Should berserking be removed from classical tournaments?

yes, unfair advantage for the berserk points, which forces the players to play speed chess.

Does berserked 10+0 games count towards your blitz rating, or classical? If they are still considered a classical game for the beserker that's a problem.

While I get that giving yourself a 5 minute handicap is a disadvantage, as a non beserked player can just play faster if he so chooses, or not... I think it's silly to say that beserking doesn't give you an advantage in tournaments.

I've watched pretty much all of Chess Network's videos.... and he rarely beserks, and he is very often neck and neck or losing to weaker players that beserk every game.

The solution of: Well why don't you just beserk then? is also silly, because I don't like playing blitz games. When I take my time, I am a much stronger player.... and that time also includes my opponent taking his time so I have a little breathing room to think.

I should also say, if beserking is just part of Lichess, I'm still okay with it.... just logically it's a little silly to have for classical chess.

I'd like to see Nakamura put on a viking helmet and pull out a battle axe in a tournament, and say he is beserking.

Interesting how many dislike berserking. did not expect that. I like that.

The time which was removed from the berserkers clock should be added to the clock of the other dude. So one berserks in 10 0, then he has 5 minutes and the other has 15. That also solves the problem that the berserker currently can play more games because they are finished sooner.

And i also agree with @EXOprimal, it should not affect the classical rating, but the blitz rating if one berserks in 10 0 etc.

That's an interesting solution to the beserk advantage! Transferring time, not taking away time. Because the reward of beserking outweighs the risk.
I would totally love to have people beserk if time were transferred, and would agree that if they won in that scenario, they should get the extra points.

1. It's cool to give yourself a handicap and play for more points. This is a cool objective.

2. However, it is strange that your chances of winning a tournament can really depend on how much you (or other players) get some mutual berserking. If both players berserk, not only does the game count for more points for the winner, but it takes up less of your time, which is a huge edge in the tournament itself. This seems like a problem. If you want to try to win a 10 + 0 tournament, it seems like you are driven to just making it a 5 + 0 tournament most of the time if you want to try to win the tournament. This is weird.

Giving time odds makes sense, but the problem is that this also boosts how many games you get to play, so it's not as bad as it seems.

3. Here are some other ways to try for the objective that may mitigate the issue:

(a) material odds. (instead of time odds) e.g. giving up a knight. makes sense to me. but people are shy about material odds these days, preferring time odds.
(b) invert the time odds: extra time for your opponent instead of less for you. this makes berserking much more costly. maybe too much, therefore also consider...
(c) ...a mixture of less time for you (like before) and more time for opponent--a balance that can be tweaked

4. Finally, also consider that if both players want to "berserk" it should probably just cancel each other out. The point of berserk is to give the opponent odds and possibly get more points for the more difficult win. Mutual berserking is a perversion of this, a side effect that is overpowered and strange.

Instead of being able to mutually berserk, you should be able to "raise" them. If you reply to their berserk with a berserk of your own then they should be normal (always one player normal) and you should get even worse odds. Then they can raise you etc. until somebody gets to the maximum odds allowed.

For me lichess tournament is design to be different at chess24 and chess.com so i dont see any problem in bersek in classic mode

People keep saying "classical" but any time control under 15+inc is technically blitz due related FIDE regulations, so its kind of informative name for a time control in this site and nothing to do with berserk option obviously. A player doesn't berserk could not be affected negatively in anyway and even gets clear substantial advantage. You don't have to play faster against berserked at all. You can think it as if opponent waits for half of his time control after his first move and how this supposed to affect you in bad way.

There are good players and far better. Better ones wouldn't be able to win tourneys as they should with their far better play unless they have risking something and having chance to show their strength.

Some very interesting suggestions here..

Giving the removed berserk time to your opponent is very interesting...

Getting rid of the +1 if you both berserk is good.

Adding the option to double-berserk is interesting, if both players berserk, but then you still have blitz/bullet players coming out on top.

I like the idea of using material disadvantages rather than time. I think that solves all of the problems. But I doubt most people would opt for that.

I guess if you want to keep things the same, then you need to add 20+0 tournaments, so 10+0 players can just play that and berserk 100% of the time.

As it stands now, if you're good at 5+0 you don't play 5+0 tournaments - why would you? You play 10+0 and berserk. That's what this system produces.