Blitz is NOT good for learning... it does allow you to practice memorized openings, but you've got to have memorized them in the first place. It allows you to test your tactical vision. It does perhaps train you to focus and think clearly under pressure. But it also actually has some real drawbacks. I think it encourages players to be impatient and to not think as deeply as they need to. A steady diet of Blitz IMHO can make ordinary chess players _worse_.
Slow chess played intently is good. Analyzing your slow chess games after you've played them is also very good to do.
Blitz is nood good for learning..May be true. I don't know if the feeling of a position can be learned or earned, there may be a difference.
But i would never, ever, play some opening without having tried it in blitz.Blitz really helps to get a feeling for positions if you play new openings, so it helps to learn new openings i think.
I think it's a matter of taste. I don't think that either of both ways to play chess could be bad for you..Maybe if you always play blitz, the speed of your normal chess , yeah, but it also helps to make decisions faster, we could call this sharpened instincts. Also, normally playing much blitz helps for tactics, i think, and mostly it let's you play more courageous (dunno, is this the word?), because you have a feeling that there's nothing to lose, not even some rating points...
At least thats what I think..I played nearly only blitz some time ago but swichted to "long" chess, and I think that that time helped me in quite some situations.
Analysis is the skill to sum up the situation on the board, and then to be able to decide on the best course of action based for your style. Analysis includes;
1) Evaluating pawn structure, yours and your opponents. Pawn islands, double pawns, isolated pawns, backward pawns, passed pawns, protected passed pawns
2) piece position/co-ordination, are my pieces developed, are they working together, or is the knight off on the side of board not involved with the game? Is the bishop taking confession from the rook, instead of participating in the attack along the diagonal?
3) king safety, am i castled? is my opponent castled? You would think that this would be a no brainer, but you would be surprised how many players do not castle.
4) space/mobility, Do i have room to maneuver? My opponent misplayed the French, and now he is more cramped for space than a redneck family gathering in a trailer home. How does my opponent's space situation compare?
5) Color complexes. Are all my pawns on light squares and i have no pawn coverage of the dark squares? My opponent traded his fianchetoed bishop for a knight, and now the squares around his king have no bishop to cover them...
6) material. Who has captured more wood?
Some positions lend themselves to calculations, ie tactical games, where there are thrusts and parries. In these cases positional considerations take a backseat. Other positions lend themselves to positional play; where it is all about Location, Location, Location! Pieces are jockeying for the best position on the board. Being able to analyze situations and find the best plan/course of action that fits the situation, is a hallmark of a master.
Play lots of games. Study games. Study your games. Study positions and ask yourself what is going on? What is the threat? And only longer games will give you this kind of training/experience.
And the wonderful thing about chess is that it can say something of your personality.
All the best to you!
Clear and understable, thank you. I'm just 1350, Im sure your advice
would be helpfull1
GM David Bronstein said, "Never play at less than game/15." His reasoning was you need at least 5 minutes for the opening, 5 for the middlegame, and 5 for the ending.
When I was first learning openings, my friends and I used 5 minute games to study the openings. We would analyze the games after they were over, up until the point where they became invalid (i.e., mate was overlooked, or a Queen was hanging, etc.) For any other use than that, 5 minute (or less) games are just cotton candy--it may taste sweet, but it has no nutritional value.
Your best is to use three phase approach to improvement--read books, analyze your games (especially your losses), and play. Give about an hour per week each to the first two, and whenever you feel like for the last. But remember that a steady diet of speed chess leads to shallow analysis. Get good at slow chess first--like a muscian, learn the scales first, then work on your speed. But you need to get good first.
I would subscribe under every word!
long games because they're more difficult to win and more skill and knowledge of the game is required.
hahaa it depends in your thinking skills i guess
Join Chess.com for free to add your comment! Already a member? Then login now to comment.