One of the 'highlights' of Day 2 of the Global Chess League were a couple of games decided by time scrambles. With no increment for the games (G/20m being the time limit), flagging the opponent was part of the game strategy. This was combined with pieces being knocked over, players 'pre-moving' and the onsite spectators not being sure exactly what happened at the end. Online comments were generally negative, with a number of posters arguing that this wasn't 'real' chess. But I would argue that the problem isn't the format, but the age of the players.
Since the late 1990's, most chess has been played with increments, and this isn't a bad thing. But on the other hand, chess prior to that did not involve increments, and players just coped with this. Certainly the arbiters had to work a lot harder, but at the same time, the players also knew what the process was. In fact I still organise sudden death blitz and rapid events, and by and large, every (a) knows the process concerning illegal moves and positions and (b) accepts the outcome. So much so, that when it has been suggested we change to increments at Street Chess (13m+2s) this has rejected by the majority of regular players, on the well grounded reasoning of 'where is the fun in that'
No comments:
Post a Comment