MonteCarlo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:44 pm
1 0 certainly has more random elements than longer time controls, but it's hardly just random.
I used to watch hours and hours of 1 0 bullet marathons on youtube, watching these strong players crush others with intuitive moves.
I had to stop when I realized it was way too fast to allow understanding of what was going on in the game. By the time you got what happened the game is already over and the next one is already on the middle game
It was common to see games end because one side resigned, and you don't even know why, but by the time you realize you don't know why that game ended, that was 3 games ago
It's an unwatchable meaningless mess and it's all based on adrenaline. The problem is when new watchers get used to the adrenaline they'll lose interest and quit watching chess altogether, and will be left with the impression that it's like that. That it's very shallow because they'll never get to see anything deep.
3 0 is better because it allows enough time to figure what's going on, its problem is time scrambles where what happened in the game doesn't matter at all, and it becomes about who moves faster.
Forget about Magnus Carsen, at 3 0 chess or faster Hikaru Nakamura is the best in the world, and yet, you could make a 2 hour video compilation of Nakamura being outplayed by random people on the internet. They reach a winning position against him. And then he beats them on the clock in time scrambles, people watching that will believe clocks are more important than chess moves, which is wrong.
That's why I hold it begins being reasonable at 5 0, minimum. I'm all for shortening the time control, and I think chess future audience will not work with hours long games nobody wants to watch. It's just that bullet isn't chess at all, ideally we'd have 10 0 at least, but I get how 20 minute draws could turn people off (so much time spent and there's no winner? How lame...)
(...probably 3 +2 Fischer time controls would also work, just get rid of time scrambles...)