Following some recent discussion about time limits in go and chess, I realised I witnessed a lot a blitz games on go servers but I never saw or heard of professionals playing official blitz games (even though I saw professionals playing blitz at Go Congresses).

At this page I found some tournaments with 10:00 + 3x0:30 byo-yomi or similar (NHK cup, KBS cup) - roughly what would be called rapid in chess. I could not find anything faster after some Sensei and Google searches.

It is definitely not comparable to the time limits of the (well-developed) blitz tournaments in chess. For example, the very prestigious World Blitz Chess Championship has time limits of 3:00 + 0:02 increment per move.

Do you know of any professional tournament, cup or league with faster time limits?
Additionally, do you know where to find videos of professional blitz?
Thanks in advance.

_________________
La victoire est un hasard, la défaite une nécessité.

There used to be 10s/move go games in Japan but they died off. Currently only one I know of is the Over 40 Speed Go Championships where the main tournament is 10s/move and then the best 4 players play using NHK time after that.

The blitz time settings mentioned for chess in the first post may provide entertainment for watching but not good chess. That speed level degenerates into time tricks rather than good chess. Likewise really short, blitz time limits in go might provide entertainment but not very good go.

Chess has three categories of lightning chess: rapid, blitz and bullet. Rapid can range between 10m and 60m each (plus increments for each move played). Blitz seems mostly to be 10m each and bullet 3m each.

But a straightforward comparison with go is not likely to work. Go has a much bigger board requiring more and longer eye movements, it has less differentiation between pieces, and the board lacks the chequer pattern of chess. The pieces can also be more difficult to place, and go also has rather more moves. Whole-board counting requires a lot of time. Given all that, and also the general feel I get from seeing games presented, I get the impression that go game using NHK type controls are much closer to blitz than to rapid - at least somewhere in-between at any rate.

However, I think it is more useful to consider why a game is being played very fast.

In chess, there seem to be two reasons. One is to overcome a tie in the event of draws. The other is to provide a dollop of entertainment, especially one that can fit inside a television programme. Only the latter consideration seems to apply in go.

As far as I know, nowhere, in either chess or go, is the main consideration to find out who the best go/chess player is. It is true that chess has both a Rapid and a Blitz World Championship and ELO rating lists for each, but these are kept quite separate from classical chess and are both regarded as much inferior to the classical tournaments and rating list when it comes to assessing who the best players are. That does not necessarily mean, of course, that classical games are more popular with an audience than blitz games, but it does seem that most prestige is afforded to classical chess.

We can sense this in go, too, perhaps. One interesting case is the Chinese Cities League. I've forgotten the details (may Mace Lee will step to the plate) but as I recall the majority of the games in each match are played at something like 2h 40m each, but one or two games are played much faster for television presentation.

There are extra special considerations in each game. For example, in go, China is so big that many games take place on the internet. It is far more difficult to cheat on the internet in fast games. I gather one reason for the popularity of bullet chess is precisely to stop online cheating, which can occur easily at blitz settings. Another factor in Korea used to be that the government wished to promote its state-of the-art telecommunications. This was behind an IBM Korea-Japan match and also a Paedal Wang final between Cho Hun-hyeon and Yi Ch'ang-ho, all played via modems. This also helped set the trend for shorter time limits.

I'm certain that there is a host of other factors - one that springs to mind is the need to compete with video games among the young, and another is that young people nowadays seem to be getting much more homework. So there is no likelihood at all that the trend will be reversed. But that doesn't alter my perception that the trend is towards a format that seeks to find the best entertainment rather than the best player.

Judging by chess these two things often coincide, but there is also quite a lot of variation. What seems to be the case in both games is that there are players who stand out in fast games because they have a special knack for them, but there are next to no players who stand out in slower games because of any special knack. In other words slower games create a more level playing field.

But that's for pros. According to Silman, amateurs should be slowing down for other reasons. Judging by online servers, not even 5% of amateurs seem to follow his advice on time limits. In part this may be because of faulty role models: where pros lead, amateurs are apt to follow.

Therein lie the reasons that every time I hear the fanfare for a new pro tournament nowadays, Horace comes to mind: Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

I agree with most of John's post, but I'm not sure I agree with the following:



I believe that it is feasible that different players may be play better at different time controls, at both ends of the spectrum. Yes, some may be better at fast games because of a special knack. But it's probably also true that some players have a "knack" at games played under longer time settings. For the Lee Sedol vs. Gu Li jubango, it was mentioned on multiple occasions that physical exercise played a larger role than actual go study for the jubango, since the stamina required to play for 6 or 8 hours was physically intense. In such a situation, naturally, the player more capable of effectively using the longer time setting would benefit the most.

_________________
be immersed

John Fairbairn,

Thank you for taking the time to write this detailed answer. I appreciate especially the fact that you gave your opinion on tangential issues but still tackled the main question.

I am not sure I agree with your first argument. What you explained might be the difference between 3-second and 5-second increments, or maybe 10-second, but I feel a 30-second increment to be more in rapid territory. Regardless, the fact that pros (and amateurs) play regularly on go servers with a 10-second increment means that this time control should be playable. I have definitely seen pros play (physical) games at least this fast.

I definitely agree that classical chess, and in general slower time control, are associated with more prestigious titles. I am not surprised that the Meijin or the Myeongin are played with slower time controls. What I am surprised at is the apparent complete absence of cup or tournament with a 10-second byo-yomi. You gave a lot of good arguments why it looks as if it should exist - television format, entertainment value, novelty value to stand out from other tournaments.

I was wondering if there could be a feeling among professionals that this type of tournament would be undignified, or if there is another explanation I'm missing.

_________________
La victoire est un hasard, la défaite une nécessité.

Tournament time settings must largely be dictated by the sponsors, no? When you are old and rich, I'm sure you can get pros to play in your 10-second blitz tournament, if you pay the winner enough money.

_________________
be immersed

The usual time controls for quicker chess games (John Fairbairn gave the upper bounds) are

Rapid: 25 10 (25 minutes per player plus 10 additional seconds for each move) or sometimes even 15 10 these days.

Blitz: 5 0, 5 2, or 3 2.

Bullet: 1 0 (that's right, 1 minute to make all your moves).

For example, the Paris leg of the Grand Chess Tour, being played by some of the world's elite as I write, has time controls of 25 10 for the rapid games and 5 2 for the blitz games.

Blitz go sounds perfectly entertaining to me, though I'm not strong enough to be able to play it myself, but I imagine it is much harder to execute live with a real board and stones than in the case of chess, and is much more suited for online play where no one has to hit a clock, stones don't go flying everywhere if you drop one, and you don't have to pick up captured stones. Online-mediated play makes it less fun for the spectator, though.

Perhaps John meant that literally no one does at all better with a long time control, but I doubt he meant it or that it was true. What I can imagine is that if you compare performance in medium time limits vs. long time limits, the relative changes are small, but if you compare performance in TV tournaments vs. medium time limits, the relative changes are big.

Sports analogy: the 3 point contest champion wasn't always the best NBA player, (well, prior to Steph Curry...), but they were probably a good shooter. But if you had some kind of national HORSE championship, the winner might not even make an NBA team's bench.

Is this true about Go? I don't know.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Maybe, hyperpape. It's a complicated question, with many variables, players, etc.

It's also a relative question. The precise "optimal time setting" for which one pro performs best realative to all competition probably varies depending on the pro, the game, and his/her competition.

I'm just saying, if you want to call out special tricks or skills "blitz experts" have, it's also worth noting that endurance and physical stamina are also non-universal skills that different players have developed to different degrees.

_________________
be immersed

A go example: the best blindfold go player is an amateur. viewtopic.php?p=205808#p205808

(This isn't in any way a response to your last post, Kirby).

_________________
Occupy Babel!

I guess you mean that your post is unrelated to what I was saying? It sounds like you are pointing out that different people are skilled at different things.

I agree.

_________________
be immersed

I don't really buy this analogy. I mean, yes, in theory, you can make the argument that blitz go is a completely different game than slow go. But if you look at one of the closest equivalent, chess, the top 100 in the world look awfully similar in every time setting. I'm not saying there isn't some dark horses - right now Iuri Shkuro is top 10 in blitz and outside of the top 100 in standard. But this is rather the exception that confirms the rule, and 90% and the rankings and top boards in prestigious tournaments are the same group of players.

I don't think being blindfolded is in any way comparable to faster time settings.

_________________
La victoire est un hasard, la défaite une nécessité.

If you look up Iuri Shkuro, you will find that people don't really buy that rating (an even stronger version of the Iyama Yuta situation). So your point is supported even more.

Indeed, I was explicitly saying I don't know.

I wonder if John could comment on who those players are who have stand out. I spent some time poking around this morning. Looked at winners and runners up for the NHK, Ryusei and Asian TV Cup. The winners seem about what you'd expect.

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Yuki Satoshi has been remarkably better in faster games, but that is the only standout to me. He has been a title holder and in the leagues for a while, so he's no slouch at slower games either.

It's hard to be precise in go for various reasons. On the one hand there are fewer slow tournaments now to make a comparison, and on the other in the not too distant past slow-game title holders got seeded entry to fast games, or the event was even limited to titleholders, so they were certain or more likely to win the fast events as well. Even today you can't count the NHK as a separate event from TV Asia as entry to the latter depends on the former. And there is still seeding in the likes of the Ryusei.

But there are go pros who consider other pros to be superior to most others in fast play (e.g. Otake Hideo). And it does seem common for older pros to complain that they can't win against the younger players in fast games, which is why so many have been disappointed or even bitter about their spread, especially in Korea - they don't seem to have such a good pension arrangement as their Japanese counterparts. But old pros in all countries feel the pinch so we now see special veteran events arranged for them. Ironically these are nearly always fast games! China is a bit better in some ways as it seems to provide lots of coaching posts for superannuated pros.

Tellingly, in chess fast games are often used as a tie-breaker in classical events. There are several players who will therefore deliberately play for a couple of draws in the slow games because they fancy their chances more in the fast games. They may not necessarily believe they are better than the opponent - they sometimes just believe they have more chances in a crapshoot.