14134 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!
i have enough time to check if i blunder in 3 0, let alone 5 min. 5 min you even have enough time to think about your opponents plans.
I'm not a fast thinker . Luckily otb is 2 hours per person, so it is not a problem .
if you play more you can develop your quick thinking skills.
The impression I had with blitz is that it is much more about patterns recognition. What really annoys me in blitz is that players (at least in my level) are counting with the stupidness of the oponent (e4 Qh5, really?) and silly traps that would be easily detected & prevented (& laughteable) in standard chess. Many things are about memorization these sequences and patterns = not fun or even interesting for me.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I suppose that blitz and standard games are two different worlds, and I am not even considering to compare rapid chess with standard OTB (reason why I've mentioned only standard and online ratings on my original post)
be careful when you say e4 qh5 is bad
it's nowhere as bad as it looks. it's not like you have a crazy advantage or anything. All you have is an edge if you play perfectly in the opening (assuming your opponent does too, which isn't likely).
If I am not going insane, I remember a Chess Mentor Lesson saying that this opening is bad (you play black against this opening) and it explains why it often is bad.
I can't find it though, so maybe I was dreaming or something. You can check the openings explorer though, and you will see that normally white either draws or lose, except for one blunder game.
Granting ratings won't match, there is certainly no reason for them not to correlate, and given a sufficient sample of players who have played a sufficient sample of games under both systems correlation would be very much expected. For there to be no correlation, one or both of the systems would have to be meaningless, which is almost certainly not the case. it is even possible to show (has been shown) a correlation between for example the British Chess Federation system and FIDE/USCF, even though BCF uses a three digit number instead of a four digit number. For example: ECF x 8 + 650 = FIDE and (FIDE - 650) / 8 = ECF. Now, will that be exact? Of course not. But predictive correlation is not the same thing as exact matching.
"Reykjavik Open, Final Round | Commentary by FM Ingvar Johannesson & Fiona Steil-Antoni"
K, N, B vs K
by dashkee94 a few minutes ago
Making the Chess.com Forums Better
by ConnorMacleod_151 a few minutes ago
3/12/2014 - Forcing The Way Through
by Benl22 3 minutes ago
FIDE Online Arena
by Old-Timer 4 minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by akafett 7 minutes ago
Any girls here play chess?
by ilikeflags 9 minutes ago
Validity of stalemate rule discussion!
by Frantisek 9 minutes ago
3/9/2014 - Double Trouble
by artemis_far 9 minutes ago
Crazy draws by agreement/resignations.
by harryz 11 minutes ago
Understanding StockFish output
by AaronShaverPDX 11 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!