FIDE’s shorter classical proposal: when is a long think worth it?

Published 13 October 2026.

What FIDE has explained

In an explanation published on 12 October, FIDE said its General Assembly had supported a resolution on shorter classical time controls. That did not immediately change the regulations. The Council intends to formalise 60+30 without special approval; broader use of 45+30 and the possible introduction of three games per day still await consultation and a formal decision. Read FIDE’s explanation for the scope and remaining restrictions.

Here, 60+30 means 60 minutes for each player plus 30 seconds per move. This is a discussion about classical tournament conditions. It does not change the time control of your next Vibe Chess game.

Give a long think a job

Our practical question is simpler: what are you trying to resolve when you spend extra time on a move?

Before calculating a longer line, name the uncertainty. Perhaps you want to push a pawn but cannot see whether the square it stops defending will become weak. Perhaps an exchange looks attractive, but you need to know which piece can recapture and what file that opens. Those are concrete questions a calculation can answer.

Compare two plausible moves against the opponent’s most troublesome reply. A useful long think should leave you with something new: a discovered threat, a rejected candidate or a clearer reason to choose. Replaying the same comfortable variation while ignoring an awkward reply can consume the clock without resolving the decision.

This is a practice suggestion, not a fixed allowance of seconds per move. The position and your remaining time matter.

A two-position review

After a completed game, choose one decision you rushed and one where you spent a long time. Reconstruct both positions on a board. For each, write the question you were trying to answer, the reply you expected and the reply you overlooked or feared.

Spend three minutes investigating each position without an engine. Record what the extra thought actually changed. Then check the legal continuations on a board or with an analysis tool. If your preferred move changes, explain which reply changed your mind.

Finally, compare the two notes. Did the rushed decision contain a concrete threat you never checked? Did the long think explore new candidates, or circle around the same one? Take one specific question into your next game.

Play a game, then invite a partner to examine those two moments with you after it finishes. Compare the reasoning before revealing the continuation.