In a recent interview, GM Magnus Carlsen commented that he will be willing to take part in the World Championship cycle/match if the games were shorter. He explained further that he would like a time control of around 1 hour per player plus some increment. He also said he would like there to be more games.
Overall, I think it is not a bad suggestion. Earlier, I was worried that Carlsen was against the Classical chess format. However, as a viewer, I agree that classical is a bit too long. 45 minutes per player plus increment will prevent games from turning into 8 hour grind like the Game 6, of WCC 2021. I don't think that quality will be effected much, if at all, due to the generous 45 second increment. It might prevent overthinking and fatigue, which can actually reduce the quality of play.
Increments will also make it harder for players to lose on time. If the focus of classical chess is to prioritize high quality play, leaving players to manage their time is not a good idea.
This, in my opinion, will keep Classical chess more relevant. It will also make 45+45 time control standard for online play.
However, as a viewer, I disagree with Carlsen that there should be more games. I think games should be actually be reduced down to 12. Having too many games reduces the importance of each game, which makes the first half a boring watch unless you are watching WCC 2023.
I will like to know the thoughts of other people on this idea.
It isn't necessary with a world championship. Tournaments would be interesting though.
tuning the outdated match format leads to nowhere. Far more marketable would be world championship tournament. Time limit is secondary. In tournament there would be something happening all the time and hence offering way better service to audience.
And 45+45 is a internet time limit. Far more typical for tournament time of equivalent would be 60/30 giving player more control how to use his time.
I saw the interview. He's not advocating for them making the WCC format shorter, but said that unless it were to be that way he has no desire to ever play it again. It's a difficult thing to decide.
First, from a viewer standpoint, watching a WCC game is like watching paint dry. It's terrible. This is THE biggest thing that affects the popularity of chess is the fact it's impossible to show it on TV. Nobody in their right mind would watch 6-8 hour games for several weeks. So, no TV money = no mainstream popularity of the game.
Without longer time controls, I would submit that most players would never achieve the strengths they do. You can't learn deep calculation unless you practice it a lot, and the only way to do that is to play games under pressure at long time controls. It almost becomes a chicken-and-the-egg sort of thing.
Then I think of Magnus' situation specifically. He's not really different than any other top player. He's worried about his rating (less than anyone else I"m sure), but let's face it, without a top 40 rating you won't get big invites to big money events, and thus can't make a living at the one thing you're good at. So rating matters not just for bragging rights. Now imagine you play a WCC match and you're the only guy who's done it every two years for a decade. Yes, 12 or 14 games against the 2nd best person in the world, with a likelihood of draws, and you know you lose rating points every time. Not only that but it takes months to prepare for it, and your brain is just fried after the match. I can see why he wouldn't want to do it again.
Magnus just won the World Cup. In classical he won 8, drew 5 and lost 1. He gained 3.8 points of rating for FIRST place in the tournament. In rapid, he lost no games, won 2 and drew 4, and lost rating. Yes, he is the one who set his bar that high, but that can't be fun or encouraging... My guess is we'll never see him in the WC ever again. He said as much in that interview.
There's no easy answer. But for viewers, the WC (world cup) format with shorter classical and then rapid/blitz tiebreaks, AND ELIMINATIONS, makes the players go for a win a LOT more than traditional classical time controls and format rules. I actually watched the WC, but the WCC, while I might have it playing on the computer, I can't sit and watch it. Seriously, I'd rather watch Agadmator's post game review....
@petri999 said in #3:
> Far more typical for tournament time of equivalent would be 60/30 giving player more control how to use his time.
I don't think giving players more control over their time management is better than ensuring they always have enough time to think. The reasons why I prefer 45+45 over 60+30, is that once players run out of their extra one hour, 30 seconds per move may be too little time. 45+45 is more likely to, in my opinion, keep quality of play even throughout a game.
Classical time control is about giving players ample time to think, to help them play their best chess. However, clumping together time to allow players to waste is an outdated way of doing this. Good example of this the eventual World Champion lost one of his games in WCC 2023 by running out of time. Ding wasted his time calculating a long sequence, which turned out to be inaccurate. Now, very little time was left to come up with an impromptu plan to keep the game alive.
More time, does not mean better performance. People need ample time to think, additional time to think over that can actually decrease performance, phenomenon known commonly as overthinking.
@petri999 said in #3:
> tuning the outdated match format leads to nowhere. Far more marketable would be world championship tournament.
Classical World Chess Championship format is a century old tradition. We cannot overturn it lightly.
@V1g1yy said in #4:
> I actually watched the WC, but the WCC, while I might have it playing on the computer, I can't sit and watch it.
For me, one of the things that makes it a bit hard to watch is hour long deep thinks. If deep thinks are 20 minutes long, I am fine. Even opponents seem bored and upset while a super-long questionably productive deep think is going on. Commentators start to run out of commentary.
I remember some people in chat being like "please, just make a move."
@Sush1999 said in #1:
> In a recent interview, GM Magnus Carlsen commented that he will be willing to take part in the World Championship cycle/match if the games were shorter. He explained further that he would like a time control of around 1 hour per player plus some increment. He also said he would like there to be more games.
> Overall, I think it is not a bad suggestion. Earlier, I was worried that Carlsen was against the Classical chess format. However, as a viewer, I agree that classical is a bit too long. 45 minutes per player plus increment will prevent games from turning into 8 hour grind like the Game 6, of WCC 2021. I don't think that quality will be effected much, if at all, due to the generous 45 second increment. It might prevent overthinking and fatigue, which can actually reduce the quality of play.
> Increments will also make it harder for players to lose on time. If the focus of classical chess is to prioritize high quality play, leaving players to manage their time is not a good idea.
> This, in my opinion, will keep Classical chess more relevant. It will also make 45+45 time control standard for online play.
> However, as a viewer, I disagree with Carlsen that there should be more games. I think games should be actually be reduced down to 12. Having too many games reduces the importance of each game, which makes the first half a boring watch unless you are watching WCC 2023.
> I will like to know the thoughts of other people on this idea.
I absolutely agree with you ! it must not become a torture for pro players who are sometimes very young. the mental impact of losing a game of such length (8hours!!) is difficult to control at a young age, and I am one of those who no longer wants to see depressed chess players or 25-year-old retirees who stop their career because 8 hours games are exhausting. I think we have to listen to Carlsen because for a long time he accepted everything that Fide wanted. now it's up to Fide to listen to a champion like Magnus Carlsen at least once. 45+45 is reasonable although I also agree with 60+30. I think that the decrement (subtraction instead of the increment) is also possible. I think we are in a modern era where we must be inspired by online chess so that chess is always more competitive and comfortable for our athletes, we must adapt to our time.
@Sush1999 said in #7:
> For me, one of the things that makes it a bit hard to watch is hour long deep thinks. If deep thinks are 20 minutes long, I am fine. Even opponents seem bored and upset while a super-long questionably productive deep think is going on. Commentators start to run out of commentary.
> I remember some people in chat being like "please, just make a move."
There are more problems with it that I see. Most of all, the very fact that non-professional players must devote weeks of their time to play a classical tournament means there are almost no non-professional players. I'm speaking relatively here. Well at that rate, there's not very many professional players then either. To grow the game you need more players. If you consider the world cup, those players all had to block off a month of their time if they were to go far in the tournament. Now if you go far you make money, but nonetheless if you have a real job to pay the bills, not many of them will let you take a month off. So that's one issue.
The time control for the World Cup wasn't super fast, as if it's not really classical. The players had plenty of time to play quality games. However, it was shorter. Consider some differences between the World Cup and the World Chess Championship matches. In the world Chess Championship, pre-arranged draws are done specifically to get extra days off because they are so tired. This is especially following extra long games of 100 moves or more. Also at the WCC, I had it playing in the background at work and I would say there was 85% of the time only one player was even at the board. It's as if literally neither one of them wanted to be there. They would make their move and immediately leave the room. And this would happen on every single move and both players.
Now contrast that to the world cup. Games probably averaged 4 to 5 hours instead of 6 to 7. You almost never saw a player leave the board for any appreciable time and I did not see a single short draw. Now the format did definitely eliminate the draws, but still, if you're too tired to be at the board trying to win this game, you might better suck it up because if you don't you're going to be getting sent home. Lol.
I think Carlsen would be less bored if the opening was drawn every game.
I'm joking, of course.
However, in my opinion, the only way would be to somehow limit the preponderance of preparation carried out with engines, which is so decisive at a very high level. I doubt that reducing time control is the solution. As someone has already said, long times are used to allow players to express their maximum possible playing power.
Maybe that would be good for Carlsen, but not for chess. Just my guess.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.