4 ms·

I think what this analysis really shows is that less time lead to less draws. Maybe we could rethink time controls. Classic could maybe be something like 1h+20s

I think what this analysis really shows is that less time lead to less draws. Maybe we could rethink time controls. Classic could maybe be something like 1h+20sec increment for both sides. This would also make it more interesting to watch such an event live.

qzw 5y ago
Don’t rapid and blitz already kind of fill that role? I’m really not sure that having fewer draws is a great metric to guide optimization for classical chess. First, some games that end in draws are actually fantastic, back-and-forth battles that are as exciting as any win. Second, if there are fewer draws, each win becomes less special, especially for the major tournaments. For a cautionary tale, see baseball. They optimized the game for home runs, and now it’s a less interesting sport because it’s become much more one dimensional, and viewership is still trending down anyway. I feel like classical human chess is in a pretty good position right now, having survived the rise of the machines. Chess YouTubers like Gotham and agadmator (and many others) have sizable followings. And I would argue that the biggest popularity boost chess has gotten recently has been the Queen’s Gambit. So maybe leave the rules alone and make more chess TV shows and movies.
- mlyle 5y ago
  I agree that draws and the possibility of draws increases excitement. But I do think top-level chess results in a draw a bit too often: half or more of games in high-level tournaments, and vast majority of world championship games. Rules that draw 10-20% less often, and remove a little bit of white's advantage, would be nice.
kzrdude 5y ago
The perennially controversial opinion is that rapid chess (the time control) should replace classical chess. But I don't play chess tournaments so it's not my place to decide.

4 ms·

I think what this analysis really shows is that less time lead to less draws. Maybe we could rethink time controls. Classic could maybe be something like 1h+20s

by hutrdvnj 5y ago

qzw 5y ago
Don’t rapid and blitz already kind of fill that role? I’m really not sure that having fewer draws is a great metric to guide optimization for classical chess. First, some games that end in draws are actually fantastic, back-and-forth battles that are as exciting as any win. Second, if there are fewer draws, each win becomes less special, especially for the major tournaments. For a cautionary tale, see baseball. They optimized the game for home runs, and now it’s a less interesting sport because it’s become much more one dimensional, and viewership is still trending down anyway. I feel like classical human chess is in a pretty good position right now, having survived the rise of the machines. Chess YouTubers like Gotham and agadmator (and many others) have sizable followings. And I would argue that the biggest popularity boost chess has gotten recently has been the Queen’s Gambit. So maybe leave the rules alone and make more chess TV shows and movies.
- mlyle 5y ago
  I agree that draws and the possibility of draws increases excitement. But I do think top-level chess results in a draw a bit too often: half or more of games in high-level tournaments, and vast majority of world championship games. Rules that draw 10-20% less often, and remove a little bit of white's advantage, would be nice.
kzrdude 5y ago
The perennially controversial opinion is that rapid chess (the time control) should replace classical chess. But I don't play chess tournaments so it's not my place to decide.