Grand Chess Tour - Sinquefield Cup 2019

[Kevin Thurlow]

"And here's me thinking Stokes and Leach putting on 76 for the last wicket to beat Australia was the most unexpected result of the day."

And Leach's 1 n.o. was probably worth more than his 92 a few weeks ago...

[Alex Holowczak]

With all kinds of grotesque errors at the death

But I thought the whole point of these longer time limits was to avoid the sort of grotesque endgame errors you get in Rapid and Blitz?

[Ian Thompson]

With all kinds of grotesque errors at the death

But I thought the whole point of these longer time limits was to avoid the sort of grotesque endgame errors you get in Rapid and Blitz?

I'd have thought the killer was using delays, not increments - when you've little time left other than the delay there's no chance of playing a few quick moves to build up a reserve of time. Sooner or later your opponent is likely to play a move you weren't expecting and then you're in trouble.

[Paul Cooksey]

I think having effectively a single time control is a big factor too. Some top players are used to accepting horrible time pressure to reach move 40, or move 60. But to the end of the game is different.

I have heard the argument better to let the players do what the want with their time. Maybe that is correct, I don't have a strong opinion. But it certainly takes some time to get used to the change. I never won so many games on time as I did the first year a league I played in move to G90 from 75+15.

I suspect the GCT know this full well and are in the spicing things up camp, whereas I am more of a traditionalist who like to see the player given the opportunity to play their best chess.

[Alex Holowczak]

I suspect the GCT know this full well and are in the spicing things up camp, whereas I am more of a traditionalist who like to see the player given the opportunity to play their best chess.

But if the aim for players to play their best chess, surely they need to make the game even longer still? 3 days per move maybe?

[Paul Cooksey]

I suspect the GCT know this full well and are in the spicing things up camp, whereas I am more of a traditionalist who like to see the player given the opportunity to play their best chess.

But if the aim for players to play their best chess, surely they need to make the game even longer still? 3 days per move maybe?

I know that is tongue in cheek, but actually I think not. A 6 hour session is probably the longest you can manage without turning it into a test of endurance rather than chess skill.

I suppose there is an argument for correspondence chess in their somewhere, but not a convincing one. I think most people understand the difference.

[Alex Holowczak]

I suspect the GCT know this full well and are in the spicing things up camp, whereas I am more of a traditionalist who like to see the player given the opportunity to play their best chess.

But if the aim for players to play their best chess, surely they need to make the game even longer still? 3 days per move maybe?

I know that is tongue in cheek, but actually I think not. A 6 hour session is probably the longest you can manage without turning it into a test of endurance rather than chess skill.

I suppose there is an argument for correspondence chess in their somewhere, but not a convincing one. I think most people understand the difference.

So out of interest, which of these do you think would be the better way of determining a difference in chess skill between two players?
- One game, taking 6 hours
- Six games, taking 1 hour each

[NickFaulks]

So out of interest, which of these do you think would be the better way of determining a difference in chess skill between two players?
- One game, taking 6 hours
- Six games, taking 1 hour each

That would depend upon whether you define chess skill as the ability to play well in a six hour game or a one hour game.

[Paul Cooksey]

Depends what you consider relevant, etc, etc as I see NIck has already said. But assuming the players are reasonably close in strength, 6 one hour games, because of the drawing margin in classical chess. But I'd take 10 six hour games over 60 one hour games.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"So out of interest, which of these do you think would be the better way of determining a difference in chess skill between two players?
- One game, taking 6 hours
- Six games, taking 1 hour each"

That is a good question, one blunder could ruin the 6-hour game, whereas you would need multiple blunders to lose the series of 1-hour games. But the quality should be higher in the 6-hour game...

It's not exactly the Sinquefield Cup, but the Somerset League has time-limits of all moves in 90 minutes, which I have found awful, as how on earth do you pace yourself? The intermediate time-control is so helpful. (There is an alternative of all in 80 minutes + 10 seconds addition by agreement.)

And I agree with Paul's over 10 six hour games, although 24 would be better.

[NickFaulks]

But I'd take 10 six hour games over 60 one hour games.

I was proposing to come back with some statistical analysis, but I think you've said it. Provided, of course, that ability at six hour chess is your benchmark.

[Alex Holowczak]

But I'd take 10 six hour games over 60 one hour games.

The issue with that is practicality though. If we need 10 days to determine the difference in ability between two players, then the tournaments will need to be exponentially longer than they are now. I realise we sort of get that with the Sinquefield Cup, where you get 11 6-hour games at the moment. Even I would concede that you wouldn't want to play a 66-round sextuple Round Robin. But the Saint Louis Rapid & Blitz suggests we don't need anything as long as 6 short games to be equivalent to 1 long game, so maybe even 22 1-hour games would be enough.

If you see chess as an art, where the object is for the players to play to a high standard and for spectators to bask in their doing it, then you take the 6-hour game. If you see chess as a sport, where the idea is for players to be separated based on their ability, then you take the 6 1-hour games.

You won't be surprised to learn I'd take the 6 1-hour games every time, because I'm more interested in the sporting side than the artistic side. Do you think this explains the differences in our views?

[Richard Bates]

I would take issue with your basic hypothesis. Rapidplay chess, even extended up to one hour has no depth. As a sporting contest I would argue that it is almost a different game. It would be like claiming that playing 25 one day matches will determine the best cricket team as well as 5 test matches.

Ever since clocks were introduced, the efficient use of the time allotted has been a potentially limiting factor on performance. But at most sensible classical time controls, I would say that limiting factor is fairly minor, except for those who don’t take serious steps to manage their time effectively. And that should not, in general, require much compromise with seeking to play the best moves. That is not true at much faster time limits, where playing practical (and basically sub optimal) chess quickly gains far greater value.

[JustinHorton]

But I'd take 10 six hour games over 60 one hour games.

You won't be surprised to learn I'd take the 6 1-hour games every time, because I'm more interested in the sporting side than the artistic side. Do you think this explains the differences in our views?

No, because I'm as interested in sport as you are but I take the opposite view to yours.

[Paul Cooksey]

You won't be surprised to learn I'd take the 6 1-hour games every time, because I'm more interested in the sporting side than the artistic side. Do you think this explains the differences in our views?

I was initially talking about small rule changes within the classical format rather than comparing formats. So a sporting analogy is that FIFA is quite good at harmonising the rules of football. You don't see the FA cup deciding to play for 30 minutes halves to make it more exciting for the spectator. One of the consequences of that is that teams can optimise their performances. Of course I know FIDE did try to do something about it, and failed. Sometimes a good idea is not enough, but I might be getting my threads confused...

I'm not a chess as an art form purist. I do like to see good chess, but in the same way I like to good football. We all hate a dull nil nil. But to Giri's point a 2-2 draw is often great for a neutral, usually better than a one sided 4-0 thrashing. I don't think draws are a problem for most sports fans, unless you are an American.

I enjoy a rapid tournament too, but only live. Whereas I play through the games of a top classical tournament if I'm not watching live.