Since the abolition of adjournments and the arrival of SEVEN hour sessions there has been a considerable drop in the average age of top chess players. This is hardly surprising as younger players have far more stamina. Is it what the game should be about?
Some of us would argue that it should really be about chess skill and argue for shorter playing sessions. The arrival of powerful computers has made the chess authorities reluctant to have a break in the games but this is not the only option. I’d argue that there’s a strong case for a faster time limit over the first 30 moves which would foster enterprise over soundness in the early stages. And this saving could be used to make the playing session shorter.
The following recent game is a case in point with Neverov, 51, being well able to draw until his mistaken 206th move (most rook moves would have drawn). He was essentially driven to exhaustion by his young opponent and his knowledge and experience counted for nothing: