Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Are We Tiktokificating Chess?

However, completely transitioning away from classical chess is not a good idea. It masks the true reason why people play speed chess: as a type of training for classical chess.

Your entire paragraph has no support for this claim at all. This is the main claim of your entire post - but the reasoning for it is "Classical chess is the real chess which is why we shouldn't move away from it". It's logic that forbids any type of change whatsoever.

GothamChess's methods of bringing chess to a wider audience is not necessarily good for the game

Again, this is a big claim. One that would require any amount of evidence, or even an argument that is something other than "It's bad because Chess is supposed to be Slow (which, again, you never actually come up with an argument for other than "it just is")". Why is it bad? To answer this question, you must first actually tackle the claim that you make of "Classical will always be the true time control". What does true time control mean? Why is classical the best way to play the game?

Make an argument instead of using this post to whine about chess creators you don't like and state in a lot of words that "Classical is the true chess".

>However, completely transitioning away from classical chess is not a good idea. It masks the true reason why people play speed chess: as a type of training for classical chess. Your entire paragraph has no support for this claim at all. This is the main claim of your entire post - but the reasoning for it is "Classical chess is the real chess which is why we shouldn't move away from it". It's logic that forbids any type of change whatsoever. >GothamChess's methods of bringing chess to a wider audience is not necessarily good for the game Again, this is a big claim. One that would require any amount of evidence, or even an argument that is something other than "It's bad because Chess is supposed to be Slow (which, again, you never actually come up with an argument for other than "it just is")". Why is it bad? To answer this question, you must first actually tackle the claim that you make of "Classical will always be the true time control". What does true time control mean? Why is classical the best way to play the game? Make an argument instead of using this post to whine about chess creators you don't like and state in a lot of words that "Classical is the true chess".
  1. Classical chess is how all the important chess tournament are played. It is the only time control where you can get norms. That in itself already stands for my point.
  2. I never said I didn't like GothamChess. I just said his methods are not entirely good for the game, as it excessively promotes speed chess, while neglecting the slow part of the game. However, you are welcome to disagree.
  3. One of the most crucial parts of my claim is that classical chess and speed chess are played for different reasons. Speed chess is not just a form of enjoyment; it's a form of training. It helps train your intuition, increasing your thinking speed.
  4. Classical chess was, is, and will be the dominant form of chess in tournaments. It has been that way since the 1800s. Speed chess can be compared with the rise of chess960. It will never overtake classical chess in tournaments.
1. Classical chess is how all the important chess tournament are played. It is the only time control where you can get norms. That in itself already stands for my point. 2. I never said I didn't like GothamChess. I just said his methods are not entirely good for the game, as it excessively promotes speed chess, while neglecting the slow part of the game. However, you are welcome to disagree. 3. One of the most crucial parts of my claim is that classical chess and speed chess are played for different reasons. Speed chess is not just a form of enjoyment; it's a form of training. It helps train your intuition, increasing your thinking speed. 4. Classical chess was, is, and will be the dominant form of chess in tournaments. It has been that way since the 1800s. Speed chess can be compared with the rise of chess960. It will never overtake classical chess in tournaments.

It is interesting though, we are almost at a point where classical chess is perfect chess. Sometimes it makes me wonder if we need blitz or rapid to keep games entertaining because mistakes get made in those lower time controls. Not saying it doesn't happen in classical (believe me I am only 1000 uscf for good reason) but I do feel like as we move closer and closer to perfect chess, faster time controls are needed to, ironically, slow down that fate.

It is interesting though, we are almost at a point where classical chess is perfect chess. Sometimes it makes me wonder if we need blitz or rapid to keep games entertaining because mistakes get made in those lower time controls. Not saying it doesn't happen in classical (believe me I am only 1000 uscf for good reason) but I do feel like as we move closer and closer to perfect chess, faster time controls are needed to, ironically, slow down that fate.

We shouldnt abollish rapid and Blitz games, but classical chess mustnt be reduced in order to have more fast games. The video you showed was an extreme example, Armageddon is concepted to brake a draw if theres no other possability, an Armageddon tournament is a bad idea. The chess entertainment I like is when a strong player analyses deeply, e. g. my favourite chess Youtuber is GM Miclas Huschenbeth, who analized all WC games to.
So Keep all kinds of chess and DONT abolish classical.

We shouldnt abollish rapid and Blitz games, but classical chess mustnt be reduced in order to have more fast games. The video you showed was an extreme example, Armageddon is concepted to brake a draw if theres no other possability, an Armageddon tournament is a bad idea. The chess entertainment I like is when a strong player analyses deeply, e. g. my favourite chess Youtuber is GM Miclas Huschenbeth, who analized all WC games to. So Keep all kinds of chess and DONT abolish classical.

@JacobyMatt said in #43:

It is interesting though, we are almost at a point where classical chess is perfect chess. Sometimes it makes me wonder if we need blitz or rapid to keep games entertaining because mistakes get made in those lower time controls. Not saying it doesn't happen in classical (believe me I am only 1000 uscf for good reason) but I do feel like as we move closer and closer to perfect chess, faster time controls are needed to, ironically, slow down that fate.

Classical chess is not perfect chess. Even at the highest level, the average centipawn loss is ~10. The closest thing we have to perfect chess is correspondence chess.

@JacobyMatt said in #43: > It is interesting though, we are almost at a point where classical chess is perfect chess. Sometimes it makes me wonder if we need blitz or rapid to keep games entertaining because mistakes get made in those lower time controls. Not saying it doesn't happen in classical (believe me I am only 1000 uscf for good reason) but I do feel like as we move closer and closer to perfect chess, faster time controls are needed to, ironically, slow down that fate. Classical chess is not perfect chess. Even at the highest level, the average centipawn loss is ~10. The closest thing we have to perfect chess is correspondence chess.

@dd219: You’re Right, but The real perfekt Chess is the one Computer play, and since it’s legal to use them in correspondence chess, correspondence chess is ruined, that’s why we need classical chess or correspondence chess without engine (Well done Lichess).
By the way, I agree that classical is not perfekt chess, a look a t the last world championships should be the smoking gun.

@dd219: You’re Right, but The real perfekt Chess is the one Computer play, and since it’s legal to use them in correspondence chess, correspondence chess is ruined, that’s why we need classical chess or correspondence chess without engine (Well done Lichess). By the way, I agree that classical is not perfekt chess, a look a t the last world championships should be the smoking gun.

@Bennet09 @dd219 Both of these are true, but I really want to emphasize the almost there. We are at a point where mistakes are not being made nearly at all. But obviously yeah the world championship is the smoking gun here.

@Bennet09 @dd219 Both of these are true, but I really want to emphasize the almost there. We are at a point where mistakes are not being made nearly at all. But obviously yeah the world championship is the smoking gun here.

@JacobyMatt said in #48:

@Bennet09 @dd219 Both of these are true, but I really want to emphasize the almost there. We are at a point where mistakes are not being made nearly at all. But obviously yeah the world championship is the smoking gun here.

If you think there are "almost" no mistakes on the highest level, then you are very wrong. Almost every game has several mistakes, but these mistakes are often just small positional inaccuracies. The average centipawn loss at the grandmaster level is around 10, which means every move the players make they are losing 10 centipawns (0.1 pawns) worth of computer evaluation. This is actually a lot when factoring in the average game length being ~30-40 moves.

@JacobyMatt said in #48: > @Bennet09 @dd219 Both of these are true, but I really want to emphasize the almost there. We are at a point where mistakes are not being made nearly at all. But obviously yeah the world championship is the smoking gun here. If you think there are "almost" no mistakes on the highest level, then you are very wrong. Almost every game has several mistakes, but these mistakes are often just small positional inaccuracies. The average centipawn loss at the grandmaster level is around 10, which means every move the players make they are losing 10 centipawns (0.1 pawns) worth of computer evaluation. This is actually a lot when factoring in the average game length being ~30-40 moves.

This is a very well-written blog post and I agree with you that we are losing some of the tradition and depth in chess. What we view does matter as it drives the content that is produced. The problem is, a lot of the content I view to learn chess is done in person or from books and this "data" isn't taken into consideration when new content is produced. I like a lot of the shorter videos because it quickly reinforces some of what I have already studied and some of the shorter clips are just funny as they show ridiculous moves or missed mates. They are kind of like the instant replays on a football game. Sometimes you just want to see the cool move again. I am thankful for the club I attend with a lot of older men in their 60s and 70s. I really feel like I am looking back in time at the classical traditions of chess. Their games are definitely built on solid theory and I am learning a lot just by playing with them...hahaha even when they get a bit flustered at my rookie moves!

This is a very well-written blog post and I agree with you that we are losing some of the tradition and depth in chess. What we view does matter as it drives the content that is produced. The problem is, a lot of the content I view to learn chess is done in person or from books and this "data" isn't taken into consideration when new content is produced. I like a lot of the shorter videos because it quickly reinforces some of what I have already studied and some of the shorter clips are just funny as they show ridiculous moves or missed mates. They are kind of like the instant replays on a football game. Sometimes you just want to see the cool move again. I am thankful for the club I attend with a lot of older men in their 60s and 70s. I really feel like I am looking back in time at the classical traditions of chess. Their games are definitely built on solid theory and I am learning a lot just by playing with them...hahaha even when they get a bit flustered at my rookie moves!