When I say "faster" I am talking about two things: obviously, the fewer the moves in a game, the faster it looks (recorded) on paper, and since most game lists do not include a time value for each move, that duration of the game is somewhat nebulous. Correspondence chess may have a different look to the moves, but I think it would take an eye with much experience or else some great talent to tell whether a given move list came from correspondence play, which takes many days between each move, or speed chess, which can consist of two or three moves per second. Even so, lightening chess played by great masters likely exhibits more profundity than correspondence chess played by amateurs.

Secondly, there is a tempo aspect to chess which is inherent in the moves regardless of the time it actually took to play them. When one side achieves checkmate by force, it is in fact necessary that the offensive pieces by virtue of their aggression, have the initiative, for without it, they would not be able to press the defense into a losing position. This initiative has a curious aspect in that it can be entirely gained or entirely lost again, in one move. The frequency with which this occurs is another way to say the game is moving "faster" or "slower".

In my own limited experience with gothic chess, it seems to me that tempos get trumped by opposing tempos, leaving layers of latent action which has not been seen in chess, as far as I can tell. This complexity carries a sort of speed of its own which appears to make the game end in fewer moves, if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps someone with better information can answer these questions. I have not made a very exhaustive study of chess theory and practice, but I am amused by the similarities and differences between the two games.

Someone brought up the concept of "distant opposition," maybe on IYT, and I do not know what that is, so I feel ignorant. It has to do with controlling the right and the left sides of the board from afar by placement of the King on the square which affords his potential movement the greatest effectiveness. If I could learn the basics of that theory, it may help me to find the answers I seek here, and then again, maybe not.

I was trying to identify in my mind the causes of gothic's speed, and in order to understand what is really happening here, I thought that separating the power of the pieces from the size of the boards would effect a clearer comprehension of what elements contribute to gothic's observed faster pace. I do not know if such knowledge would be useful, practically speaking, it's just this compulsion I have of wanting to penetrate the essence of a thing: in chess, it has been a journey of several decades for me, and now in gothic, I am facing the possibility that I may not live long enough to find the answers I seek.

And in the greater picture, as far as this discussion goes, the world may not last long enough for ANY of us to get all the answers we hope to find! /Fx/