This is such a sharp diagnosis of modern chess’s paradox: the better we get at “solving” it, the more it risks becoming sterile for spectators. The Moneyball analogy fits disturbingly well, and your take on Freestyle being cognitively demanding rather than liberating as a viewer really landed. It’s clear we need innovation, but also a better way to reintroduce creative friction into classical chess. The idea of randomized openings with time bidding is compelling, it feels like a path back to surprise without sacrificing structure.
Really great piece — I'm not sure I've seen as concise and direct an explanation of the challenges facing modern chess.
One thing that I think is also fascinating to consider is the difference in how most people who are passionate with chess engage with the game versus the way that people do with other sports. I would imagine it's safe to say that the vast majority of (adult) fans of others sports a) play the sport casually, or not at all; and b) predominantly watch the elite practitioners versus lower-level players. Chess is the exact opposite: most fans a) play more than they spectate and b) engage with non top-tier players like Levy and Eric Rosen more than they do non-streaming pros. (And then when they do engage with someone like Hikaru, they're watching him stream, which is basically like watching Steph Curry play pick-up).
For those reasons, I've always thought that quicker time controls held the most promise for getting fans to engage with top-tier chess: at least you can comprehend the game, but there isn't as much room for the level of precision that allows these endless draws. On top of that, it's how most fans engage with the sport anyway, whether through their own online games or by watching streamers.
But I honestly have no idea if that's the solution — and I am definitely in the camp of person who prefers to play long games, so I understand why the players are resistant!
I think my sense of how people engage with chess these days is a little myopic. I'm pretty old school in my chess viewing habits, and I don't even think about how many people's primary way of following chess is watching someone like Hikaru or Danya streaming a bunch of blitz games.
The quicker time control to some extent solves the problem of too many draws and not enough mistakes, but it doesn't necessarily improve the metagame issues. My sense is that the top GMs will play the Giuoco Piano even at rapid time controls, until things get fast enough that they feel like the opening doesn't matter, at which point the game is so fast that it's hard to get much out of it.
Probably the right answer is that there should be a variety of different events at different time controls and a little weird stuff like Freestyle mixed in. I feel like we moved to too much Freestyle, mostly because I'm feeling the loss these days of not having classical games by Carlsen to follow.
I sometimes have similar feelings, but it's hard to really see how it comes together cohesively - Wijk in 2024 had 44 decisive games vs. 37 in 2000 and 38 in 1986. Nothing seems solved.
I also did find it quite heartening that the French which had been sort of left for dead at the top level made a comeback in the WC match, and totally stymied Gukesh to the point where he played the exchange and then gave up e4 in the next game... and won the match!
The decrease in tactical opening at the top level certainly seems real, but I don't know how pervasive that is if you move down the rating charts even a little.
True - I forgot to mention one of the best recent tweaks to top level chess, the banning of the draw offer in many events, which has had a positive impact on decisive games. I think the problem is less about chess being solved than the tightening of types of positions, the decrease in tactical openings like the Sicilian. Maybe it's just a short term thing and you can wait it out, but a lot of the sharpest stuff seems out of play for now.
I'm not totally a believer in the rebirth of the French. Ding was struggling and lucky to survive the third time he used it in the match, and Carlsen completely destroyed Nepo in a rapid game in the same line a month or so later. It feels like the sort of thing you can get away with once or twice as a surprise weapon, but perhaps not a reliable enough choice for a primary option at the top level anymore.
This is such a sharp diagnosis of modern chess’s paradox: the better we get at “solving” it, the more it risks becoming sterile for spectators. The Moneyball analogy fits disturbingly well, and your take on Freestyle being cognitively demanding rather than liberating as a viewer really landed. It’s clear we need innovation, but also a better way to reintroduce creative friction into classical chess. The idea of randomized openings with time bidding is compelling, it feels like a path back to surprise without sacrificing structure.
Really great piece — I'm not sure I've seen as concise and direct an explanation of the challenges facing modern chess.
One thing that I think is also fascinating to consider is the difference in how most people who are passionate with chess engage with the game versus the way that people do with other sports. I would imagine it's safe to say that the vast majority of (adult) fans of others sports a) play the sport casually, or not at all; and b) predominantly watch the elite practitioners versus lower-level players. Chess is the exact opposite: most fans a) play more than they spectate and b) engage with non top-tier players like Levy and Eric Rosen more than they do non-streaming pros. (And then when they do engage with someone like Hikaru, they're watching him stream, which is basically like watching Steph Curry play pick-up).
For those reasons, I've always thought that quicker time controls held the most promise for getting fans to engage with top-tier chess: at least you can comprehend the game, but there isn't as much room for the level of precision that allows these endless draws. On top of that, it's how most fans engage with the sport anyway, whether through their own online games or by watching streamers.
But I honestly have no idea if that's the solution — and I am definitely in the camp of person who prefers to play long games, so I understand why the players are resistant!
I think my sense of how people engage with chess these days is a little myopic. I'm pretty old school in my chess viewing habits, and I don't even think about how many people's primary way of following chess is watching someone like Hikaru or Danya streaming a bunch of blitz games.
The quicker time control to some extent solves the problem of too many draws and not enough mistakes, but it doesn't necessarily improve the metagame issues. My sense is that the top GMs will play the Giuoco Piano even at rapid time controls, until things get fast enough that they feel like the opening doesn't matter, at which point the game is so fast that it's hard to get much out of it.
Probably the right answer is that there should be a variety of different events at different time controls and a little weird stuff like Freestyle mixed in. I feel like we moved to too much Freestyle, mostly because I'm feeling the loss these days of not having classical games by Carlsen to follow.
I sometimes have similar feelings, but it's hard to really see how it comes together cohesively - Wijk in 2024 had 44 decisive games vs. 37 in 2000 and 38 in 1986. Nothing seems solved.
I also did find it quite heartening that the French which had been sort of left for dead at the top level made a comeback in the WC match, and totally stymied Gukesh to the point where he played the exchange and then gave up e4 in the next game... and won the match!
The decrease in tactical opening at the top level certainly seems real, but I don't know how pervasive that is if you move down the rating charts even a little.
True - I forgot to mention one of the best recent tweaks to top level chess, the banning of the draw offer in many events, which has had a positive impact on decisive games. I think the problem is less about chess being solved than the tightening of types of positions, the decrease in tactical openings like the Sicilian. Maybe it's just a short term thing and you can wait it out, but a lot of the sharpest stuff seems out of play for now.
I'm not totally a believer in the rebirth of the French. Ding was struggling and lucky to survive the third time he used it in the match, and Carlsen completely destroyed Nepo in a rapid game in the same line a month or so later. It feels like the sort of thing you can get away with once or twice as a surprise weapon, but perhaps not a reliable enough choice for a primary option at the top level anymore.