English Chess Forum

Why have all sports and pass times gone for the shorter format over time

30 years ago most players played less league games but we had longer time controls and adjournments. Now people want to get the game over in a night , but most players seem to play in multiple leagues

Tournaments when I started in the late 70s were 6 rounds with usually 2 hrs plus 10 mins each.

OK computers have had some effects with Chess but its a trend in all my sports.

I race cycling Time Trials, the most common race by far is now 10 miles , in the old days they didn't generally race less than 25 miles and 12 hour and 24 hour time trials were relatively common . I am now the only nutter in my club to race them

I play squash, and at pro level they have introduced American scoring to shorten the game

In tennis matches locally they have got rid of 3rd sets for super tie breaks

In all sports and pass times that I am familiar with the events have generally got shorter.

Yet we generally work less hours than say in the 50s ( a bit before my time) where working week was in my area 48 hrs yet people found the time for longer events

Is it so we can all watch the national average of 4 hrs of tv a day ??

Restricting the discussion to chess. There is a view that rather shorter games, of perhaps 4 to 5 hours, leads to chess of superior quality to 6 to 7 hours. That is an assertion which would be very difficult to prove.

For tennis there is again the possibility that shorter matches are better for the game. The leading players play a large number of matches because they are not knocked out so easily. If the matches are too long, then the players are not as fit. Nadal is a good example.

Money.

Shorter forms of sports prioritise the mass market over the purist fan base. And the mass market is where the money is (at least in the short term).

There are very few sports where it isn't recognised that the 'longer forms' aren't the 'pinnacle' of the sport. But in most they rely on the shorter forms to subsidise the longer. Some have IMO made the mistake of abandoning the longer forms completely. Bowls used to be actually fairly interesting to watch on TV until they changed the scoring system. Badminton and Table tennis have done similar. Snooker is just about holding out with an uneasy arrangement whereby the best players over 11 months of the year are established in a format where the longest match has a format equivalent to the shortest match in the World Championship. As a cricket fan i feel very fortunate to live in a country where Test cricket continues to be so well appreciated and supported.

Stewart Reuben wrote:Restricting the discussion to chess. There is a view that rather shorter games, of perhaps 4 to 5 hours, leads to chess of superior quality to 6 to 7 hours. That is an assertion which would be very difficult to prove.

Is there really anyone who holds that view other than Kirsan? It could be argued that it leads to greater entertainment, but that's not quite the same thing. It would certainly be very difficult to prove, although perhaps less difficult to disprove!

Richard is right. Money.

It cost money to have a film crew in the field so if the sport in more compact
it cost less to film and produce.

Also one can set time schedules much easier as the shorter the match/game
the more easier it is to judge within minutes when it will finish.

The have most likely done some research and found the viewers like
shot sharp matches/games of 2-3 hours max. Anything longer and the average
viewer is put off.

I like the Indian Pepsi Cricket (I don't have SKY or any of that crap.)
I know when it will finish and I love all the colour and glitz.

Chess
Personally I've always thought a game of chess should last 3 hours (1½ hours each).
Then 15 minutes each to the finish. None of this adding on seconds nonsense.
That has been brought in to cater for these dweebs who don't know how to handle their time.

The game is over in two hours and that is a marketable product.

Any other sport have time added on each time they kick or bowl a ball?
(Alex Ferguson's Man United may be an exception.)

Geoff Chandler wrote: Any other sport have time added on each time they kick or bowl a ball?

Lawn Tennis at a professional level is play to a finish, so a match takes as long as necessary to complete three or five sets, even with the accelerated finish of the tie breaks for each set. Admittedly that's more like the perpetual adjournments when games would start with 40 moves in 150 minutes and then crawl forever at 16 moves an hour.

Cricket will add time for weather interruptions. For that matter the minimum over requirements also add time as needed to complete a match.

Geoff Chandler wrote:None of this adding on seconds nonsense.
That has been brought in to cater for these dweebs who don't know how to handle their time.

So how would you suggest players use their time when they have an unknown number of moves to make in a fixed time?

Geoff Chandler wrote:Any other sport have time added on each time they kick or bowl a ball?

If you hadn't limited the sports to ball games I could have said Go for certain, and probably Scrabble, Draughts and Shogi (as the DGT clock claims to be suitable for these games).

There are many sports where there is no fixed time limit - the game goes on for as long as it takes to finish it (e.g. snooker, golf, most sports where the competitors race against each other over a fixed distance, most sports where the winner is the first competitor to score a certain number of points).

Hi Roger

Cricket will add time for weather interruptions.
No they don't they contine from where the game left off.
They don't add on extra time every time a ball is bowled.

Hi Ian

"So how would you suggest players use their time when they have an unknown number of moves to make in a fixed time?£

36 moves in 1½ hours then 15 minute allegro. The End.
The longer the time control the longer the player takes to make the same move.
At a standard GM/IM level 15 moves will be rattled off sharpish.

"There are many sports where there is no fixed time limit."

They do not add time to the actual sport where time is a factor.
In chess you must make a certain amount of moves in a given time.

In Snooker a player has a certain amount of time before he must play a shot.
He does not get extra time for playing a shot previously.

In Basket Ball once you have the ball you have a certain amount of time
to score or have a shot at the basket.

It does not increase because you bounce the ball about.

I think adding on time every move takes something away from the chess.
It makes it sloppy. It is catering for indecisvie players, we have allowed PC
to creep into the game.

I think tennis has got longer, because they have a rest every couple of games, whereas play used to be continuous. It used to be a sip of lucozade at the umpire's chair and change ends, but now they have armchairs, a three course meal and a foot massage, sometimes between points. (And viewers of Pulp Fiction will understand the meaning of foot massages.) A five hour tennis match probably has three hours of sitting down or towelling down. Cricket has frequent drink breaks. There uses to be a mid-session drink break if the weather were exceptionally hot or cold. I went to Headingley a few years ago to see England U19s play Bangladesh U19s. One opening bowler brought a picnic with him, which he put just over the boundary rope. He set off, got a wicket 4th ball of the day, and immediately someone came out with drinks for everybody!! Admittedly these sports are not yet as bad as American football, where they have a committee meeting every 5 seconds, but there is so much time wasted. In golf, John Daly went out with a marker in one round (odd number of players) and was fined as he finished his round in under two hours, as he wasn't taking it seriously...

At least chess is continuous, and if you go for a drink or a smoke, you risk losing time. So much time is wasted in many sports.

Geoff Chandler wrote: In chess you must make a certain amount of moves in a given time.

In the case of chess played with increments, one move every thirty seconds.

In the old days of 40 moves in 150 minutes, you got extra time of an hour every 16 moves thereafter. Increment chess is a speeded up equivalent of this.

Also there is more to do in life these days then there was 30 years ago when we had no internet or TV.

Back in the day, a game of chess was probably the highlight of most peoples weeks, and being able to adjourn and pour over variations was a way to extend the game into the other nights of nothingness so spending vast amounts of time on a single game was a good option. Nowadays there feels like less time to pack it all in, and having to spend more time on a hobby is less appealing as most people have several hobbies (and sometimes even families, which are a kind of hobby)

I think Joey is right to some extent, certainly at amateur levels. However, I can assure him that we did in fact have TV 30 years ago, and it was colour! We also had lives outside of chess!
Weekend chess events were played at something like 40 moves in 2 hours followed by adjudication for county matches, or maybe some variation on all moves in 2 hours for congresses. Evening leagues were generally 3 hour sessions (probably 36 moves), but with the difference that the game would either be adjourned or adjudicated at the end of that. The time allowed now seems to be similar, the main difference being that it must be all moves rather than 36 or 40 in the playing session. If I remember correctly, the 40 moves in 150 mins followed by 16/hour was the standard rate for 'professional' events and the British and similar.
What I can not fully understand is the move to faster time controls for professional events, where the players are making a living rather than playing in their spare time. Having a 5 hour session rather than a 7 hour session does not make the difference between media covering or not covering an event. We see live games on the internet, where I would guess that the main audience is serious players, who will watch the games in an event unfold over several hours, probably doing other things at the same time and returning several times during the game. Watching live football, for example, is a much more intensive experience - pop out for a drink and you will miss a goal, pop out during a chess game and you can easily rewind if you miss a couple of moves.
So if the answer is money, I do not see what new money has come into chess by speeding up the time limits.

The modern desire for instant gratification.

Plus what everyone else has said.

Joey Stewart wrote:
Back in the day, a game of chess was probably the highlight of most peoples weeks

Good God!

Hi Roger

"In the case of chess played with increments, one move every thirty seconds."

But why have increments?
Is it because we now have the tech to do this?

It's the same as grading prizes.
It used to be simple. The highest point scorer(s) in that band (byes excluded) and we have a winner(s).

But now, because they can, they used a computer which works out who has the
best peformance rating irrespective of how many points they have actually scored.

(I've argued about this before stating that Wigan would beat Man City in the cup.
Hope you were paying attention and had money on it!)

If you want a prize for someonewho has played out of his skin for one game,
and that is all it can sometimes take to boost up a performance rating, then award a Giant Killers Prize.

36 moves in 1½ hours then 15 minute allegro. The End.
It's all over in 3½ hours.
No adjourments, no adjudications, let us keep the game between the players.

Hi Joey ( )

The 70's were a magic time for Chess, I really do pity the chess players
of today who were not there.

The four Fischer WC matches, Korchnoi's defection, the K v K matches,
the race between Keene, Miles and Hartston for the the first GM title
(if only we had the 4NCL in them days.....)
And a small kid called Nigel Short knocking over the adults like skittles.
Another lad called Kasparov who too promised a great future.

And I tell you one thing we did not have in the 70's.

Players running sobbing to the controllers trying to claim a draw
because they have not left themsleves enough time to finish a game.

"Look it's perhaps a draw but I am going to lose on time."

That is drisgraceful behaviour. Just resign. Be a man. Be a chess player.
Instead of sitting there not knowing what to do till your clock is down to the
last the two minutes and then crawl off to get a third party invovled to save your game

I would never do such a thing. It's against the spirit of the game.

I had a chance to once, I played on, fell into a trick and lost. Good.
My head is held high, I can look myself in the eye when I shave.

It was brought in to stop players shuffling about to win on time.
Again it's something I would never stoop to and I'm sure 90% of
other chess players would not either. It's better to lose a ½ a point
than lose a friend or risk the wrath of Caissa.

But it is in the modern rules.
A player is being punished for handing his time better than his opponent.
A player is being rewarded for mis-handling his time.

If I was a controller (and I'd avoid the dodgy harcut all these guys appear to have)
and some dribbling wimp came up to me saying his opponent is going to win on time.
I'd look and if it was not bare Kings I'd tell him to play on or resign.
I am not getting involved.

Today's players want slapped back into shape and remember the game is sacred.