Request your opinion.

I play a lot of quick and blitz chess. Do you think this can be equivalent to turn-based strength. My cc rating is hovering at 1500 but quick and blitz around 1700. 

 

Nope.

why not? maybe your true strength is your blitz rating because in turn-based, cheating is a lot possible using chess engines.

Apply it to OTB games where cheating is much less likely.

OTB is over-the-board games? tournament games?

In blitz games, a player won't have the time to see all the possibilities, therefore the player will not be playing at the full potential. It would be like forcing a computer to move before allowing it to get a full analysis. I can probably stare at a position for days without noticing a particular play, while a grandmaster would have no problem with it at all, but may miss it if forced to play much sooner.

OTB = Over The Board.

Sunshiny, I looked at your profile. It seems you do not play chess games here or i did not dig enough. But it seems you know a lot. Are you a coach or a chess teacher? Do you play blitz or quick at chess.com? Better than turn-based, in my opinion.

Neither coach nor teacher. Mainly a player with experience. I've played mostly blitz games outside of chess.com, but have realized now how much my game has been hurt by it. Though it may have helped my quicker thinking, i don't think it's worth the trade. Maybe it's best to have a combination of both blitz and turn based.

mariaclara and others,    the best way to improve is to play OTB games, preferably in tournaments. Study your own games afterwards, using your computer as an aid!  Blitz-chess has its place in one's develpoment. It helps you to have "quick-sight" of the board!  But too much of it can be detrimental as you tend to be mentally lazy when the position demands you to think! Turn-based chess is alright if you resist the tempation to cheat. Treat it as if you are playing an OTB game.  Best of luck to your chess endeavours.

While blitz and turn-base are two different animals,  there might be some correlation, but not a direct one.  Afterall, the moves, the tactics, the strategy, the rules are all pretty much the same.  But since blitz involves, not ultimately seeing more than your opponent, but seeing more quickly than your opponent,  a strength in one area doesn't necessarily mean a strength in the other.  Simply knowing certain openings and their accompanying traps can carry someone a long way in blitz but may prove far less meaningful in turn-based games.  Being able to calculate deeply may be a powerful skill in turn-based games, but unless you can do it quickly, may be less meaningful in blitz. There's also the personality appeal. A perfectionist will probably not do well in blitz because of the time factor, while a player who gets too accustomed to the impulse moves that blitz promotes, may have trouble winning turn-based games.  I think, overall, a good chess player is a good chess player and will probably be so in either genres. But whether there is some direct correlation is doubtful.

I agree with the concensus.  They are different things.  That's why they have different ratings.

True, a good player is a good player, but i think turn-based ratings more closely reflects a person's true rating.

I just started playing blitz and my blitz rating was a couple hundred points lower than turn based. I make a lot of stupid moves that I can't take back (ie. no analysis board, no submit button). It was also very hard for me to get used to timed chess as opposed to analyzing a move for as long as I want.

  Blitz and Turnbase chess are two different Animals!   I can't agree more.  Hence being good at blitz does not necessarily mean that one is also equally good at  Turnbase chess or OTB.  There are many  IMs out there who are not so good in blitz as they are at OTB games.  I know as I have played with them in both genres.

I'm so tired of people bashing on blitz. It's a game. I'll do what i enjoy. You do what you enjoy. As for:

 

" True, a good player is a good player, but i think turn-based ratings more closely reflects a person's true rating." -Sunshiny

 

I completely disagree. Time is as much an element in chess as space, position and material. Grandmaster games get down to the seconds sometimes too. I honestly see no fun in sitting down and pouring over a position with three days on the clock. Yawn! But that's just me. When the clock is ticking though, you got to be able to analyze quickly and thoroughly. As long as you look over the game later, one can still learn plenty from blitz games. Here's a game where Carlson beat Van Wely. Going into the last few moves fritz gave white, (Van Wely) +7. Time on the clocks got low though, and in a few moves that closely resembled a blitz game, black, played by Carlson, attained a -5 assessment by fritz.  So does time matter? It's a fundamental part of all tournament chess. 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1482342 

depthshaman wrote:

I'm so tired of people bashing on blitz. It's a game. I'll do what i enjoy. You do what you enjoy. As for:

 

" True, a good player is a good player, but i think turn-based ratings more closely reflects a person's true rating." -Sunshiny

 

I completely disagree. Time is as much an element in chess as space, position and material. Grandmaster games get down to the seconds sometimes too. I honestly see no fun in sitting down and pouring over a position with three days on the clock. Yawn! But that's just me. When the clock is ticking though, you got to be able to analyze quickly and thoroughly. As long as you look over the game later, one can still learn plenty from blitz games. Here's a game where Carlson beat Van Wely. Going into the last few moves fritz gave white, (Van Wely) +7. Time on the clocks got low though, and in a few moves that closely resembled a blitz game, black, played by Carlson, attained a -5 assessment by fritz.  So does time matter? It's a fundamental part of all tournament chess. 

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1482342 " target="_blank">http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1482342 

---

 Nobody is telling you not to do what you enjoy.

 

Sure anybody's game can get down to the seconds, but i don't think time is as important as other elements in the game. As long as moves are being made in a decent amount of time, the better player should win.

 

Blitz games are fun. But i think longer play games are better for improvement. 

"Time is as much an element in chess as space, position and material. "

 

Time, as in clock time, isn't an element in chess at all.    Time that is an element in chess is Tempo.   Clock time is merely a self-imposed limit on the length of the game,  or of a move,  as the case may be.   The longer the game,  the less clock time is generally a factor.

 

I'm an unapologetic blitz player too  (note: unapologetic does not equal good)  and certainly not critical of that of game.   But I am realistic enough to know that standard time-controls,  turn-based time controls or no time-controls is a purer game since "time" is an artificial factor,  imposed for practical reasons that have nothing to do with chess itself. 

purer? I don't think time was composed for practical reasons. It think it makes it a more enjoyable game, and I'm not convinved that time isn't a part of chess. Longer time controls make it a more grueling game that requires more mental endurance. That fact in itself shows that time is part of chess. We're only human and that factors in. Depending on the time controls the experience of the game changes. Why is lightning or blitz less pure than long time controls? They're just different. 

 

As for Improvement, I've picked up 300 rating points playing blitz since last November. I'm improving plenty.

depthshaman wrote:

purer? I don't think time was composed for practical reasons. It think it makes it a more enjoyable game, and I'm not convinved that time isn't a part of chess. Longer time controls make it a more grueling game that requires more mental endurance. That fact in itself shows that time is part of chess. We're only human and that factors in. Depending on the time controls the experience of the game changes. Why is lightning or blitz less pure than long time controls? They're just different. 

 

As for Improvement, I've picked up 300 rating points playing blitz since last November. I'm improving plenty.

---

 A time limit is necessary to make sure players move, otherwise a person can refuse to move and not lose the game. If everybody moved in a timely fashion then a time limit would never have been imposed. However, now that there is a time limit, it provides a different way to enjoy chess.

 

Imagine how much you could've improved by playing standard time limit chess!