This picture was taken at the Women’s Chess Cup in Dresden in 2005
The Amber super rapid and blindfold tournament is around the half way mark with Aronian in clear first, followed by Anand.
This is a quote from GM Alex Baburin of Chess Today:
“The more I watch this tournament in Nice, the more I tend to agree with Grischuk & Co that classical chess is dead and that the way forward is rapid chess, blitz and, well, blindfold chess!”
Do you agree with it?
It’s Saturday Open Forum. The forum is yours. What would you like to discuss?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Classical chess is dead??
This is the most idiotic comment I have heard of… There are so many super tournaments organised almost every month (Corus, Morelia-Linares, now Baku and Sofia coming, Grand Slam, etc.) and so many super GMs at the age of 17 or 18 (like Carlsen, Karjakin, Hou Yifan) that Baburin seems to ignore? It sounds to me more like whining than approach to reality by Grischuk and Baburin…
If you are relatively better at rapid and blitz chess than classical chess, than you might be expected to be in favour of more rapid tempi.
However, I prefer quality to instant knockabout gratification.
Amber is always entertaining; if only because it’s a comedy of errors.
You might be able to shed some light on what I heard: USCF deflated ratings of club players a couple of hundred points some time ago.
I returned to over-the-board play recently after a 20-year hiatus. For all I studied and practiced during that time, I think my technique is incomparably better. But after dozens of games, my rating has declined from what it used to be.
I see a number of players I knew in the ’80s who are down 200 points or more from where they were. And since the USCF publishes rating histories for the past 17 years, I can see a similar decline in many players, to the extent that they’re playing at their rating floor. What’s the story?
Grischuk & Co are so deads.
🙂
If you really favor quality chess, perhaps you should consider advanced chess…
i never play blitz chess because it doesn’t bring any improvement to my game nor make me appreciate the game as the stresss and tension is maximal , the game are generally won because of blunders ,not because of very good play and i can’t stand this as i don’t happen to take pride or enjoy my victories and generally lose out of time trouble which forces me to play without thinking after some time or playing primitively , it gives some bad habits .
The only thing interesting in blitz is that the psychological aspect and nerve aspect is much more important , but again , what i appreciate in chess is not breaking the ego of the guy in front me , but improve my play and have fun
Classical chess makes me improve my game and ability to play real chess , makes me appreciate the game with my opponent ( fun , i have a good time , which is essential for an amateur chess player ) and give me the time to relax and look for quality chess , for new tactics and real creativity .
This GM said that probably because as a spectator , he prefers to watch games he understands better or games with more brutal action and tension because of the limited time , but really , i don’t agree with him because the game are poor for many of them , many mistakes, approximations , and to be honest , i prefer to watch boxing show or something like that if i want to watch a brutal entertaining knock out show , chess was not designed to please the spectators , it should please the professionals in the first place and if you ask the Kramnik , Kasparov , Karpov etc.. the majority stands by classical chess
A question off topic because it is an open forum.
There have been complaints that the GM title has been diluted because of inflation and a frank push to have more GMs by past and current FIDE leaders. With the power and consistency of computer programs why not make the title something one qualifies for by demonstrating the ability to defeat a program set at a lower level (something other than Shredder, Fritz or Deep junior ) Advantages: very consistent opposition, no chance for paying off the opponent or having a lucky draw, rewards all aspects of play – sharp tactics, solid position, good endgames all would be important. Disadvantage: may really cut down on the number of GMs which some countries won’t like.
The last entry in Susan Polgar’s Chess Blog for Boys – still advertised – is dated September 2006.
Why is that?
Classical time controls are not killing chess. Computers are. They remove the human element from the game.
I wonder if anything could be done by the USCF about the obvious problem with the rating calculations after playing non-US players who are clearly under rated by his/her USCF rating?
As one of the TD/organizers of events in the Buffalo-Niagara region, we have had on many occasions, Canadian players (CFC) come and participate in these events. We are instructed to pair them using the current Canadian rating (with no adjustment). However, when the post tournament ratings reports are calculated by the USCF these players may be unrated or perhaps even worse, a clearly old USCF rating (from some tournament long ago) is used.
Thus, if you were to draw or lose to such a player a significant reduction in one’s USCF rating would occur. On the flip side if you were to beat a Canadian expert or master level player who is either unrated or “under rated”, your increase in rating points would be nominal.
To cite just two examples, a 1012 US scholastic player drew a unrated Canadian scholastic player but whose Canadian rating was already 1388! In another case, a rising Canadian junior (CFC 2018 but USCF 1750p) drew a 2216 USCF. In the former, less points would be given to the US junior and in the later too many points would be taken away from the US master.
How is this handeled in Europe?
Is it time to go to FIDE ratings for everyone?
Amber has a lively atmosphere, the games are exciting. This is what chess needs. In short, I agree with Baburin.
How bad are USCF finances. Is there really a danger of bankruptcy ?
As for the potential power of classical chess to enthrall, today Shelby Lyman reminisces on the impact of the 1972 match.
By the way, Sports Illustrated has opened up its whole “Vault” archive of past stories. E.g. go to vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com and search on “Fischer”, choose Bobby from the list, and sort by Date since there are so many references. Among the links I found is this original June 1962 article by Robert Cantwell on the Curacao collusion.
Classical chess is for professional and highly rated players themselves not to popularize the sport.
Who can stand a seven hour soccer, football, tennis, baseball, formula 1, etc. competition.
If you want chess to be popular it has to last two or three hours at the most, after that you don´t have public but players themselves…
To Paul Serrano:
The word on the street is that USCF ratings have been deflating for quite some time due to the increase in numbers of underrated and rapidly improving scholastic players. I don’t have access to hard data to support this, but I’ve seen trends similar to the one your describe. Around here, I know dozens of adult players who do not play in tournaments anymore because scholastic players have dragged their ratings to the floor. I think Tom Braunlich posted an article about this somewhere.
I vote for Battle Chess!
Very interesting article. For what it’s worth, I remember Tom Braunlich – 25 years ago – as what he’d call a junior. He was in high school, on a (adult) team in a local C league. We played a long game in which I thought I had a draw, before blundering in the endgame. I guess he was one of those underrated kids.
I have no problem with rapid, blitz chess. but blindfold chess…it does not interest me at all.
Alex Baburin you and Grischuk & Co. are selfish. Your comment is selfishly motivated. I once respected you based on your publication Chess Today. I was one of the very first members. I do not know you personally , all I have to go by is your shameful deeds. While you have created a daily publication that is unique and one of the best of its kind you have shamed this chessplayer who enjoys the game for what it is. Selfishly motivated chessplayers who aim at professionalizing chess for their own selfish desires seem to take on the mindset of manipulating the characteristics that have made the game what it is today to a select handful’s benefit to try to derive $$ out of this beautiful game. Grischuk is a moron as well for making such a comment. If he doesnt like to spend so much time with chess because its not the $$ profession he dreamed it to be then he can go play POKER. My comment is not directed towards Baburin or Grischuk but for ALL and ANY of you who want to fantasize about what chess could be but in the process of making it all IT CAN BE, you diminish the beautiful nature of the game in itself. Yeah I do believe your ideas of speeding up the game to make it fancy to the public eye is ridiculous, absurd, and selfishly motivated. Why? You people who do this are simply tired of what chess IS, you dream in a secondary reality state that it will become something it no longer is……IN YOUR MIND. This is why the USCF has it problems in my opinion……..selfishness, greed, envy and LOSS of money in general can be related to nothing less than SELFISH people running the organization. People who are greedy . Yeah Destructive politics is another way to describe it perhaps. I have my own opinion on that as well. I got a question for you and if you are not too prideful answer it with a straight face…… If you do not like what chess is and will continue to be (hopefully with the assistance of my fellow chess lovers) why dont you go back to school and use your beautiful mind as a chess grandmaster or whatever it is you claim to be and become something that will be more worthwhile to your pocket book than chess promotion??
A very upset-minded chess lover
Jimmie Beatty
Maryland USA
Jimmie,
You better smoke something more soothing.
any reply without an identity i wont even pay attention to it and will consider it wind in the rain. be a man post your identity then say what you gotta say otherwise your post is invalid.
kwregan,
Hey, thanks very much for taking the trouble to post that. Fabulous!
I found Fischer’s famous ‘The Russians have fixed World Chess’ there, too.
That makes very interesting reading even now, and still makes a very good argument for deciding Challenger and Champion by proper-length matches.
FIDE actually took notice for once, and instituted the much improved system of Candidates Matches.
Unfortunately, this fundamentally sound system was destroyed for political reasons and personal advantage by Ilyumzhinov in 1997 and Kramnik in 2002.
And now we have some ridiculous rubbish system in its place.
It is clear, too, from the Cantwell article that at that time neither the 1953 Candidates Tournament nor the 1948 World Championship Tournament were regarded as satisfactory. It is clear that no matter how good his form might have been, Reshevsky would have had little chance in either tourney.
@Jimmie Beatty
I think you post is very unprofessional. Perhaps we can write it off as forum rage or your having a bad day. I surely hope you don’t conduct yourself this way in real life. In short — grow up and allow others to have opinions that differ from yours with out feeling you need to make personally attacks against them.
Everything i have said I stand by 100%. These people similiar to Grischuk and Baburin,with their thoughts and demeanor are destroying chess. The inconsistency in their viewpoints leads chess to a future doom. Instead of using their Grandmaster titles and recognition to further promote chess in a positive way they want to lean more towards making chess attractive to everyone. There is a lot of people who think chess can be like poker on espn for example and this is nonsense. The reason poker is on espn is because people like to gamble…its one of the leading addictions…addictions are popular……not to mention in poker you can get LUCKY. in that regards its like winning the lottery so to speak. THAT ATTRACTS PEOPLE!!! Quit trying to make something out of Chess that isnt there. Chess is beautiful, Chess needs to be more appreciate by chess professionals. Just because you professionals have mastered the game and may find its current state “kinda boring” or whatever it is that runs through your challenged mind keep it to yourself!! This is not forum rage, if it was i wouldnt post my name! This is not a bad day , its written in protection of the game I love and always have loved for what it is. Im not the one trying to make a living from it. Do I respect those who are trying to make a living from it?? Yes, to a certain extent, until they are devising ways or working hard as a professional to alter the game I love. My concern is expressed in a sincere love for the game of chess. Hey Bob once you feel that same sincere love for chess in general then write back with some retaliation directed towards me. I do conduct myself this way in life. I say how i feel, and yeah it gets me nowhere most of the time but Ill go to my grave knowing that I was a fighter for what I was passionate about. People like you will go to your grave being the passive-minded, keep it to yourself, naive, individual that your words speak for themselves. You made me feel even happier today because you read what I said. Pass it on!
A true chess lover
Jimmie Beatty
Maryland USA
To me, some of these criticism are like a marathon enthusiast telling Carl Lewis he’s not a real runner, because he can’t keep up a 9.8 pace for 26 miles.
Face it people; classical and rapid are different games. And personally, I respect and am more entertained by Carl Lewis than I am by a bunch of marathoners.
On that note, I wouldn’t mind tweaking the time controls at the upcoming scholastic nationals. My kids are playing in a U750 section, with a G/120 time control. People, if they’re really using 120 minutes, chances are they’re rated well above 750! I’d suggest a re-format. Keep the “Open Championship” as 7 rounds of G/120, and let the U750 kids like mine play 15 games at G/45. They’d have a lot more fun, I’d have a lot more time not chasing kids around between games, and we wouldn’t have to use accelerated pairings to conjure up a winner.