My point is that they are still playing world class chess - at least world class for 5 minutes.Albert Silver wrote:What is the difference? I say they are similarly handicapped at 5 minutes, and you say they are both playing as well as possible. If they are similarly handicapped, they are still playing their best possible within those limitations, no?Don wrote:But that is not my point, my point is not that they will be both seriously handicapped in an equal way but that they will both be playing top notch chess for the time control itself.Albert Silver wrote:
I disagree that the matter is whether the relative strengths are the same. Let us suppose that you decided to take two marathon runners and test them at 100 meters. In theory, you can assume that as they are both similarly specialized, their handicap will also be similar. Let us even suppose it is true. So what? The only thing in common is that both are foot race events, but they are otherwise very different competitions. Even if two players perform similarly in blitz and long games relative to each other, the two events are simply completely different.
If your argument is that 5 minutes chess is lower quality than 4 hour chess then you get no argument from me. But if your argument is about quality then why not play 8 hours chess or 16 hours chess per side with breaks every 20 moves or so? I guarantee you that over the board chess does not compare to correspondence chess in quality.
It's for logistical reasons partly, but more to the point these are primarily a competition and a test of skill, not a format designed to create the highest quality games possible (which they don't even come close to doing.)
You are stuck in the stone age of think it has to be done a certain way because that is "tradition" and anything less than a game per day is against the laws of nature or something.
By the way, I don't necessarily agree that this should come down to 5 minute chess either. The FIRST game should be sped up to allow time for escalating speedups and that we should not suddenly go from 4 hours to 5 minute chess.
Are you kidding? The difference in 5 minute chess and 4 hour chess is enormous, I am well aware of the difference. Even a couple of ply puts you in another class. The "scalability" if you want to call it that of humans is superior to machines also so that humans improve more with more time than computers do. The shape of the curve is very similar though, just steeper. In fact most humans don't realize that they play something like 100 ELO stronger for every doubling in time control. It depends on the level but it's basically whatever a computer gets plus somewhat more. Humans don't realize it generally because their opponents play stronger too so they don't notice that the quality of the game itself just jumped significantly, they just think they are playing "about the same." They DO notice how crappy they play in 5 minute chess though and think that it means THEY are particularly weak at it.
However, I think you seriously underestimate the difference between blitz and slow games. It might be because you are so accustomed to seeing machines only gain X plies and start playing 14 plies depth in blitz instead of 20 (or whatever).
Well then they need to get over it. It's nothing more than prejudice and old-school conservatism and fear of change. I don't know if you realize the prejudice over algebraic in the U.S. but it was just plain "wrong" too in the eyes of many players - but they got over it.
More mistakes accrue there is no question, but for humans the difference goes much deeper. Deep planning and counter-planning (fighting your opponent's ideas) go right out the window. In fact planning becomes general ideas at best.
I think you will find very very few grandmasters who think the two time controls are comparable. The vast majority of players are outraged at the idea of the world championship being decided by blitz tiebreak games.
If this were incorporated into top level play it would be very quickly accepted as normal.
In tennis, you have the situation that a game, a set or a match could be decided by a single point - perhaps even a bad ball bounce. In chess a game can be decided by a single bad move. That's life and everything works that way in life and in games and having a single grueling long game does not change that as it will still come down to the skill of the players.