Kasparov agrees on Mickey Mouse

[topazg]

From Chess one might argue long time settings don't help you find the strongest player (in terms of their intuition for the game, i.e. Carlsen) but it becomes more of a "who can remember more of stockfish's opening lines and pick appropriate ones based on what you think your opponent prepared too", and all the super GMs are more similar to each other in that respect than the more varied intuitive skill that faster time settings reveal.

This is an interesting discussion point in its own right. There are some players that, even out of opening preparation, are just incredibly efficient at finding very strong lines in classical time controls. Nakamura is well known as a blitz and bullet specialist (although again Carlsen seems to have him beat on both overall, but Nakamura has always considered to have no other real rival, at least in bullet - blitz has a few contenders). Despite this, in classical, and although his rating has crossed the magic 2800 mark before, he's prone to having his attacking instincts throwing him into hot water when the opponent has 30 minutes to read out a strong response, and has a bit of a reputation for overstretching in classical length games.

In contrast, Vladimir Kramnik have been known for exceptional technique and strategically brilliant mid game insight in classical games, but has always struggled on short time controls.

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to say that the things that make a player shine in one time control over another is more or less valuable based on what time control it is that the player thrives. So what if Nakamura's aggressive style allows him to carry overplay in short time controls and less so in longer ones - he's still doing it to GMs, and if it was easy everyone would be doing it, and they aren't. Should he not be credited with his ability to find sharp resources in a short space of time? Is this not a sign of fundamentally high intuitive ability? Is it really devalued by the fact they're not optimal moves given hours to analyse the games? I find the argument reasonable if one is trying to express a subjective preference to what constitutes "good" chess, but I find it a weak argument to support some kind of an "objective chess truth" either about the quality of the players or the games.

[jlt]

• Determine who is the strongest player
• Make the competition enjoyable for spectators.

Long enough time settings are necessary to fulfill the first goal.

But what is "long enough"? Is it 2h/player? 4 hours? 8 hours? 16 hours?

Let WR_t(A,B) be the winrate when A plays against B with t hours per player. I would consider that time t is long enough if for all t'>t, |WR_t'(A,B)-WR_t(A,B)| is less than 10%.

I don't know concretely how many hours is "long enough", but it must be clear that less than 1 hour per player in a go tournament is generally too short, except when one player is much stronger than the other like in the early phases of a tournament using the Swiss system. The final phases, like Meijin title matches, require longer times.

[BlindGroup]

But what is "long enough"? Is it 2h/player? 4 hours? 8 hours? 16 hours?

Let WR_t(A,B) be the winrate when A plays against B with t hours per player. I would consider that time t is long enough if for all t'>t, |WR_t'(A,B)-WR_t(A,B)| is less than 10%.

I don't know concretely how many hours is "long enough", but it must be clear that less than 1 hour per player in a go tournament is generally too short, except when one player is much stronger than the other like in the early phases of a tournament using the Swiss system. The final phases, like Meijin title matches, require longer times.

Based on the previous posts, there are two issues with this:
1. The difference in winrates may not be monotonic in t. So, there may be multiple t that yield differences of less than 10 percent.
2. Rather than just considering the overall winrate, one needs to consider a directional on -- e.g. the probability that A beats B. In this structure, there may be t for which the probability is greater than 0.9 and other t for which the probability is less than 0.1.

[Javaness2]

I think the question is worthless unless you can offer the money to facilitate longer time limits for people who earn their living playing go.

[PatD]

From Chess one might argue long time settings don't help you find the strongest player (in terms of their intuition for the game, i.e. Carlsen) but it becomes more of a "who can remember more of stockfish's opening lines and pick appropriate ones based on what you think your opponent prepared too", and all the super GMs are more similar to each other in that respect than the more varied intuitive skill that faster time settings reveal.

The long time control does not necessarily favor memorization of openings; you can still wheel out your prep in short time controls (which should be more effective because the opponent has less time to refute it).

In general, long time controls favor the type of player who is very good in long precise calculations. As Nakamura admitted, Fabiano is such a player. MM time controls, on the other hand, favor intuitive players, those who have a "feel" for the position. Such players, with the obvious exception of Carlsen, are not necessarily good in precise calculations.