TalkChess.com

Join the Bullet Chess Campaign.
This is to fight against ones of chess' biggest stigmas - chess games take too much time. Show there are options and chess can be as exciting as a first person shooter.
Info and instructions here http://aigames.net/BulletChessCampaign.html

I think 5 0 time controls are perfectly reasonable.

Sorry, no evidence of "stigma". No evidence of "take too much time". I'd rather see longer thought out chess than hyperblitz random!

Well, there's maybe no such conception within the chess playing community, but I'll go out on a limb and say the point of the OP is not to popularize chess among chess players

Most of the non-chess players I've talked to about chess do think the game is exclusively played in a way that takes a very long time.

Whether/how much such a campaign would help with this, I don't know. Either way, I have no social media accounts and intend to keep it that way, so I can't help

1 0 certainly has more random elements than longer time controls, but it's hardly just random. If it were, you'd expect rankings to be completely random, but somehow very strong chess players are also the strongest bullet players.

MonteCarlo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:44 pm Well, there's maybe no such conception within the chess playing community, but I'll go out on a limb and say the point of the OP is not to popularize chess among chess players

Most of the non-chess players I've talked to about chess do think the game is exclusively played in a way that takes a very long time.

Whether/how much such a campaign would help with this, I don't know. Either way, I have no social media accounts and intend to keep it that way, so I can't help

1 0 certainly has more random elements than longer time controls, but it's hardly just random. If it were, you'd expect rankings to be completely random, but somehow very strong chess players are also the strongest bullet players.

Stronger player become more stronger in shorter time control.
For example, Although magnus vs 2500 gm are +300 elo apart in OTB, they could be +400 elo in bullet. However, if they play in correspondence chess, they could be close to +200 gap only.

Longer time control usually favour weaker player. It is also applicable among engines as well, what we called scaling. For example, SF vs Komodo is +130 elo in bullet but +70 elo in blitz, and it may be +30 or less in correspondence chess.

Indeed. Rating compression from higher draw rates at longer time controls has such an effect.

My "somehow very strong chess players..." statement wasn't meant as actual wonderment; I was being facetious

Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:42 pm I think 5 0 time controls are perfectly reasonable.

The idea is something fast to be a quick advertisement for the unchessed masses. But, if you want to do 5 0 that is fine.

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...)

Well, for every game that Hikaru gets a bad position and wins only on time there are oodles where he just wins on the board.

I prefer very fast games, and have played more 1+0 than anything else, but do prefer a small increment (0+1, 1+1, and 2+1 are all good).

It's just harder to find opponents.

1+0 games definitely aren't unwatchable, at least in my opinion, but there's no accounting for taste

15 second with no increment, on the other hand, watching that hurts my very soul