This constant bashing of playing slow does begin to annoy me...
I think that the 'fast camp' should realize, that it can be frustrating, no fun to play, give reason to avoid fast players 'like the plague' in the same way.
I contest and challenge, that 'fast playing' is the 'better' way to play. It ain't. It is a different way to play.
Note that I am not talking about playing slow for lack of experience, that's natural.
I want to ponder moves and options and not merely 'see what happens'. I dislike time constraints and hectic - that's the reason I quit computergames altogether as I am simply not interested and do not enjoy the 'real time' hype. I prefer to play one thorough game rather than to hasten through two of them instead. I don't mind if my opponent takes his time.
The ASL system works for both styles - fast and slow - just as well. This is why I believe this whole chess-clock thing leads to nowhere. As 'MajorDomo' has correctly pointed out, those players that the 'fast camp' would like to use chess clocks are either simply not interested in it because it is contrary to their different style of play, or in case of inexperienced players, they are not up to it.
To the point: The fast players who propose chess clocks don't need them, the others don't want them.
So the only purpose I can see in the use of chess clocks at a tournament is to keep the 'fast camp' and the 'slow camp' seperate. The 'slow camp' will not attend because they won't enjoy it. The 'fast camp' can play amongst themselves.
That said, I am not contesting that it is no fun if the extremes of both sides meet: A very fast player with a very slow one. In such a case neither will enjoy the game, both equally justified. And of course the pace of play should basically fit into the organizational frame of a tournament. All other cases are not really a problem IMHO.
von Marwitz