14370 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!
Yeah I used to say blitz was a good sort of diagnosis of what is wrong in your game. But even that I'm not so sure about anymore, because again what you get wrong in blitz may be incredibly different from what you get wrong in standard. In standard you have enough time to slow down, philosophize a bit about the goals, and gradually problem solve. In blitz it's more like you have to pick the most relevant intuitive thought that comes to your head in a short amount of time. While intuition does reflect knowledge, it's subject to all sorts of randomness. With standard you know your decision won't be a sudden whimsical thought that looks good for 5 seconds, because afterwards you'll relax a bit. In blitz, you sort of just have to play that move, or else you'll fall too far behind on the clock. In blitz, you're missing out on that problem solving process that is such a big determining factor in standard. (With exception to maybe a minute-long think or two if you can find time, and even that of course is not a very long think)
In other words blitz still won't tell you much about whether this "problem solving process" is good or bad because you're not really doing it. There are many mistakes I make in blitz that I have virtually zero chance of making in standard because once I have my little "position analysis ritual" I'm fully focused on the important details of the position. Once again what happens in blitz can be misleading in regards to what it means for your play in general.
I tend to agree with you a lot, but here we disagree: I think blitz is very useful as a "diagnosis" tool, as I have used it extensively with a trainer some years ago.
I'll try to keep my point as short as possible: In standard chess, when you calculate, at the end of each line you make an assessment of the position. Here, evaluating a position that you can't see and your brain sort of strained from making a long calculation, you are prone to the same mistakes that you make in blitz.
it is hard or impossible to use an engine
- It is possible (and quite common) to cheat using bot.
I thought you were trolling...
You can use a bot to play even 1 minute games for you since 10 years ago.
The point of classical chess by the way is not to play perfect chess, but to really get engaged with the struggle. Yeah, two hours is long enough to look for schemes and such -- no one said that means look at every single possible move every time. In any case it's certainly not going to emphasize reflexes or something. If of course you manage your time poorly, you have to deal with the consequences, but when you get into time pressure in that sort of time control you can never say you didn't see it coming -- you had plenty of time to plan out your usage of time.
Well stated and very acccurate in comparing blitz to standard chess.
A lot blitz game are poor quality, base on impulse and cheap tricks instead of accuarte assessment of a position and proper analyzing a position.
I have such a wide variety of ratings on different sites trying to correlate them is a joke. I'm 16xx USCF, 1700 on lichess, 2000+ on fics (standard), 2000+ on chesscube, and like 1200 blitz here and like 1100 bullet here (of course, very small sample size here--I just don't like the interface at all and don't take it very seriously when I play here).
To me, trying to say one rating matters more than another is just foolish. It's all about how seriously you and your opponents take a certain type of game in a certain place.
Thats exactly what i was thinking, depends on how the players take it seriously , sorry if my last comments were harsh or rude :)
It all evens out as for as your opponents go. If you take it seriously and play regularly then you can compare yourself to others on the same site.
And things like your chesscube being much higher... well of course, everyone's chesscube is higher.
"To me, trying to say one rating matters more than another is just foolish. It's all about how seriously you and your opponents take a certain type of game in a certain place."
This is certainly a big thing. Truth be told, as about a 1700 blitz player at the moment, I could probably get to 1900-2000 in blitz after maybe a few weeks of really hard work specifically directed towards blitz (including opening choice). I don't know this for sure of course; I just know that shaping the knowledge you have in the right way can improve your results drastically, especially if you do it a lot. The same, to a lesser extent, applies to standard as well, although not in the same way since you have to make different kinds of adjustments.
But I would never want to resign myself to doing the work and getting the 1900-2000 blitz rating, just so that I could see a nice large number and worship myself because of it. I just want to increase understanding and apply that to tournament chess because I think that's more satisfying in the end. Spending too much time building up the blitz rating means less time that can be spent on general chess study.
+1 @ elubas.
Also too much blitz, IMO, hurts your ability to analyze... that is, if you play blitz enough to start really getting used to it and increasing your rating.
If you did both blitz and tournaments often enough, it probably doesn't matter and you'd be good at both of them. But as Elubas said that takes a lot more time.
Personally online blitz is not a good gage in showing a players strength or any online games, correspondence games. A real test to a player's true strength is rated over the board games, not online blitz or correspondence.
My friend who is an expert is highest rating is 2017 uscf and highest quick rating is 1906 uscf. Is Current otb rating 2017 uscf and current quick rating 1843 uscf but is online chess.com is 2400 bullet. His otb winning persentage is 55.4 %.
I am an expert and my highest otb rating was 2110 uscf and my highest quick rating 2029 uscf. Mine current rating is 2011 uscf and mine quick rating is 1958 uscf. My otb winning percentage is 71.3 %, I know how to win against strong experts and masters and below my rating.
Who cares about some blitz online rating. some players boost like it is some great accomplishment.
Online chess is only for fun and doesn't mean anything in terms in accomplishment any significant; come on correspondence grandmaster, I have more respect for uscf master.
"Qatar Masters Open 2014! Round 2 - Hosts GM Daniel King & GM Simon Williams "
sexism in chess?
by Pulpofeira a few minutes ago
Ruy Lopez best for White?
by carolina_stewarts a few minutes ago
11/26/2014 - Nowhere To Go
by jgniu 6 minutes ago
I won a Tournament :)
by Pulpofeira 7 minutes ago
Lesson score bugged?
by baddogno 9 minutes ago
11/27/2014 - Mate in 4
by ahmad_mughal 11 minutes ago
Carlsen's next opponent in the WCC match
by carolina_stewarts 16 minutes ago
Adding weight to pieces
by MaximRecoil 18 minutes ago
Aronian: Women Cannot Play Chess
by A_L_I_V_E 20 minutes ago
Tough match for me, how'd I do?
by ArtNJ 49 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!