Well next to no one. Why?
I think two main reasons:
(1) Players see longer games as less fun and more like work.
In a quick game there is less pressure to make good, well thought out moves, as even if you make a blunder your opponent will likely not notice, and if your opponent does notice they are likely to blunder back and the game is far from over, and even if you lose because of it, it is just one quick game, you will probably play ten more in the next hour.
In a quick game you can use wishful thinking (if I set this trap and my opponent doesn't notice, I win something) and it will win you games, while in a classical game you need to make moves that are actually good, building up small advantages one step at a time.
In a long game a little slip up can ruin an lot of hard work, so making each move requires a lot of mental effort and exactness.
(2) Logistics.
A quick game can be played in a short time and even if you have to quit, it is only one game and a couple of minutes lost. If you are playing classical, you need a long time slot, and having to quit means all your effort is wasted and you lose your hard earned rating points.
(1) Players see longer games as less fun and more like work.
In a quick game there is less pressure to make good, well thought out moves, as even if you make a blunder your opponent will likely not notice, and if your opponent does notice they are likely to blunder back and the game is far from over, and even if you lose because of it, it is just one quick game, you will probably play ten more in the next hour.
In a quick game you can use wishful thinking (if I set this trap and my opponent doesn't notice, I win something) and it will win you games, while in a classical game you need to make moves that are actually good, building up small advantages one step at a time.
In a long game a little slip up can ruin an lot of hard work, so making each move requires a lot of mental effort and exactness.
(2) Logistics.
A quick game can be played in a short time and even if you have to quit, it is only one game and a couple of minutes lost. If you are playing classical, you need a long time slot, and having to quit means all your effort is wasted and you lose your hard earned rating points.
a lot of high rated players suggest 15 or 30 minute games. this might be the right choice if your only priority is to get better, but for most lower rated players, this is just not fun and its mind numbing. if they even try they will get frustrated, and just resign as soon as they are down a rook, or maybe just quit chess and play candy crush instead. its really not a good suggestion for that reason.
I think a good compromise is suggesting 10+0 or similar. its fast enough to be fun, but slow enough that players will at least be thinking about moves. while these wont be perfect games, lower rated players arent going to play perfect games anyways. at least with 10 minute games they can learn -something- even if its just a little tactic here, a little theory there, whatever, its progress. the main goal should just be to get players to calculate at all. if they start doing that, and start finding success, they will be on the right path. let them move onto 30 minute games much later when they consider chess to be a more serious hobby they are invested in.
I think a good compromise is suggesting 10+0 or similar. its fast enough to be fun, but slow enough that players will at least be thinking about moves. while these wont be perfect games, lower rated players arent going to play perfect games anyways. at least with 10 minute games they can learn -something- even if its just a little tactic here, a little theory there, whatever, its progress. the main goal should just be to get players to calculate at all. if they start doing that, and start finding success, they will be on the right path. let them move onto 30 minute games much later when they consider chess to be a more serious hobby they are invested in.
I think a lot of people forget that a lot of us low rated players really have no aspirations to 'get better'. We play because we enjoy it. We win some, we lose some, but it's just a game. I will never win any tournaments (or play a single OTB game) and have never once felt like studying or reading a chess book. But I still find it way more fun than something like Fortnite :)
Long play is definitely aimed at players who want to improve and enjoy the time investment, making a mistake in a 5 minute game isn't such a big deal but make one 20 minutes into a classic game and you've really made a mistake. Unless you look at it as time spent working on calculation and general ability it can feel like longer games are a waste of time. I recently picked up playing OTB tournaments and games there are usually 30 or 90 minutes a side with delays, the classic time controls here are much shorter feeling than they used to be.
Blitz and Rapid are the way to go for fun and a 10 or 15 minute game can still be instructive and well played without being a blunder fest. Most people here are just here to play and have a good time while saving anything serious for OTB games.
Additionally, I think a lot of players are worried about playing against an opponent using a computer with longer time controls. You don't have the time while playing 5 minute to check every move, especially in the end game.
Blitz and Rapid are the way to go for fun and a 10 or 15 minute game can still be instructive and well played without being a blunder fest. Most people here are just here to play and have a good time while saving anything serious for OTB games.
Additionally, I think a lot of players are worried about playing against an opponent using a computer with longer time controls. You don't have the time while playing 5 minute to check every move, especially in the end game.
I like longer games. It gives me time to think, try to pick out a good move.
You guys have pretty good reasons why a lot of people seem to prefer shorter games. I can see the logic. I don't think saying lower rated players are the reason for short games being more popular is correct though. I wouldn't say the rating has much to do with it. (For example, me!)
Great players seem to love fast games too. Magnus Carlsen won the World Championship by being superior in fast games. The top, top players here on Lichess play loads of short games, and the Lichess Titled Tournaments are for short games.
I wonder if there would be a stronger age correlation, young people liking fast chess more than oldsters.
You guys have pretty good reasons why a lot of people seem to prefer shorter games. I can see the logic. I don't think saying lower rated players are the reason for short games being more popular is correct though. I wouldn't say the rating has much to do with it. (For example, me!)
Great players seem to love fast games too. Magnus Carlsen won the World Championship by being superior in fast games. The top, top players here on Lichess play loads of short games, and the Lichess Titled Tournaments are for short games.
I wonder if there would be a stronger age correlation, young people liking fast chess more than oldsters.
"Everyone says play long games" - Who says this? As far as I know, this is advice given by strong players (certainly not everyone) to weaker players for ask for advice on how to improve.
The strong players do play (very) long games, you just don't see them do it. Moreover, they can certainly afford to play a lot of blitz and bullet without it hurting their game too much because they are *already* strong players, they have already invested the time.
I'm quite sure some people do follow the advice, but they simply are not the majority of people (which makes perfect sense, since only a small minority of people asked for the advice in the first place).
The strong players do play (very) long games, you just don't see them do it. Moreover, they can certainly afford to play a lot of blitz and bullet without it hurting their game too much because they are *already* strong players, they have already invested the time.
I'm quite sure some people do follow the advice, but they simply are not the majority of people (which makes perfect sense, since only a small minority of people asked for the advice in the first place).
good answers. I am relatively new to studying (not playing, but studying) chess, only a few months. I want my brain to remember a few openings and a few lines, plus a few traps. I like to practice these openings, traps, and common mistakes over and over and over. To me, a short game is 5 minutes, plus 2 or 3. I'm not ready for under 5 minutes. In a day, I can see so many more variations. Sure, if it's a good friend and we have an actual board, then we can talk and play and laugh ... 1 hour is fine. I think I will keep playing games around 8 minutes, try to understand some of the chess books out there, and then move on to 15 and 30 minute games. and in a short game, i have beaten a player ranked over 1900 and it's super exciting. and then the next game i blunder all my pieces to one pawn. in a long game, i would have 0% chance to beat that person. short games are fun, gives us lower rated players more hope, and i hope is wiring my brain to remember many more positions. definitely i will focus on more calculations once i have more experience. if i started with the long game, it wouldn't be exciting to me. short games are like video games, and long games are more like school work.
i have zero aspirations as a chess player, so i do what i like. talk to me in a year....
i have zero aspirations as a chess player, so i do what i like. talk to me in a year....
Fischer called speed chess "intellectual prostitution for quarters". I can't say as I agree, but I know what he means.
If you want to experience the depths of any individual game, you have to invest the time. Think of it like snorkeling on a coral reef. The longer you can hold your breath, the more beauty you get to see.
Most of the OTB games I've played were 40/2 - 20/1 - SD/1. I've played about 1600 rated tournament games over a span of 40ish years. Rough guess, that's about five or six thousand hours of my life invested in a game. That's just with a clock ticking, never mind the speed games, and off hand games, and playing against a program, oh and the books and the analysis sessions with your buds and ad infinitum.
If you're going to invest that kind of time in playing a game, you want to play it to your limits and beyond. The thrill of victory! The agony of defeat! The mixed disappointment and relief of a draw!
I've seen some amazing things in long games. I found a forcing line in one, a nice R sac leading to a win in 7 or 8 moves. I felt pretty good about that. In another, I offered a Q sac that could be taken 3 or 4 ways that lead me to beating an expert in a final round game.
I've also resigned after 6 moves, been battered by unrateds, suffered the slings and arrows of bad pairings, been a TD, and all that fun stuff.
All in all, it was a really good fun time.
Time is a luxury in chess. Time is a luxury in life. Use it wisely in both.
If you want to experience the depths of any individual game, you have to invest the time. Think of it like snorkeling on a coral reef. The longer you can hold your breath, the more beauty you get to see.
Most of the OTB games I've played were 40/2 - 20/1 - SD/1. I've played about 1600 rated tournament games over a span of 40ish years. Rough guess, that's about five or six thousand hours of my life invested in a game. That's just with a clock ticking, never mind the speed games, and off hand games, and playing against a program, oh and the books and the analysis sessions with your buds and ad infinitum.
If you're going to invest that kind of time in playing a game, you want to play it to your limits and beyond. The thrill of victory! The agony of defeat! The mixed disappointment and relief of a draw!
I've seen some amazing things in long games. I found a forcing line in one, a nice R sac leading to a win in 7 or 8 moves. I felt pretty good about that. In another, I offered a Q sac that could be taken 3 or 4 ways that lead me to beating an expert in a final round game.
I've also resigned after 6 moves, been battered by unrateds, suffered the slings and arrows of bad pairings, been a TD, and all that fun stuff.
All in all, it was a really good fun time.
Time is a luxury in chess. Time is a luxury in life. Use it wisely in both.
Play 30 minute games: - an impermissible luxury. Who of the players wants to play hard and right, can choose to control 10 minutes or 15 minutes per game. In this case, not so long to wait for the opponent's move and besides the clock(time) is not so critical for the game. When you play one game for an hour, you only get a job, not the pleasure of the game. We can also say that the concentration in the blitz is higher than in the long games. In a blitz of 5 minutes or 10 minutes, a chess player learns to play fearlessly and responsibly. By the way even intuition improved. A chess player learns to play chess easily unconventionally, and like a conductor: - hand!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.