- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

What Would a Fun Chess Tournament Look Like?

I agree with this. Playing long haul tournaments is extremely difficult with short breaks between rounds, I barely have enough time to rest.

I agree with this. Playing long haul tournaments is extremely difficult with short breaks between rounds, I barely have enough time to rest.

Funny that this is close to what normally takes place in the UK, in my experience.

Funny that this is close to what normally takes place in the UK, in my experience.

I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts about long time controls. As an online player who's only played "proper" OTB long time control chess a handful of times, I've always wondered why "long rapid" is a) not more popular and b) considered so different to classical

As a simple example, suppose two people play a game with a time control of 45+0. This game, if it goes to the wire, lasts about the same length as a game of football (soccer). If you're worried that the game might not go the full distance, we can up the time limit to something like 60+0 or 60+10 (like you suggest) and then consider what happens in practice.

To me these time controls seems like more than enough time to have an interesting game of chess while still being a "reasonable" length of time for the lay person to wrap their head around (here I'm comparing to other board games like Scrabble, backgammon). I've also wondered whether such a time control would make long games more watchable for the purposes of people scheduling their time watching chess. But there seems to be an entrenched opinion in the community of professional players that these time controls are somehow too short to constitute "proper" chess.

I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts about long time controls. As an online player who's only played "proper" OTB long time control chess a handful of times, I've always wondered why "long rapid" is a) not more popular and b) considered so different to classical As a simple example, suppose two people play a game with a time control of 45+0. This game, if it goes to the wire, lasts about the same length as a game of football (soccer). If you're worried that the game might not go the full distance, we can up the time limit to something like 60+0 or 60+10 (like you suggest) and then consider what happens in practice. To me these time controls seems like more than enough time to have an interesting game of chess while still being a "reasonable" length of time for the lay person to wrap their head around (here I'm comparing to other board games like Scrabble, backgammon). I've also wondered whether such a time control would make long games more watchable for the purposes of people scheduling their time watching chess. But there seems to be an entrenched opinion in the community of professional players that these time controls are somehow too short to constitute "proper" chess.

Wow Nate, I might have to award you the GMB (Grand Master Blogger) Title for this one.

Wow Nate, I might have to award you the GMB (Grand Master Blogger) Title for this one.
<Comment deleted by user>

I'm from Sweden, and we have a pretty unique tournament structure. It might seem a bit unusual, but it’s actually quite effective since it fits the entire event into one weekend, perfect for players who have work or school during the week.

The format usually goes like this: on Friday evening, there are four rapid games, and then on Saturday and Sunday, there are two classical games each day. Playing two classical games in a day can feel like a lot like you mentioned, but since the tournament is so short and there’s no extra time added after 40 moves, it’s manageable.

The biggest criticism of this format is the mix of two time controls in one tournament. A lot of players argue that rapid shouldn’t have as much weight as classical. Personally, though, as someone who’s usually one of the higher-rated players in these events, I think it works out great. I don’t have to spend hours playing against much weaker opponents, and by the time the classical games start, I typically have 3-4 points out of 4. That means I get to face players around my level, leading to more competitive games that I can actually learn from.

I'm from Sweden, and we have a pretty unique tournament structure. It might seem a bit unusual, but it’s actually quite effective since it fits the entire event into one weekend, perfect for players who have work or school during the week. The format usually goes like this: on Friday evening, there are four rapid games, and then on Saturday and Sunday, there are two classical games each day. Playing two classical games in a day can feel like a lot like you mentioned, but since the tournament is so short and there’s no extra time added after 40 moves, it’s manageable. The biggest criticism of this format is the mix of two time controls in one tournament. A lot of players argue that rapid shouldn’t have as much weight as classical. Personally, though, as someone who’s usually one of the higher-rated players in these events, I think it works out great. I don’t have to spend hours playing against much weaker opponents, and by the time the classical games start, I typically have 3-4 points out of 4. That means I get to face players around my level, leading to more competitive games that I can actually learn from.

In Australia lots of the weekend tournaments are 60+30. Often with 3 rounds per day to fit 6 rounds into a 2 day weekend.
Some of the top sections are 90+30, but these usually include a Friday evening game, or are over a holiday long weekend.

Going back a few years 60+10 tournament with 3 rounds per day were fairly common, but many have moved to +30 increment to allow them to be FIDE rated. 60+10 is restricted to under 1800 FIDE, but 60+30 allows up to 2400 FIDE payers to play.

BYO chess boards seems to be an American thing. We always provide boards, sets, clocks, scoresheets etc in Australia.

In Australia lots of the weekend tournaments are 60+30. Often with 3 rounds per day to fit 6 rounds into a 2 day weekend. Some of the top sections are 90+30, but these usually include a Friday evening game, or are over a holiday long weekend. Going back a few years 60+10 tournament with 3 rounds per day were fairly common, but many have moved to +30 increment to allow them to be FIDE rated. 60+10 is restricted to under 1800 FIDE, but 60+30 allows up to 2400 FIDE payers to play. BYO chess boards seems to be an American thing. We always provide boards, sets, clocks, scoresheets etc in Australia.

@biscuitfiend said in #4:

As a simple example, suppose two people play a game with a time control of 45+0. This game, if it goes to the wire, lasts about the same length as a game of football (soccer). If you're worried that the game might not go the full distance, we can up the time limit to something like 60+0 or 60+10 (like you suggest) and then consider what happens in practice.

To me these time controls seems like more than enough time to have an interesting game of chess while still being a "reasonable" length of time for the lay person to wrap their head around (here I'm comparing to other board games like Scrabble, backgammon). I've also wondered whether such a time control would make long games more watchable for the purposes of people scheduling their time watching chess. But there seems to be an entrenched opinion in the community of professional players that these time controls are somehow too short to constitute "proper" chess.

Absolutely agree. I just don't understand why games are so long. A 4 hour game of chess is exhausting. And also high pressure - it's too important to lose!

Why not play more, less pressurised games over a decent time control to ensure it's a good contest? Something like 45+30.

@biscuitfiend said in #4: > > As a simple example, suppose two people play a game with a time control of 45+0. This game, if it goes to the wire, lasts about the same length as a game of football (soccer). If you're worried that the game might not go the full distance, we can up the time limit to something like 60+0 or 60+10 (like you suggest) and then consider what happens in practice. > > To me these time controls seems like more than enough time to have an interesting game of chess while still being a "reasonable" length of time for the lay person to wrap their head around (here I'm comparing to other board games like Scrabble, backgammon). I've also wondered whether such a time control would make long games more watchable for the purposes of people scheduling their time watching chess. But there seems to be an entrenched opinion in the community of professional players that these time controls are somehow too short to constitute "proper" chess. Absolutely agree. I just don't understand why games are so long. A 4 hour game of chess is exhausting. And also high pressure - it's too important to lose! Why not play more, less pressurised games over a decent time control to ensure it's a good contest? Something like 45+30.