lichess.org
Donate

What Would a Fun Chess Tournament Look Like?

I'd add one more thing to make tournaments better: move them out of urban centers, and even out of doors, weather permitting.

I'd add one more thing to make tournaments better: move them out of urban centers, and even out of doors, weather permitting.

I have to say I agree with almost all of the point mentioned. BYO Chessset always felt very weird to me and so unnecessary since plastic chess Sets are quite cheap and if necessary raise the entry price a little higher if thats what stopping you.

Very personally saying, I really enjoy playing long games up to 4-5 hours. Ofcourse it hurts losing those but its as much fun if not more squeezing out a nice win after a long fighting game.

This is ofcourse easier to say if you are still fairly young and more energized and I definetly understand the appeal of shorter time frames.

Also from my experience, most weekend tournaments in Europe (in my german experience) have two games per day and one on friday to get to 5 games, so it isnt that different, but having three on one day is very rare.

I have to say I agree with almost all of the point mentioned. BYO Chessset always felt very weird to me and so unnecessary since plastic chess Sets are quite cheap and if necessary raise the entry price a little higher if thats what stopping you. Very personally saying, I really enjoy playing long games up to 4-5 hours. Ofcourse it hurts losing those but its as much fun if not more squeezing out a nice win after a long fighting game. This is ofcourse easier to say if you are still fairly young and more energized and I definetly understand the appeal of shorter time frames. Also from my experience, most weekend tournaments in Europe (in my german experience) have two games per day and one on friday to get to 5 games, so it isnt that different, but having three on one day is very rare.

You said that in Europe it's crazy to have two classical games per day. You are absolutely wrong two games per day is standard in Europe even tough there are tournaments where there is a double round only one or two day

You said that in Europe it's crazy to have two classical games per day. You are absolutely wrong two games per day is standard in Europe even tough there are tournaments where there is a double round only one or two day

@PincUnikorn said in #12:

Very personally saying, I really enjoy playing long games up to 4-5 hours.
Same here, I really like 90+30 (or, even better, 90+30 for 40 moves with extra 30 minutes after that). When I learned that one of the tournaments I want to play this Summer switched to 60+30 in the "B" section (under 1900), it made me seriously consider if I shouldn't rather register for "A" section (officially 1750+ but they are willing to accept limited number of players below that).

This is ofcourse easier to say if you are still fairly young and more energized
It depends. I'm 50 and my experience is that when playing against young opponents, especially those below 15, the longer the game, the better my chances are. They may have the energy and stamina but most of them lack the patience and cannot keep full focus for so long.

and I definetly understand the appeal of shorter time frames
I do understand it. I just don't feel it. :-)

@PincUnikorn said in #12: > Very personally saying, I really enjoy playing long games up to 4-5 hours. Same here, I really like 90+30 (or, even better, 90+30 for 40 moves with extra 30 minutes after that). When I learned that one of the tournaments I want to play this Summer switched to 60+30 in the "B" section (under 1900), it made me seriously consider if I shouldn't rather register for "A" section (officially 1750+ but they are willing to accept limited number of players below that). > This is ofcourse easier to say if you are still fairly young and more energized It depends. I'm 50 and my experience is that when playing against young opponents, especially those below 15, the longer the game, the better my chances are. They may have the energy and stamina but most of them lack the patience and cannot keep full focus for so long. > and I definetly understand the appeal of shorter time frames I do understand it. I just don't feel it. :-)

@blitzroadto2500 said in #13:

You said that in Europe it's crazy to have two classical games per day. You are absolutely wrong two games per day is standard in Europe even tough there are tournaments where there is a double round only one or two day
Depends on the country, I suppose. In ours, most classical open tournaments follow the pattern of 9 rounds in 8 days (e.g. from Saturday to Saturday with two rounds on Sunday). There are also some with 7 rounds in four days (Thursday to Sunday) but it seems to be rather an exception.

@blitzroadto2500 said in #13: > You said that in Europe it's crazy to have two classical games per day. You are absolutely wrong two games per day is standard in Europe even tough there are tournaments where there is a double round only one or two day Depends on the country, I suppose. In ours, most classical open tournaments follow the pattern of 9 rounds in 8 days (e.g. from Saturday to Saturday with two rounds on Sunday). There are also some with 7 rounds in four days (Thursday to Sunday) but it seems to be rather an exception.

Can we just dispense with the endgame and count the material after say 40 moves. Clearly players don't want to play it because even at the 'slowest' speed you mention it just isn't enough time to do it justice. Club players (at even faster time controls) generally are poor at the endgame, and faster time pressure causes the need for memorising opening variations and middlegames to come out on top, which I think makes chess less fun. What's wrong with rapidplay if you don't want to be playing for long periods of time?

Can we just dispense with the endgame and count the material after say 40 moves. Clearly players don't want to play it because even at the 'slowest' speed you mention it just isn't enough time to do it justice. Club players (at even faster time controls) generally are poor at the endgame, and faster time pressure causes the need for memorising opening variations and middlegames to come out on top, which I think makes chess less fun. What's wrong with rapidplay if you don't want to be playing for long periods of time?

@WickedUK: Hard disagree. I for one want to play endgames, and one of the reasons I can't be bothered to join a league in my local area is that they have those dumb rules where after something like 32 moves the time control switches to "quick finish".

In my opinion, people don't play the endgame well because they don't manage their time well, and it's no more complicated than that. Give a chess player 5 hours on their clock, and there's no guarantee they'll play better moves than if they had 1 hour, but you can bet they'll use all their time, probably spinning their wheels about nothing.

As @CheckRaiseMate has pointed out himself, a lot of players don't "calculate, evaluate, move"; instead, they do something like "calculate, evaluate, feel uneasy about the position, then stare at the same calculations and evaluations until they feel comfortable making a move".

@WickedUK: Hard disagree. I for one _want_ to play endgames, and one of the reasons I can't be bothered to join a league in my local area is that they have those dumb rules where after something like 32 moves the time control switches to "quick finish". In my opinion, people don't play the endgame well because they don't manage their time well, and it's no more complicated than that. Give a chess player 5 hours on their clock, and there's no guarantee they'll play better moves than if they had 1 hour, but you can bet they'll use all their time, probably spinning their wheels about nothing. As @CheckRaiseMate has pointed out himself, a lot of players don't "calculate, evaluate, move"; instead, they do something like "calculate, evaluate, feel uneasy about the position, then stare at the same calculations and evaluations until they feel comfortable making a move".

@biscuitfiend (nice handle I came up with that too years ago as a parody name for our favourite blue messy snack eater):

I can see your opinion, but endgames are really complicated (we aren't talking about the well-known positions or even things you could learn through studies). Small innocuous decisions can swing the result if you don't calculate carefully at the right time. This is compounded by having to find the right move when it's basically in no time and 30 second increment; you might as well dispense with the notion that chess is skill and start rolling dice with a base of the grade difference. There really is the risk that all that outplaying a weaker player in the opening and middlegame are wasted because of a time pressure mistake, and then the need to perform even better (or less creation more memory) in those phases so the endgame is more trivial to win (cue rote memorisation). Time management is critical, but given a complicated middlegame before, the necessary time to spend isn't there even if you do get there early enough, and that ignores the practicality that it's easy to burn in the middlegame just because your opponent doesn't want to give up despite your advantage.

I agree about the potential for wheel spinning, but if they are spinning their wheels and you're better, why aren't you beating them in the end. Chess just seems to be getting faster and faster because people don't want to put the time in, and perhaps the eventual convergence years in the future will be a round of 10 minute games instead - all the excitement with none of the care, precision and patience to worry about. I don't mind some fast controls, but everything is getting faster, so there is no option to actually play the game at a speed where you can spend enough time.

@biscuitfiend (nice handle I came up with that too years ago as a parody name for our favourite blue messy snack eater): I can see your opinion, but endgames are really complicated (we aren't talking about the well-known positions or even things you could learn through studies). Small innocuous decisions can swing the result if you don't calculate carefully at the right time. This is compounded by having to find the right move when it's basically in no time and 30 second increment; you might as well dispense with the notion that chess is skill and start rolling dice with a base of the grade difference. There really is the risk that all that outplaying a weaker player in the opening and middlegame are wasted because of a time pressure mistake, and then the need to perform even better (or less creation more memory) in those phases so the endgame is more trivial to win (cue rote memorisation). Time management is critical, but given a complicated middlegame before, the necessary time to spend isn't there even if you do get there early enough, and that ignores the practicality that it's easy to burn in the middlegame just because your opponent doesn't want to give up despite your advantage. I agree about the potential for wheel spinning, but if they are spinning their wheels and you're better, why aren't you beating them in the end. Chess just seems to be getting faster and faster because people don't want to put the time in, and perhaps the eventual convergence years in the future will be a round of 10 minute games instead - all the excitement with none of the care, precision and patience to worry about. I don't mind some fast controls, but everything is getting faster, so there is no option to actually play the game at a speed where you can spend enough time.

@WickedUK: I think everything you're saying is true, but these are all reasons that a) I want to play the endgame, because I trust my calculation, and b) people should learn to manage their time better.

I realise that my whole argument on the topic can be summed up as "skill issue bro", but I guess that's just my opinion.

As for the trend towards faster time controls: weirdly enough, if I play rapid and blitz, I do actually get to play endgames. I'm not saying endgames don't happen if you only have little time for them; I'm saying that if you only ration very little time to play the endgame, then you can't reasonably expect to get better at playing endgames.

@WickedUK: I think everything you're saying is true, but these are all reasons that a) I _want_ to play the endgame, because I trust my calculation, and b) people should learn to manage their time better. I realise that my whole argument on the topic can be summed up as "skill issue bro", but I guess that's just my opinion. As for the trend towards faster time controls: weirdly enough, if I play rapid and blitz, I do actually get to play endgames. I'm not saying endgames don't happen if you only have little time for them; I'm saying that if you only ration very little time to play the endgame, then you can't reasonably expect to get better at playing endgames.