Hastings

The very latest International round up of English news.
John Moore
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by John Moore » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:52 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:53 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm
AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.
One might start by asking him why he thinks everyone who plays in the US Open doesn't choose the 4 day schedule (6 games of rapid chess and 3 games of slow chess), instead choosing either the 6 day schedule (9 games of slow chess over 6 days) or the 9 day schedule (9 games of slow chess over 9 days).
I was particularly amused that Mr Shahade considers it inhuman to have to quit his bed at 9.00am. I have known a number of people like that but they normally grow out of it in their later teenage years.

Richard Bates
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:16 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm
AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.
Based on what?

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 2780
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Hastings

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:20 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm
AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.
Yes but even if that is true, so what?
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17941
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:42 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on
Would you be playing chess as a physical game with board and pieces or a computer game?

Assuming you are playing face to face and doing it on the cheap, there aren't going to be 600 million sales of sensory boards or even 15,000 in the UK. Players taking it with some degree of seriousness are going to want to be able to record what happened. It's one of the things that's regular in serious chess but absent from many other sports, games and pastimes.

Playing double round 30 minute games or similar has been proposed as a league format in the UK with only limited take up.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6145
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Hastings

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:05 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
Adam Raoof wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:33 pm
AustinElliott wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:23 pm
Anyone think the Hastings tournament might benefit from switching to faster time limits? I was just reading Greg Shahade's blogpost on "Slow Chess Should Die A Fast Death" (which has probably been discussed here on here before). I guess it would mean a shorter tournament in terms of days, with potentially a bit more drama. Would a shorter tournament be more attractive to 2600+ players, or is it just a question of the prize money on offer?
There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin.
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.
It's patently not possible to be "spot on" about that kind of a hypothesis.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 3862
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford

Re: Hastings

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:15 pm

Serious, heavyweight strategy board games created these days tend to weigh in at around the three-hour mark.

Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:29 pm

"I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour."

But surely serious and talented players or anyone who attempts to understand the game would prefer it to last longer than that? I agree with Jack - Terra Mystica takes a while, even Settlers of Catan can turn into a long positional grind!

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:58 pm

Richard Bates wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:16 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.
Based on what?
Matt Mackenzie wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:20 pm
Yes but even if that is true, so what?
Based on the fact that games aren't designed to last 5-7 hours these days. If cricket were invented tomorrow, do you think we'd be more likely to play a 5-day game or a T20 game? If golf were invented tomorrow, would the tournaments be four 18-hole rounds?

As for "so what?", I was disagreeing with Adam saying that "There are so many things wrong with that blog post I don't know where to begin." I'm of the opinion that he's not as far wide of the mark as Adam might think.
IM Jack Rudd wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:15 pm
Serious, heavyweight strategy board games created these days tend to weigh in at around the three-hour mark.
You will know better than me, but my instinct - having watched you play some of these at the Classic in the mornings - is that they have more layers of complexity than chess. By that, I mean that while chess has 32 pieces moving around the board moving in different ways, but at least some of the board games I've watched you play have pieces moving around the board in different ways, but also cards that do a number of different things. I remember it took you about 10-15 minutes just to take all of the pieces out of their bags for one game. I wonder, would chess be considered "heavyweight" by the standards of modern board games?

John Moore
Posts: 1726
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by John Moore » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:30 pm

If cricket was invented tomorrow, it would be played over 3 hours on a Saturday afternoon between two villages in Kent as it was in the 18th century and no doubt the equivalent of a Mr Holowczak would be one of the first to start arguing about the lbw law.

There is nothing wrong with playing chess at blitz, rapid or longer time limits. They are different games and I enjoy all of them but the greatest examples of the art of chess (whether or not it's an art doesn't matter - you know what I mean) have been played by the greatest exponents at longer time limits.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 6145
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Hastings

Post by JustinHorton » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:27 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:58 pm
. If cricket were invented tomorrow, do you think we'd be more likely to play a 5-day game or a T20 game? If golf were invented tomorrow, would the tournaments be four 18-hole rounds?
These questions don't mean anything and the answers are therefore unknowable.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Richard Bates
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:27 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Richard Bates » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:40 pm

I don’t see why the development of chess (if invented today) or most other games come to that, would be much different now than in the past. New people take up the game all the time (unaffected by any “historic” assumptions) and I would argue that absolute beginners playing chess will routinely tend towards the lengthy. It takes a great deal of skill and experience to play chess of any quality at faster rates, the sort of experience that generally only comes from study and experience of longer games. Indeed many people never get to a state of being able to cope with playing faster games.

To the extent that time controls have speeded up in the modern era, that is more a consequence of both the shift away from adjournments and advance of opening theory meaning that players can generally get further into the game before having to think independently.

Reinvent the game from scratch and all the historic experience would have to be rediscovered. Most sports are the length they are because they have been refined over time to what is seen as the current optimum lengths. I don’t see why that should change just because they are invented in today’s world.

Pete Morriss
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 1:26 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Pete Morriss » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:01 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.
I haven't seen many people arguing that marathons are old fashioned and should be replaced by 60-metre sprints; I thought they had become rather popular in recent years.

Alex Holowczak
Posts: 8771
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Hastings

Post by Alex Holowczak » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:26 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:27 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:58 pm
. If cricket were invented tomorrow, do you think we'd be more likely to play a 5-day game or a T20 game? If golf were invented tomorrow, would the tournaments be four 18-hole rounds?
These questions don't mean anything and the answers are therefore unknowable.
Of course the answer is unknowable, but it's an interesting (at least to me) thought experiment.
Pete Morriss wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:01 pm
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:52 pm
I think his main premise - that if we invented chess today we would expect the game to last 30-40 minutes - is more or less spot on; I wouldn't expect it to be more than an hour.
I haven't seen many people arguing that marathons are old fashioned and should be replaced by 60-metre sprints; I thought they had become rather popular in recent years.
I don't think I'm arguing that either.

But in your example, a Marathon takes just over 2 hours for the world's best, which is barely the quickest possible standardplay game of chess. It might be long by running's standards, but a game of cricket wouldn't have finished in that time, and a game of football or rugby (including the half-time break) isn't much shorter.
Richard Bates wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:40 pm
I don’t see why the development of chess (if invented today) or most other games come to that, would be much different now than in the past. New people take up the game all the time (unaffected by any “historic” assumptions) and I would argue that absolute beginners playing chess will routinely tend towards the lengthy. It takes a great deal of skill and experience to play chess of any quality at faster rates, the sort of experience that generally only comes from study and experience of longer games. Indeed many people never get to a state of being able to cope with playing faster games.

To the extent that time controls have speeded up in the modern era, that is more a consequence of both the shift away from adjournments and advance of opening theory meaning that players can generally get further into the game before having to think independently.

Reinvent the game from scratch and all the historic experience would have to be rediscovered. Most sports are the length they are because they have been refined over time to what is seen as the current optimum lengths. I don’t see why that should change just because they are invented in today’s world.
Given that by faster rates, I basically mean what we call Rapidplay, I think most people could cope with that even if it is objectively to a lower standard than Standardplay, especially if that was all they ever knew. I don't agree that if we started chess tomorrow we'd eventually end up with the time limits we tend to use these days - I don't think we'd evolve back the concept of a time control at move 40, which exists as a legacy of the old 40 moves in 2 1/2 hours time limit with adjournments and then 16 moves per hour.

Most tournaments for absolute beginners - i.e. junior tournaments - tend to be rapidplay rather than standardplay. They move into standardplay when they get better. I would also point out that in a typical weekend congress, for example, games in the Minor on average finish much more quickly than games in the Open. So I'm not sure I agree that absolute beginners will tend towards taking more time rather than less. In fact, most coaches I know of beginner players are desperate to slow their players down!

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17941
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Hastings

Post by Roger de Coverly » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:45 pm

Alex Holowczak wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:26 pm
So I'm not sure I agree that absolute beginners will tend towards taking more time rather than less.
My experience of many years of meeting casual adult social players is that they play at a very slow speed. They are trying to play decent moves, but their sight of the board and pattern recognition isn't good enough. If they are persuaded into club play, even the pace of an evening league game can be too great. That's probably pre and non internet players given that Blitz is the predominant format outside the neo-correspondence turn based servers.

Chris Rice
Posts: 2692
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:17 am

Re: Hastings

Post by Chris Rice » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:37 pm

Final round up from Pam Thomas.

Post Reply