Renaming blitz to rapid? Huh?

kingandqueen2017

10 minutes is very long and not blitz. It's rapid.

Oliver_Prescott

copying lichess hmm...

llama
Oliver_Prescott wrote:

copying lichess hmm...

Well, also their own statistics make it reasonable.

IIRC the most popular time control is 10 minute, and it's obviously played by a different group (i.e. played by noobs) than 3 minute (which is played by pros).

So it's reasonable to separate them for that reason too.

Oliver_Prescott

asdfghjkl;'

 

llama
Oliver_Prescott wrote:

asdfghjkl;'

Typical chess.com post.

llama

I.e. 100% worthless.

Oliver_Prescott

NO UUUU

llama

Oh good, a 12 year old. We don't see those here very often.

/sarcasm

FizzyBand

Now the rapid pool is super inflated. Was beating 1800-2100 players in 10/0 playing 2 to 3 games at a time

jamesstack
llama wrote:
Oliver_Prescott wrote:

copying lichess hmm...

Well, also their own statistics make it reasonable.

IIRC the most popular time control is 10 minute, and it's obviously played by a different group (i.e. played by noobs) than 3 minute (which is played by pros).

So it's reasonable to separate them for that reason too.

Do you think its reasonable to put G10 in the same rating pool as G30 or longer? Why not just make more blitz categories like ICC does? ICC has separate ratings for G1 G3 and G5 although they have another blirz rating that includes all of these categories.

llama

I don't know, maybe.

I think part of the appeal of the ICC 5 minute pool (and others) was that it was "no escape" by default i.e. in regular games you could disconnect and not forfeit... a useful feature back in the days of connecting to the internet via a dial up modem. You could log on a few days later and finish your game (if you opponent was also online).

Of course these days that's not really necessary, and in general, the more you splinter your seeks, the longer players have to wait for games, so there's incentive on chess.com's part to keep the categories at a minimum.

jamesstack

Hmmmm....seems kind of weird that there would be a problem getting games when splintering the blitz ratings into diferent groups. After all doesnt chess.com have more than 20 million members? I did a google search for ICC and they have 30 thousand subscribers...(that number is from 2005 though). I think On ICC you have to be a subsriber to play rated games. At any rate....I probably shouldnt complain too much. I rarely play live chess on this site.

pfren

According to the latest FIDE ruleset:

A ‘Rapidplay’ game is one where either all the moves must be made in a fixed time of at least
15 minutes but less than 60 minutes for each player; or the time allotted + 60 times any
increment is at least 15 minutes, but less than 60 minutes for each player.

A ‘blitz’ game’ is one where all the moves must be made in a fixed time of less than 15
minutes for each player; or the allotted time + 60 times any increment is less than 15
minutes.

Notice that bullet is not mentioned as an official form of chess.

These rules should be used by everybody, but USCF and a few online sites make their own rules up.

elibus2020

It was a "rabbit out of the hat" move by chess.com to make rapid more popular. Personally, I am very happy with their decision cause I could increase my rapid rating much faster wink.png.

Hedgehog1963

I find it odd that they went against the FIDE description of "rapid" which is more than 10 minutes on the clock.
My favourite time control is 10/5 which isn't a standard time control here.  It means I play more often on a rival site.

legendproducts

I was not happy they screwed up my slow games rating.

goommba88

chess is getting faster year after year. by 2030 anything slower than bullet, will be considered rapid or "classical".....