16550 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
'pro-bullet folks' - you might want to check my profile.
So you think every player of the same ability thinks at the same speed?
I think any current or future posts about the correlation between Chess players and Intelligence should be directed to this thread for their answers, it is threads like these and some of the posts in it which could spoil Chess for me if i didnt know better how Internet forums work.
Chess is 64 squares and 32 pieces and thats it.
Whether you play against yourself, a computer, an opponent, through the mail, take 1 minute or 10 years to play a game whatever the controls or environment it is Chess.
Five degrees in psychology! Plus, I'm the head psychologist at the most prestigious department of psychology at the most prestigious university in the country! No, make that the world!
Anyone can invent anything about themselves on the Internet, Joey. The rubber meets the road based on the quality of your argument. And since your argument has mostly consisted of childish insults, I'd wager you're seeing a psychologist instead. Keep posting, though. I love the entertainment lol
Must add that I love how you're trying to divert attention away from your failed argument re: bullet and blitz. But that distraction technique is a little primitive, the kind a freshman in Pysch 101 might try.
No one - and I mean no one - can refute the following statement:
"The quality of a chess game deteriorates in bullet and blitz because the players don't have enough time to think."
That was the point the original poster was making, and his point stands.
You want to say bullet and blitz are chess because they follow the same rules and take place on a board with 64 squares and 32 pieces? Fine. Go ahead. No one's arguing that point.
The point under contention is whether chess as it was meant to be played - with careful consideration, deep thought and an attempt to find the best possible move in every given position - is possible in bullet and blitz.
The answer is, it's not.
To argue otherwise reveals an ignorant or willfully stubborn (and hence childish) mind.
It's been great forum posters.
No point in trying to prove 2+2=4 anymore. Some people just won't see the truth even if it's right in front of their face.
It's all right there! The original poster never was trying to argue that bullet and blitz aren't chess because they don't follow the same rules as classical chess. . .
Precisely. He was arguing the opposite, that [even though they do, in fact, follow the same rules], "unless you have a really high rating and fast mind, blitz and bullet are not chess at all." There seems to be no quibbling in his intent. But where is it written that a move must make sense? In fact most games, even bullet games, are not merely mindless moving of pieces. But the slider that moves toward speed, moves away from quality, and as games such as bullet, or even blitz (in which even players of my limited skill can produce decent games, very recognizable in most folk's definition of chess) become less and less in quality as the slider moves further toward speed (the end of the game usually). This is true in games of master and patzers both.
"The quality of a chess game deteriorates in bullet and blitz because the players don't have enough time to think."That was the point the original poster was making, and his point stands.
That was never his point. That's a mitigation of his point. That might be your point or someone elses pointor some evolution in point-life, but it's not the OP's point as he stated it.
Joey Chestnuts said: I got $10K says you are lying.
Whoa...don't try to sell Joey the Brooklyn Bridge! He's sharp as a marble! Actually figured out I might not be the head of the psychology department at the most prestigious university in the world!
Good for you, Joey. You can have that cookie after all. But you still need to see the tutor. Your detection that I am not the head of the psychology department at the most prestigious university in the world wasn't the jaw-dropping piece of deduction you thought it was. But, like I said, you can still have that cookie? Chocolate chip or oatmeal for you, Joey? We have both
You're just trolling now, Batgirl.
The original poster said: "So far as I see, chess is a game that need careful thinking and careful thinking takes time. Moving pieces just to see who can move faster is kind of childish, this make chess ugly."
My translation of that was fair and accurately represented his point. Do you want a cookie too? Joey took the chocolate chip, so we just have oatmeal left. Is that Ok? We have some milk left too if you'd like that as well.
I've learned stuff from Batgirl too and agree she is intelligent, though I fail to see how you're qualified to judge anyone's intelligence vs. someone else's on here. But no matter.
My issue with Batgirl is relevant to her post in this thread and this thread alone (stop chewing with your mouth opeh, Joey!)
Batgirl wrongly said that I misinterpreted/distorted the intent of the original poster when all I did is state what he was stating in different words. So that's that.
But this really is consuming far too much time, I think, for everyone. While it's been a lot of fun, I really do believe this will be my final post. In fact, to ensure that, I'm not even going to read any future posts because the discussion has gotten so far off topic and I think debate on the original point of this topic has been exhausted. We've all made our points and are now just repeating them.
Take it easy. lol (that one was for you, Joey - smile, not laugh out loud!)
As it was meant to be played ? Can you point me to the creator and date upon which Chess and how it was meant to be played please.
I am pretty sure its origins cannot be pinpointed, it has changed over the years including the rules and piece values and their respective power and so "how it was meant to be played" is not something we can really say with any factual certainty.
I know the OP is over a year old. But drawing a line at 2200 because those below it can't play fast chess is a bold statement from someone who, e.g. couln't tell the difference between an 1800 and a 2200 in the first place.
But yeah, it's somewhere inbetween what you said. It's not totally random speed moves, and no matter the rating it's not great chess either. But you can't bar people from playing not great chess because then no one would get to play
It would be fun to design a mechanical bulletchess clock using two sand hourglasses (what are those called, those sand clepsydra things?).
a clepsydra ;-)
or did you mean the common term such as egg timer ? (although alot of them will overcook your eggs if they last longer than 3 minutes...LOL..or sand clock or sand timer
Bullet chess with sand timers? That would be awesome.
I prefer staunton pieces myself ;-)
You can use Staunon men wiht a sand clock and play bullet if you want... though I'd recommend using quicksand.
I think that your suggestion is really stupid people who post after me will probably say the same thing, say I when you post to agree with me
can you please repeat that in a way I can understand?
hahaha guys i only ment that blitz and bullet chess can be a little stupid but you can't restrict people from it
and thanks for the googlespeak, joeydvivre
Bullet can be a little ridiculous since alot of people make their move before their opponent even does. I do get a kick out of how people that play blitz or bullet love to pat themselves on the back for being such fast thinkers. Or how they criticize people that like to play the longer game because its all about memorizing openings.
There is no difference in generally remembering the first 10 or so moves of a certain opening for long play and remembering the 10 or so trap openings that you use in blitz. If you hit midgame all that is left of the opening is possibly some basic strategic principal which you could likely pick up by just looking at the board anyways.
I'm not saying blitz or rapid (technically even the longest live matches here are rapids) aren't valid ways of playing. I just personally find more enjoyment in looking deeper into a postion and seeing if it has any surprises for me.
And about the database thing I really don't care if the person I am playing is using one. I kind of don't think most of the people i play here are. It is actually possible to know almost nothing about a opening and stay largely on book. One of the first times I played Sicilian since I came back from like 20 years of not playing I did Najdorf up until like move 15 and I had never heard of it. I did look it up after though to see what White had done to me lol.
To be honest, players like me don't have the patience to play standard, because I can't waste a day on one game, but cc is more useful, multiple games ata time and over a real period, then blitz is for improving decisions and brain calculation speed, while bullet........well bullet is for the likes of jordi alba and cr7......lol!
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by Scottrf 3 minutes ago
Why hasn't Ivanov been banned yet?
by Wilbert_78 4 minutes ago
A woman, a dog, a shotgun, a bicycle and a chessboard
by Ruby-Fischer 5 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Jaglavak 5 minutes ago
There goes analysing my games!
by FanaticalMountain 6 minutes ago
Chess Sacrifice. ...??
by Tactical_Battle 8 minutes ago
why e4 is better than d4.
by owltuna 9 minutes ago
How Long to Search
by recycleourknowledge 9 minutes ago
Kramnik: suspicious trips to the bathroom?!
by TheCardigansFan 9 minutes ago
We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.
by fissionfowl 14 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!