What does everyone think of the WCC Classical time controls? Should they be changed? This day and age with how precise Super Grandmasters can be, along with the latest technology in terms of study, these games are drawn 90%+ of the time. Case in point. Last year, Carlsen and Caruana sit through 12 classical games and draw every single one. In my opinion, it doesn’t call for exciting chess. I’m not arguing for blitz or rapid, but I do think that in this day and age, as players get better and better, the time controls should be re-evaluated. Perhaps an hour max with a few second increment. I don’t have the answer but was wondering your thoughts.
I feel we would get higher quality games with stricter time controls. Still Classical chess of course, but some alterations that would lead to more wins! Thoughts?
I agree. I think it's kind of silly that professional chess players play games that last 5 hours or more. My reasoning: the time control is such a huge factor of the game that they don't really play the same game as us "normal" human beings. For example, everyone agrees that blitz and rapid should be separate time controls; but the difference between 5 minutes each and 30 minutes each is much smaller than the difference between the longest game I've played OTB and the length of a typical GM game.
What gets me is that, to my knowledge, this doesn't happen in other sports. Everyone agrees that a game of football takes 90 minutes; a game of rugby, 80 minutes; a cricket match, a million years (or thereabouts); a snooker match, the best of several frames, probably lasting a couple of hours total. And yet, for me, a chess game is at *most* a couple of hours, and for any and every titled player, a chess game is at *least* a couple of hours. Which means that when I watch the WCC, I can't relate to the players at all. I have no clue what it's like to play a game for that long, or to prepare for such a game, and neither do 98% of the rest of the viewers. Which isn't great, really.
My conclusion: they should shorten the lengths of the games to something like G90, and play 2 games per day (I don't know how many games total). So on each day of play, each player gets a white game and a black game. I guess that this would also make it harder to prepare, which imo is a bonus as it should allow for more interesting, mistake-filled games.
I could go on - I have more issues with the WCC time controls, at least from a viewer perspective - but I'll stop here as I've already gone on long enough.
Edit: I should mention, however, that I have no issue with draws. Draws are a part of chess, if you don't like them, then you shouldn't watch chess, plain and simple. All of my issues with the time controls have nothing to do with draws, they're entirely based on what I would like to watch as a viewer interested in seeing a match to decide who is the best player in the world.
Compared to former times it has been shortened significantly. Remember that we had adjourned games...
First hour glasses and then The chess clock was invented because some players thought for hours without moving.
Some players moistened the sand in the hour glasses to think longer.
Lasker - Capablanca 1921 was played at 12 moves per hour.
Spassky - Fischer 1972 was played at 16 moves per hour.
The present time control seems fine, especially the increment.
The high draw rate cannot be blamed on the time control.
From the announcement about the Magnus Carlsen Invitational Super-tournament over at chess24, a quotation of Magnus Carlsen:
"If you want to see who the best player is, make them play as many games as possible, and if you keep the rapid format then there’s still room for opening ideas, preparation and everything, but the time allowed to conceal your weaknesses and everything is not there. You just up the stakes, you increase the chances for errors and I think it makes it more exciting and it gives a more real picture of the best players."
So Magnus agrees (which is well-known, but this quote provides some details).
The days before time controls must have been unbearable for spectators (and players).
For some fun reading see:
www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/time.htmlHere's a (bad) idea. Make the WC match be a simul of the best players. They all play a nine board simul against the other players. The one who keeps most of his/her sanity is declared champion.
I see the idea out there often, like in the magnus quote above, that blitz chess is somehow you using your pure intuition. In longer games, you can mask your weaknesses as magnus says, because you have more time to get around them.
So if I win a game in longer time formats, the other player can say, "Ah, he is a terrible player. But he had a lot of time, so his terriblness did not show! He managed to work around his badness. If we played with less time I'd beat him!".
But does that really make sense? I played well. That's the fact. If I was so bad then I would still be weak no matter the time control. Maybe the first move that comes to my mind is a mistake, yes. But what if it is through knowing what I can not do that the right move is revealed to me? What if by knowing what is wrong, I am able to determine what is right? That's would be a totally legitimate way of thinking.
In fact, it seems to me, that it is in bullet that you can mask your weaknesses. You can get away with terrible moves because your opponent won't have the time to come up with a way to refute those moves. You will always win with simple knowledge in bullet. I might know very complicated things but in bullet that knowledge can not be applied. I might be able to calculate variations 10 moves deep but in bullet I will never be able to do that. Sometimes you have to look deep ahead to see the flaw of a move.
My simple knowledge might be worse than your simple knowledge, in bullet that's all that matters. But what if my deep knowledge is better than yours? Simple knowledge of tactics, not hanging pieces, etc, is important in both bullet and in classical chess. But deep knowledge is not important in bullet.
If you want to say that you beat me fairly, then you have to fight me in my best, and the more time I have, the better I, and us all, are going to play. If you beat me in bullet you've beaten a worse version of myself. All in all I definitely feel like the longer the time format the richer the game is.
instead WC match there shoudl be tournament. In two player who can prepare particularly agaings that one and both are extremly good lots of draws happen. ALso I think tournament woudl be easier to sell to sponsors. It would be also better for online viewers. Someone thinks too longs and they run out things to say the just jump to a another table
@NightsHeron: You argue your case well, but, as someone who has an opinion similar (though obviously not identical) to Magnus', I feel some need to object.
I don't think "shorter time controls are better, period". And I don't think being better than someone at blitz means that you are better than them at chess, far from it. I just think that there is no need for a single chess game to take 5, or 6, or 7 hours; a 2 or 3 hour game is surely entertaining and satisfying enough, for the players and the viewers (but especially for the viewers - keeping up with the WCC in particular is really annoying, because, for example, the game probably starts while you're at work, and you have no idea when it's going to end).
And as for determining which player is the best: I do think the time control should be shorter than it currently is, but *only on the condition* that more games are played with the newly available time. Part of what raises competitive chess above the level of "game" and into the world of "sports" is the endurance factor; you have to play well *consistently* if you want to win. If you beat someone in a match that involves more games, that's better evidence that you're able to *consistently* play better than they do. That's surely the difference between just beating someone off-hand, and actually being a better player, is it not?
