Hansen 1/8/2024 06:11

One of the major, if not the major, principled differences between a property being emergent and supervenient is that the first entails a causal relationship, while the latter does not.

For instance, consciousness might be described as supervenient since it cannot be explained causally, i.e., how a non-physical property (in the sense of subjective experience of say, pain, taste, smells, colours) can arise from physical matter. And since time itself is non-physical (or is it?), time would seem to be closer to be supervenient than emergent? (Disclaimer: We really do not know anything about this, just a thought.)

And yes, we are straying from the topic. A question is if anything can be done to stop, or slow down the development towards faster time controls. As it is, the contemporary tendency seems to be 'no.' People behave like it is all pre-determined, starting all the way back to the Big Bang, and there is nothing to be done about it.

However, the oftentimes, though neither always nor necessarily, verbally articulated experience, 'I catch Myself doing/saying/feeling' suggests that at least language knows about the (conscious) veto, so at least there is a theoretical possibility not having to play rapid/blitz.

One problem of our day and age is the idea that everything that can be done should be, or ought, to be done/implemented/realised but this is not necessarily so, is it?

SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 04:44
@Vik-Hansen: according to Merriam-Webster, "supervenient" = coming or occurring as something additional, extraneous, or unexpected; while "emergent" = rising out of or as if out of a fluid.
Well, I don't think time is extraneous to real world, nor unexpected; but properly rising out of the fluid reality.
I was thinking about time all my life, especially after I started to study physics. In classical physics is one of the fundamental concepts of the physical world. But it's strange: you can never really measure time (intervals) like you measure a distance for example. You can just see the movement of something with respect to other things (i.e. the hands of the clock relative to the dial). We generally feel the impression that time is 'flowing', but we know from general relativity (GR) or quantum mechanics (QM) that this impression is wrong. Moreover, if you try to combine GR with QM (like for instance in string theory or quantum loop gravity, QLG), you can even get the variable t simplifying from the formulas! Carlo Rovelli (one of the main proponents of QLG) wrote an article titled "Forget time!" for which he won an award. :-) For sure, most of the things are changing in the universe (e.g. one gets older, or things can break); so we explain this, telling phrases like "things are changing in time", but that can just be an interpretation or even maybe an illusion. Boltzmann was thinking that changes were caused by the entropy increasing instead.
Interesting but... maybe we are going a bit off-topic.
If you want to dig more on this topic, Craig Callender wrote an interesting article titled "Is time an illusion?" which appeared on Scientific American (June 2010).
Anyway in all-days life we certainly need to cope with at least the conventional time of our planet Earth; and the same is unfortunately true for chess clocks, if we want to play a tournament. And also certainly, cheaters are making all of this harder... so I strongly hope they will be busted!
Vik-Hansen Vik-Hansen 1/8/2024 04:00
Thank you all for great feedback. Who woulda thunk...

@SunriseK: Time, an emergent property? Not supervenient? (Now the discussion is becoming interesting for real:))

@Frits Fritschy: We do indeed see the gorilla but the article is based on the debate in our club, and we are (painfully) aware of the increased commercialisation.

There may not be one, final, objective answer to this issue or question (each to his own etc.) but at least it might be worthwhile to raise the question.

A heartfelt thank you to all for contributing.
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:20
And I even didn’t tell anything about the crooked system FIDE is using for Classical World Championship, as was recently brilliant pointed out in a Chessbase article that… at the moment I could not find anymore; strange! So I should add at least something about that.
Once we had a 3-years cycle with zonal and interzonal tournaments; then matches between the qualified candidates (i.e. playoffs, like any serious game or sport!).
I can’t understand why FIDE can’t revert to this optimal system!
Look: actually we are having in activity (most probably) the best chess player ever; but instead of being proud of this fact and encourage him, many people are telling stupid comments.
And especially FIDE seems, at least to me, to do all it can to disgust him; with wrong qualification systems and even, cherry on pie!, by fining him because… he just pointed out his finger at the ‘naked king’! I’m disgusted too!
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:17
So, if nothing will rapidly change for better the actual bad chess scenario, sadly we will have to only use (or follow) rapid or blitz time controls, where one can be rather confident no cheating is possible.
Certainly fast time is not recommended for beginners, but at least ‘super GMs’ can use it almost like they are playing at classical time pace. So, for example I enjoyed very much the recent Rapid and Blitz World Championship! While at the same time, I’m more and more losing interest to follow classical events…
And at least in faster time controls we can really see who is the GOAT of chess, without the suspect that any player can cheat!
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:14
- don’t allow anyone to bring any electronic device to the chess hall;
- don’t allow any spectator to come in contact with players;
- delay internet broadcasting by at least 15 minutes (and better 30 minutes delay if classical time control is used);
- most importantly, shield internet reception and any electronic communication between anyone in the playing hall! This is best done, at least for most importants events, if a so called ‘faraday cage’ around the players is used (it can be integrated inside the main walls of the building). With such device, you are sure no one can suggest moves to the players!
Why these simple precautions are not widely used? Are there already some big underground money interests involved? Is some big unknown actor already trying to transform also chess, like other physical sports, into a fake business of doping? Also very strange to me is the fact that not only some self-proclaimed ‘cheating expert’, but even some strong GMs could not find anything suspect in famous blatant cheating examples!
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:13
4) and the worse thing is the fact that, unlike the past, today many important ‘actors’ seem not to care at all about this: FIDE is apparently not doing anything relevant to stop this ‘bigger gorilla’, though is getting increasingly relevant. I believe today more and more ‘unfriendly’ players are using such ‘electronic doping’, as they clearly see nobody is caring about that. And this is a terrible suspect.
Also recently FIDE even found appropriate to fine Carlsen for withdrawing from Sinquefield Cup!!!
Often also organizers of chess tournaments seem not to do any significant effort to prevent cheating in chess! In spite of the fact that it could be relatively simple to prevent cheating in chess; you just have to:
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:08
3) strictly connected with money, is the (bigger!) problem of the doping. Today most physical sports are plagued by this fact; and for example it’s since decades ago that I’ve lost interest in watching sports like athletics, football (soccer), cycling, etc. I prefer minor sports where money is not heavily involved; or to practice sport by myself, where I’m sure no money nor doping is involved.
Luckily games like chess (or ‘mental sports’ if you want) were immune to this, because no physical activity is involved. But in our last times, “thanks” to ever increasing miniaturization of electronic devices, which allow a chess engine to be hidden and used during games (or to be used by an ‘unfriendly’ GM which can tell the correct moves to an ‘unfriendly’ player which has a micro-earphone planted inside his/her ears!) also chess has a doping problem.
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:05
1) on tournaments, clock is mandatory to avoid having some ‘unfriendly’ players to think for hours on a single move, like for example Saint-Amant was used to do (often blundering anyway in the end!);
2) like Frits Fritschy noticed, one big ‘gorilla’ is the money involved in tournaments! Is the money that is ruining the (physical) most popular sports, especially at absolute levels. Because money attracts a lot of ‘very unfriendly’ people. And notice the proverb “time is money”; in fact, like time, also money is not a real property of the reality, but just a convention. Unfortunately our societies are governed by mere conventions, especially by money; and also a lot of people are ‘money-driven’ and would do everything (legal or illegal) to get more money. Even if doing that, is meaning to ruin our planet Earth! So not a very intelligent behaviour, because… what will you do with your money when you will die? Most people are considering money a goal to achieve at all costs and not just a medium as it should be.
This is the real (silly) zeitgeist of today! And of course this has implications on chess too.
SunriseK SunriseK 1/8/2024 02:04
Thinking time at chess.

Well, from a philosophical point of view, I certainly agree with the author of this article.
Especially considering that I’ve always been much stronger at classical time control than at rapid chess.
Not to tell that, as a physicist, I know that time is just an ‘emergent property’ of the reality, which doesn’t even ‘flows’ in the same manner for all observers (in relativity theory one uses in fact a fourth coordinate w that is the product of time by c, so from a dimensional point of view, a space coordinate).
Thus I could even push the things further and tell that we should get completely rid of clocks in chess, like I do when I play with my friends, just for fun.
But unfortunately you can do this just with friends, because of some BIG problems, which I will tell in order starting from the less important:
lajosarpad lajosarpad 1/6/2024 01:40
@twamers yup. And how fun it would be to see a tournament or a match with adjournments where the players would have no access to electric devices in order not to cheat, but they would have access to a board where they could analyse. Of course such rules cannot be introduced on larger scale, especially not for big open tournaments. But if this tradition would have its own event, that would be a nice color spot in the calendar.
twamers twamers 1/6/2024 12:02
I've been interested in Chess for just over 50 years. I have played blitz/rapid chess in the past in my club where it was really for fun. The serious stuff was Classical Chess with the longer time controls which we played in local leagues. Nowadays I continue to have an interest in chess but I don't look at any of the blitz/rapid tournament stuff - it does not interest me at all. So for my preference I'm only interested in Classical Chess - nice if they would go back to the old 40 moves in 2.5 hours too!
lajosarpad lajosarpad 1/5/2024 10:30
Slower time controls allow the players to think things through and play better chess and spectators will understand more of the game he is watching to if it is played in slower time control. If we quicken the pace, then move quality drops and spectators will understand less from the game. So who would we serve if the pace is quickened? Do we remove the effort of the players, so they have to invest less energy? But then we will have difficulty to explain why chess is a sport. Or do we intend to please the spectators? But I as a spectator dislike the idea of watching a short game full of blunders without being allowed to ponder on the plans of the players. What is the prototype of the spectator here? I cannot help but think that we intend to please spectators who are not interested in the chess, but in the drama. But then we could replace chess with a coin toss and there we have, quick drama. Faster time controls seem to me like hobby horse riding, new stuff that's dramatic and funny, but has little to do with the original sport: https://www.google.com/search?channel=fs&client=ubuntu-sn&q=riding+fake+horses+sport#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:6ff9bed4,vid:KgLMLUe9DBM,st:0
Masquer Masquer 1/5/2024 05:40
The happy medium for me is a game in 30m/side (including increments). Longer games require a lot of time AND stamina to be invested, which is not always pleasant. Rapid chess (but not blitz or bullet) is where it's at, even for older players. I agree with Carlsen.
Mamack1 Mamack1 1/4/2024 11:44
Michael Jones

Games lasting up to 3-3.5 hours are not "rapid" on any reasonable definition.

You have created a straw man to argue against.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 1/4/2024 10:47
Rune Vik-Hansen knows his classics and philosophers, but seems to fail seeing the gorilla on the dancefloor. It is not about 'Zeitgeist' or adrenaline; it's about money.
Chess.com is becoming a monopolist in chess. On the online chess market, lichess is about the only serious thing left; and on the instruction market, there is still a German firm holding out. For how long?
With online chess, you want as many people as possible playing. The shorter the time controls, the more people can play, the more exposure you have. So you want to make it seem fast play is the future of chess. That means you lure top professionals to do so as well, with well-funded online tournaments. And they happily oblige.
Of course there is a small problem with online chess: it is very vulnerable to cheating. So you blow this up to an enormous issue by extending it to normal ('over-the-board') chess, where it never has been or is a problem of comparable size, and we (classical players) are supposed to be thankful for the ridiculous rules we have to endure there.
Michael Jones Michael Jones 1/4/2024 10:11
Elite level and club level are very different things. The world elite are all professionals, by definition chess is their job so they can spend all day playing one game if there's sufficient interest among fans for them to do so.

I don't know how Norwegian leagues are run, but in England leagues are generally played in the evenings because most of the players will have had to do a day's work before the game. It just isn't practical to have games lasting 6-7 hours; 3-3.5 hours is a sensible maximum, and time controls in local leagues are designed with that in mind. The 90+30 which the author mentions as currently in place in Norway would result in some very late finishes; 60+30 is more practical for evening games. Club players can still enjoy a game in which they have a reasonable amount of time to think, and arrangements for them have no bearing on what happens at the elite level.
Mamack1 Mamack1 1/4/2024 07:55
As with most "arguments" that classical chess should be allowed to die, that is incredibly simplistic and superficial (rather like the fast chess such people love, one might say)

And in any case, Carlsen and others have if anything moved chess *away* from rehearsed opening lines dozens of moves deep - and yes this is very much a good thing.
Tedz Tedz 1/4/2024 07:52
Fast thinking is part of Classical Chess, especially when the time control is looming. I like to watch Rapid Chess ,but i have no interest in watching Blitz. Intuition plays a bigger role in the faster time controls. The FIDE World Blitz [ ie Adrenaline rush] does not serve any purpose.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 1/4/2024 07:49
I did read an argument here that was something like 'because of the evolution of opening theory less time is needed, as the first 15-20 moves can be blitzed out nowadays'. I would say, then don't give less time for forty moves, but increase the number of moves to be made in the same time, say fifty in two hours instead of forty.
Frederic Frederic 1/4/2024 06:59
Chesstiger9 wrote (below, in Russian): "Time flies fast! 1 hour +10 seconds is enough for everyone! Life is accelerating, and chess must accelerate! The slogan of sport is faster, stronger and better! Can be applied to chess too! There's nothing faster than thought! And it should speed up, not slow down!"

arzi commented; "If man has to adapt to everything, why not shorten life itself on the same principle?" (Boy is my Russian good!)

Please everyone, keep your opinions coming. You will be helping some very influential people to decide where chess is heading.
hansj hansj 1/4/2024 06:06
Well, if people want to play fast games, let them do it.
If, they prefer classical time controls, well, they should use those.
This is not for the audience, the public to decide.
Personally I preferred correspondance chess. But this the noblest of chess disciplines has been destroyed by the advent of computers. Very sad.
Somewhat Experienced Somewhat Experienced 1/4/2024 04:54
Brilliant article! Agree with every word!
Portlyotter Portlyotter 1/4/2024 03:49
I dislike rapid,blitz and bullet. I never follow the tournaments and don’t study the games. For me it is frivolous entertainment best undertaken with a few friends and a beer in hand.

I’ve played thousands of club and tournament games in my 60 years and yet I can’t remember a single blitz game I played.

The classical games in my scorebooks however are treasured memories and will remain so until I’m gone. When I play through them I can imagine the club nights,the tournament tensions, the time trouble the blunders and joy that the game has given me and times in my life gone by.

Classical chess is pure-art and sport in one. The games of the old masters are pieces of art like music or painting. They have depth and can stir the soul.

If classical chess dies then for me true chess dies with it.And that would be a tragedy.
onlye4 onlye4 1/4/2024 01:45
I really hope that classical chess survives with the changing times and that it does not become a niche game like classical music. it would be a shame to lose over time everything that the great players and books have kept alive. my doubt and my fear that people will say: but if I have to play in 3 minutes what's the point of studying all that theory of the ending books?
Chesstiger9 Chesstiger9 1/4/2024 12:56
Время летит быстро! 1 час +10 секунд каждому вполне достаточно! Жизнь ускоряется и шахматы должны ускоряться! Лозунг спорта быстрее, сильнее и лучше! могут вполне применяться и к шахматам! Нет ничего быстрее мысли! И она должна ускоряться а не замедляться!
Bill Alg Bill Alg 1/4/2024 11:13
I agree with the author. Lately I have avoided rapid (and blitz) tournaments in my area, which are quite popular and take place almost every weekend. I did play in a classical tournament (weekly). The classical games are the only ones worth analysing, replaying, saving for the future.