Hello,

I would, like most other people on this site, love to improve my game of chess.

For this I wonder, is it best to play quick or slow games to as the best way to practise?

 

Maybe more experienced players will be able to answer this in the best way.

Anyway, I would like to know your opinios, so please reply to this post

 

Regards 

Moon... !

For improvement you should play longer games.Forget Blitz, when u play too many blitz games you tend to loose analysis capacity.For some time i was only playing blitz games, then i started noticing i was loosing tactic skills and my understanding of the game was not so deep.

longer games, so you learn more and less-likely win because someone ran out of time

Depends what skill you're trying to develop. Blitz is good for practicing openings, getting used to making moves when in time trouble, and developing your ability to spot basic tactical patterns quickly. For anything else, blitz is pretty close to useless.

Long games are good for practicing time management under more realistic time controls (most tournaments have time controls like 1 hour per player per game - or longer), developing your analysis skills (many GMs have said that this is the crucial skill for becoming a strong player), developing your evaluation skills, working on playing a sound tactical, strategic, and positional game, and generally learning to play chess well!

lance sums it up well.

lanceuppercut_239 wrote:

Depends what skill you're trying to develop. Blitz is good for practicing openings, getting used to making moves when in time trouble, and developing your ability to spot basic tactical patterns quickly. For anything else, blitz is pretty close to useless.

Long games are good for practicing time management under more realistic time controls (most tournaments have time controls like 1 hour per player per game - or longer), developing your analysis skills (many GMs have said that this is the crucial skill for becoming a strong player), developing your evaluation skills, working on playing a sound tactical, strategic, and positional game, and generally learning to play chess well!

---

 could you define analysis skills a little? do you mean calculation?

Thanks for your answers.

ehh.. 

I think I have to change my playing habits a bit.

How do you think turn-based chess is, compared to blitz and "normal slow" chess? 

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!

ok, nice!

e4_exclam wrote:

 And the wonderful thing about chess is that it can say something of your personality.

---

 This is the coolest line I have heard about chess...

Well, hes, right.

If you have an attacking chess style, it might mean that you are pretty aggressive in life generally (heh)

chess its both the same but long is better to improve

blitz is good for getting better at blitz, slow chess is good for getting better at slow chess. both variants work on pretty much opposite strategies, and the 'right' way to play one will lose games in the other. as long as you understand that, playing blitz will only have (small) positive effect on your slow chess.

never play blitz in CC, and never play CC in your blitz. it'll end up just as badly as running the first 100m of a marathon in 10 seconds or vice versa.

---

If you run the first 100m of a marathon in 10secs, you will definately have the lead, and you will be warm! Isnt that good?

(i mean - in chess - if you know an opening very well you dont need to think much about it)

for young like u slow chess is bathere

If you're going to be serious about chess and study it in a systematic way with the goal of understanding the game, then play mainly slow games. If you're just into it to have fun do whatever you like. What's the difference.

I think that this discussion confirms what I've believed for a couple of weeks: less time with tactics trainer is a better course for me. At first it was great. Now I find myself overlooking the most obvious solutions to a problem because I'm under the gun and over-thinking. Thus, I've been wallowing in the same lower rating yet when I play a game where I have time to analyze the board I do as well as anyone in the 1100 range. Also, tournament play is not for me. I've tried a couple and when I'm done with the current one 'll take a break from them. Slower is better in my case.

Playing 5-15 minutes games helped me to improve my OTB rating by 250 in 1 year. Now I feel that I should shift my focus to longer games. If you blunder, miss simple tactical shots, have poor opening repertoire, etc. then you should play blitz, because there you get punished/punish a lot for that and you learn quickly. But when you reach some level, things that lanceuppercut_239 and e4_exclam listed become very important and 1-10 minutes games are not going to help you.

---

Turn-based chess is a search for truth. Normal tournament chess is a battle of ideas and stamina. Blitz is garbage: ie smoke and mirrors--you can win by bluffing.

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.