According to Wikipedia, "With the advent of strong chess playing computer programs, which can be used to analyze adjourned positions, most tournaments have abandoned adjourning games in favor of shorter time controls." Why? What's the difference between having a computer to analyze a position and having a bunch of soviet masters doing the same? Maybe 25 years ago not everyone had access to powerful computers, but today it's not the case. And anyway, didn't back in the day also exist those differences, in terms of having a powerful team/seconds supporting you?
Computer prowess available even for noobs is one thing.
It simply not the spirit of today. There’s a general trend to shorter periods. Adjourning games, letting players and spectators wait; no, that ain’t the times today.
@Sarg0n And what do you think about it personally? Do you think it would be interesting to see endgames being played after being heavily analyzed with computers?
I have played in the time of adjournments and very much prefer the modern way without adjournment. It was a pain to stay up and analyse to play an adjourned game in the morning. It was also a pain to rapidly bite something and franticly analyse to resume the adjourned game 2 hours later.
Looking at Carlsen games, he does a good job playing endgames without adjournment analysis.
Some of the adjourned games were played badly despite analysis. Even Fischer in the 13th game of their 1972 World Championship match game against Spassky misplayed 42...Ra3+ instead of the winning 42...e5, right after adjournment.
@tpr didn't think about that but yes, from the casual player perspective it's probably just a pain in the ass..
You can't post in the forums yet. Play some games!