11668 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!
Originally, this thread was about my griping about being terrible at blitz, and showing a game where I somehow failed to convert a clear extra piece against IM Danny Rensch on The Big Show (he was giving a 10 board simul with 15/30 time and he was rambling most of the time, so what he does on the show is nowhere near his real ability) and even lost.
I would now like to revive this thread to gripe about being terrible at blitz. I can't win online or in person, even if my opponent is weaker, which I swear happens 90-99% of the time. I have always believed that strong players (meaning 2200+) are also good blitz players. Therefore, it concerns me very much that I am not a good blitz player; what's more, I lack the ability to move the pieces gracefully and in general I look like a noob whenever I try to play quick chess in person, which also concerns me very much. In other words, I believe that getting stronger in blitz and getting stronger in long games happen concurrently, so if I'm not getting any better in blitz, then that's not a good sign for my strength in long games, right?
The great thing about Chess is that "suck" is a relative term. I haven't lost a game on chess.com against a 1700 yet, and I doubt I ever will.
However, I do find that my blitz rating fluctuates wildly, and I can go up and down by 100 points in a week. (Around a median of 950 - 1000) For me, there are two things that tend to drive it down. One is lack of sleep. If I don't get enough sleep, the blitz performance suffers greatly. The other is that there are times when I'm really working on my game,and I tend to think more about every move, and end up losing under time pressure, either on time, or being checkmated after a major blunder caused by a hasty move. I don't know if those experiences are common at twice my rating, but I suspect they are.
Yes, if your blitz is bad you may have cancer.
if someone sucks at blitz like me its probably cause one lacks tactically
You need to understand and embrace the fact that blunders do happen, and they will happen in quick games.
It is very annoying when you make a blunder, however if you notice it happens a bit too often, then you should strive to figure out what's the reason.
Are you playing when tired? are you not concentrated? are you annoyed or intimidated by your opponent? are you not sure how to react to your opponent's opening, or play style? is there anything that takes you off-balance from your game?
Secondly, how often do you play blitz? if you "over-kill" it, like playing a billion games consecutively, you are prone to losing your concentration and not playing your best game. If, however, you play very little, then you should play a lot more to train your "quick thinking". Do know however, that in blitz and quicker games, the learning curve is minimal. You play with what you already know - opening theory, middle game tactics and endgame technique. You will get better at playing and thinking fast, but overall you will not improve on a deeper level (at least from my experience). For that you need to combine other sources as well - preferably long games, when you analyse each position very carefuly (that's how you truely memorize openings and improve).
I suppose some people may have, perhaps, a somewhat greater potential and ability to play quicker games. But it can be practiced and learned for sure. Oh, and for those lightning games, you need a good internet connection :)
About the game you show, even though you didn't ask for it, here are some comments:
The plan with Qc3 and a3 is theory, of course it has a slight downside of temporarly being behind in development (and advantage of two bishops). No problem with that though (sometimes I delay a3 for later, but it's perfectly fine).
But 8. e3 looks sort of passive. Generally in queen's gambit games you want your Bc1 out before you play e3.
The moves after that seem good, with the idea of an eventual pawn break (c5), though I'm not sure I like 14. Rfd1. You can also see that he is slowly building up an attack on your king. 17. Bc4 was worth a consideration, exchanging pieces will limit his attacking potential, though in a blitz game there will obviously be many moves we miss.
I think you realize that 20. Qc7 was futile. However 22. g3 was uncalled for and it weakens your king position, something you should always try to avoid unless absolutely necessary. It seems to me that you were trying to react to his potential threats and attack prematurely, perhaps because you were not sure what to do yourself, which cost you. Instead, 22. Bf3 seems to be better. You must be careful, all of his pieces are aimed at your king, while your own pieces are on the queen side and defending is not that easy. Even after 22. g3 Ng5 you should have considered 23. Bf1 - g2. From there the bishop supports your light square weakness, and challenges Daniel's bishop as well.
Needless to say 22. Nxf4 looks better, though it's getting quite dangerous at this point. After 22. exf4 Bxg2+ he regains the piece, but it's still game. I'm not sure about 31. a4, seems to give a pawn. You did manage to get to an opposite color bishop ending, which is very drawish (though he did have an advantage of an active king and bishop compared to you). Of course, 14. b5 was just tossing another pawn for nothing... but it is, perhaps, still a draw. The simple plan is to move the bishop and waste turns, it is not obvious how he can make any progress.
Of course, 51. f3 was a blunder after which it's over - again - looks like you were reacting to his king infiltration, trying to do 'something' when in reality you didn't have to do anything just yet. I think this is possibly where you can learn from and improve next time.
Either way, good luck to you sir, I wish you the best.
bump to the top with a revised OP, since the title still makes sense.
Your blitz and bullet are 1900 while your online chess is 2100. I don't see the problem. If you were sitting at 2100 online and 1400 blitz, then yeah, there would definitely be things you could work on.
"I can't win even if they're weaker" well, you win more than you lose, so I don't understand what you mean. If you mean you can beat them in long games, but not in blitz... or you know more about chess but they beat you in blitz, that's because blitz skill isn't the theory you know, or how well you do in long games... that's why there are things like multiple classes of ratings based on time. Both online and for national chess organizations.
I would now like to revive this thread to gripe about being terrible at blitz. I can't win online or in person, even if my opponent is weaker, which I swear happens 90-99% of the time.
I think the purpose of this thread is either to be showy or trolling. If you can't win 90 percent of the time even against weaker player here, your blitz rating will not be on 1900 range here..
I really hope you're kidding.
It's called a blunder. Say hello, mr. blunder. Like I said in my previous post, 5 months ago, blunders do happen - in long games as well, but surely in quicker games.
Here, your opponent may have played horribly, but due to your king being exposed he managed to get a counter-attack rolling, possibly getting you off balance a bit, misjudging the danger (32. Bc1 was a blunder too of course).
Sometimes in my games I get into mate in 1 from a superior position, or blunder a piece or rook disgustingly. Shit happens. Basically, your rating means you blunder less than most of the people around here.
Not kidding, just freaking out. But very well, I'll admit I came to the wrong place to complain; I really should be asking myself "what the hell?".
That's what separates blitz skill from long games, things get crazy at the end. I think the eval really swings (obviously) after he gets your bishop. You're probably winning, but (again obviously) need to take some care with your moves. This is more a mental discipline problem than anything... but it was a speed game so it really doesn't matter... you were compelled to move by the clock and didn't have time to react to the change in position.
But if you really think it's a skill issue, say you have 10 minutes left for the position at move 31. Do you think you could beat a GM? If so then it's no problem IMO.
Similarly give yourslef 5-10 minutes for move 33. Can you find a defense? If so then it's not a problem.
Good point kabayan!
Do not take blitz games seriously. Think of them as forms of entertaining. You should only play a small number of games at best if you want to improve at chess. Blitz tends to be tactical in nature and the small amount of time does not allow people to really think of a position when it reaches a critical stage.
You should play longer time controls and avoid blitz if you can.
FM Borislav Ivanov Disqualified
by MarvinTheRobot a few minutes ago
Best book for me?
by mldavis617 4 minutes ago
Live Chess help
by Suvel_Karmarkar 6 minutes ago
Online Chess: Opening Moves & Tablebases
by wallace_wannabe 6 minutes ago
PLAYED A RECORD 40 GAMES TODAY!
by heinzie 6 minutes ago
How to delete a group?
by Suvel_Karmarkar 7 minutes ago
Is the book "My System" worth getting?
by Suvel_Karmarkar 9 minutes ago
your opinion about the colle system?
by Kijiri 9 minutes ago
Opening of the Day #19
by benedictus 15 minutes ago
B vs. N Game #1
by 2a3a1a 17 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com