I have read for years now the speculation regarding why adult players have dropped by the wayside. It seems to me that this problem shows a remarkable correlation with the ever-increasing speed of time controls in tournaments, and yet I have YET to hear anyone speculate that this may be the cause.
I, for one skip playing in 99% of the very few tournaments that are within reach of me because of this. I know that faster controls are easier on organizers but really, aren’t tournaments for the players? People work hard to get their ratings up and I believe, like myself, do not want to ruin that with superficial “speed” chess. Even time controls of G/2 are not acceptable if one is wanting to play good chess, since now you are constrained NOT merely to manage your own clock, but are forced to consider the time you have remaining compared to your opponent. Personally, I’ve got no problem with sudden death for a secondary control as long as the 1st control is reasonably long, such as 40/2.
Thankfully, there are a very few TDs left who are interested in promoting good chess. Let me take my hat off to Wilder Wadford in North Carolina for the Land of The Sky tournament in Asheville. Best tournament I’ve ever played in. Goichberg runs great tournaments as well though the cost is a bit prohibitive for me to attend often.
This is just my own theory on the inactivity of many veteran USCF members. I know it is the reason for my own very sporadic attendance.
I’ve actually had one player come up to me and suggest the very same thing. And I’m sure that there is a group of players out there that feel this way.
But I don’t really believe that it is true. Let me try to explain why and you can maybe change the error of my ways.
The first and most obvious one is that long time controls involve a tremendous investment in time for the player. I can remember some tournaments that started at 9am and weren’t done until 1am the next morning. Even Today when tournaments start at 9 with time controls of SD 80 they usually aren’t done until about 9pm. Now if you had to drive a couple of hours to the tournament that is still a pretty long day.
So Basically I think for every player you pick up with longer time controls you lose 3 that won’t play that speed.
Having responded and read the above I also think that is important to maintain a mix of events with different time controls. How about an event that is scheduled for Sunday Afternoons, (4 in a row) Game 240?
I think you make a good point about there needing to be a mix of different time controls. Unfortunately, there are almost NO 40/2 controls at all anymore.
I am not qualified to comment on SD 80 though it sounds as if you must be referring to a one-day 4-round tourney?
Personally, I love the total immersion into a chess game that a slower deliberate pace allows for. It is always said that the majority of players love the newer faster controls, but I never personally heard any player complain in the “old” days about controls being too slow. I suspect that this may be a generational thing and I am just an old dinosaur. It appears that like the slower time control tournaments of my youth, I am headed for chess extinction.
I suppose that G/240 would be fine but I am sure organizers would really not go for that one.
We have one 2 day tournament with time control of G/120 per year. Last year we only had 26 players.
The problem is that people just have so many other things to be doing to take two days to devote to Chess. I think that is what has pushed the time controls to faster times.
Maybe the alternative for the players that want slower time controls is Postal???
I suppose you are right. Maybe it is just me and a couple others (who won’t ever read this since they are completely inactive by now). Just curious, how many players do you get for your faster control 1-day tournaments?
I must admit that the slower controls demand more time commitment (obviously). I suppose now that my kids are both off to college (almost), I have more free time and am trying to get back into chess again, though it is, as I say, hard to find the tournaments meeting my time control preferences.
Not sure it would be an accurate comparison number wise because the prize structure is better on the 2 day event.
We have actually made a decision to cut back a bit on some of our one traditional one day events and replace them with tournaments aimed at the newcomers to try to build the base of local players.
Do you really think you lose more at the faster time controls?
Well, I don’t know because I’ve avoided them. I know in the old days they had these tournaments called “tornados” which at the time I think was the fastest allowable rated time control and was 40/1 hr. I didn’t like them and avoided them after playing in one and not being at all comfortable, and of course when the times just got faster - yikes!
Also, in the late 80’s I stopped playing in tournaments for awhile and played only 5-min blitz at lunch with some co-workers. Subsequently, when I returned to tournament play I made the most ridiculous blunders and decided to stay away from chess until I made time to study and repair my game. Years passed and by the time I returned to tournament play, “speed” chess had taken over, even at the GM level. This latter just appalls me. I liked the days of the Interzonals and Candidates Matches. The way FIDE has run even world championships is not what I would ever call chess.
This is something I am wrestling with as an organizer. I prefer longer time controls, but it has been hard to get people to do a multi-day event. It is also difficult because of the extra facilities cost with a 2-day event. We have the added issue that community norms are against Sunday activities.
Around here, there is a lot of quick chess - G/29 each week, and most of the “Championships” tend to be G/60. However there has been a lack of regular-time control tournaments in general.
So, my 2 goals as an organizer have been:
1- lengthen the time controls
2- provide tournaments that allow for scholastics to bridge to USCF and for new adults to play in non-threatening environments.
Here is what I have been running or am planning:
A 4-week G/90 tournament on weeknights for 4 consecutive weeks. The request has been that I make this a G/2 or 40/90 SD/30 next time.
1-day 4-round tournaments rounds 1&2 G/60, rounds 3&4 G/90. (With a seperate U1200 division that plays all at G/45)
G/80 3-round Octos.
Once a year RBO trophy tournament for adults and youth U1200 or Unrated. – This one brought in 30 new USCF members last year!
As soon as I can find and affordable location, I will do a Friday Night/Saturday tournament with 2 shorter rounds Friday and 3 longer rounds Saturday.
My tournaments are steadily growing, and we appear to be keeping the new members we are gaining. I have people that have been inactive coming back to play in these tournaments. For every 1 “complaint” I have about the length of the tournament because of the time control, I have 3 or 4 people saying “the longer the better.”
Something else to consider is how long it takes the TD/organizer to get the tournament rated. I am getting consistent feedback that people are thrilled because the tournament is usually rated by the time they get home (I have internet access at the tournament site). Around here, many tournaments don’t get rated for weeks or more. This has created positive buzz, and I think increased activity. I really think people want the quick feedback on how they are doing. People get frustrated when it takes a long time to see their results, and tend to lose interest.
Interestingly enough, of the events rated from Utah so far in 2007, 7 were mailed to the USCF (and were all rated less than 4 weeks after the event ended) and 33 were submitted online.
Here’s a breakdown in terms of the number of weeks between when the event ended and when it was rated:
I guess the moral here is that having the tools to submit events quickly doesn’t ensure they get used that way.
We have thought about having some kind of ‘speed rating’ system whereby TDs or affiliates are graded by how fast they get their events in, but in some cases that may not be entirely accurate, if there are external factors affecting how quickly an event gets rated, even if only from the perspective of either the affiliate or the TD. (The ‘hired’ TD who can’t submit an event because the affiliate takes weeks to get memberships sent in, etc.)
Mike, that is a facinating graph to me! I guess especially since I kinda know the people behind the numbers.
I think things are getting a bit better. People know that tournaments CAN be rated quickly, so they start asking questions of TDs/organizers when it doesn’t happen.
But I do agree, if a TD chooses not to use the tools in a timely manner, than those tools are ineffective.
but I am sure organizers would really not go for that one.