pfren,
you missed the point. It is not about how the Super GMs are training now. It is about their journey and more importantly how they started out. I bet most of them played lots of blitz and bullet when they were untitled. Anyway, it is not even about that. The primary point is: is blitz useful for the beginners or not? Thats the point being addressed. I assume that untitled players are better suited to talk about what helps beginners to learn fast than titled players.
Just for the record, I don't recommend blitz for beginners. (post #8 here)
Intermediate players it's fine, but as far as training, it obviously plays a minor role.
Also, of course, it's possible to develop bad habits with blitz, or play too much blitz.
I can see what (almost) all those "experts" in this thread, which recommend to beginners playing a lot of blitz games, have in common:
They are untitled (but of course, they do know how superGM's are training- what the hell?).
Just a coincidence, I guess.
You show your class by trying to bring others down instead of lifting yourself up. I used to think you were just a curmudgeon. I was wrong.
Students are individuals.
Most young students, especially those who pay for lessons, need to be told to lay off the blitz because they are easily addicted to the fast time controls and don't spend enough time doing deep analysis.
But I have also had quite a few students who need to be encouraged to play more. This is especially true for many adult students, but I have also recommended playing blitz for some young students who are almost afraid to play chess at all outside of a very controlled setting. For some of these students, playing blitz teaches them not to fear making decisions in chess.
Students are individuals. What is good advice for some is not always good advice for others. A good teacher knows this.
You show your class by trying to bring others down instead of lifting yourself up. I used to think you were just a curmudgeon. I was wrong.
I don't have to lift myself anywhere. I am an IM, a FIDE Trainer, and I do happen to know some things about training. Nothing more, or less than that.
Sure, I could tell people "by all means, play a lot of blitz and you will become great players". I guess that Stratos would befriend me after that, but this would not be such a big issue.
Heck, I can also say more stupid things than that, but this is not the point.
The main thing you are learning from playing blitz all the time (bullet is even worse) actually is playing without thinking.
And honestly, I could not care less about a FIDE unrated player with no USCF title and no trainer certificate of any kind would not approve my chess advices- let alone my attitude.
You show your class by trying to bring others down instead of lifting yourself up. I used to think you were just a curmudgeon. I was wrong.
I don't have to lift myself anywhere. I am an IM, a FIDE Trainer, and I do happen to know some things about training. Nothing more, or less than that.
Sure, I could tell people "by all means, play a lot of blitz and you will become great players". I guess that Stratos would befriend me after that, but this would not be such a big issue.
Heck, I can also say more stupid things than that, but this is not the point.
The main thing you are learning from playing blitz all the time (bullet is even worse) actually is playing without thinking. [emphasis and color added ~SF]
And honestly, I could not care less about a FIDE unrated player with no USCF title and no trainer certificate of any kind would not approve my chess advices- let alone my attitude.
I can tell. For the record, you grossly misrepresent what I said.
I could quite literally pick up a USCF trainer certificate tomorrow, but I don't need to pay for that certificate. My students value my teacher's license more.
I respect your FIDE training title, and your IM title. I accept that you know some things about training. I accept that you're a better player than I am. I could still give you a good game, and perhaps even beat you occasionally, but you're better.
I read what you have to say with interest. I don't always agree with you, but I don't denigrate you. You berate anyone you disagree with.
Nakamura himself said that it isn't chess:
"Blitz is about creating positions in which you can play fast. It isn't chess".
How do you explain that?
Getting the highest blitz rating you can is absolutely about using certain practical tricks (like creating positions in which you can play fast).
People even develop specialized opening repertoires for blitz!
I'm not talking about that sort of nonsense. I'm talking about an inexperienced player playing for... well, playing for experience, not for the highest blitz rating they can achieve.
As for GMs using it to train, yeah, Botvinnik himself did. A quick google can't find me the article, but he did it in secret and the guy didn't reveal it until he was almost dead... but obviously blitz is mostly for fun. Obviously Hikaru isn't logging on to chess.com to train.
And on that topic, what GMs do, what beginners do, and what intermediate players should do to train is different. A GM already has lots of experience. A beginner has no good habits yet, so IMO they should focus on long games.
For those who claim blitz has absolutely no place in a player's training, listen to Magnus Carlsen's post-match interview after his great win against Karjakin just yesterday.
He consciously chose to press on knowing he was better in the blitz time control at the end of the grueling 6 hour game. Both sides were under 1 minute on the clock.
A bit off topic, but it's kind of fun, one silly skill I've noticed in blitz is learning how to lose as slowly as possible.
Like, when I'm about to lose a whole piece. In a real game I might resign right away, but in blitz you calculate and look at the various lost endgames... which lost endgame takes the most number of moves to win? Then you go for it with tons of premoves.
... The point in chess is to create the conditions to go as high as possible. ...
What percentage of chess players are concerned about going as high as possible? Do many have other priorities?
Yes.
@DeirdreSkye claims that everything chess is interrelated and he attacks me because...
I had the temerity to challenge his assertion that chess.com has rigged the blitz championship so that Naka and Carlsen would meet in the final.
What was my evidence that he was wrong? Carlsen isn't even playing!
I guess I get what I deserve.
"... in chess, just like in any complex creative practice, there are no universal solutions, no universal rules that work in any situation - because the situations in which chess trainers work vary enormously. … some have everything at their disposal and others have practically nothing. Some trainers work with large groups of students and others individually; with average low-category players or with bright and highly talented potential stars. This variety of factors does not permit us to develop a single standard.
... I am skeptical about any attempt to introduce a rigid methodology, rigid rules telling us what to do and how and in what order to do this or that. What should one begin with? Openings or endgames? Should he play open or closed openings, should he concentrate on main lines or 'subsidiary' variations? What is more important: a tactical mastery or a positional one?
Opinions of respected specialists, grandmasters and world champions differ greatly. … The truth lies in skillful combination of the opposite approaches, in search for an optimal proportion between them. And this proportion is individual for every particular case. …" - IM Mark Dvoretsky (~2003)
I don't know that most chess.com readers have anything more than casual interest in the training practices of top players, but, for anyone with such interest, I thought that I would quote some of the words of Fabiano Caruana about his preparation for the 2018 FIDE Candidates' Tournament:
"... I invited several grandmasters: My coach Rustam Kasimdzhanov was there, Christian Chirila was there, Leinier Dominguez was there, and for a few days near the end Alejandro Ramirez joined. We basically worked on chess, openings... not just openings, all kinds of chess. We played training games and also a lot of physical stuff. … The other guys worked on openings most of the time but while they were doing it, I solved a lot of studies. I also did some stuff which I really hate doing, which is, I went through some [Mark] Dvoretsky stuff, which I really don't like doing, because it's hard! Also, a lot of training games, a lot of blitz games. We even played some bughouse, which is not really chess training, but still, it's fun. I would say most of the opening work I did was not opening work. ..."
https://www.chess.com/news/view/caruana-i-think-my-chances-are-about-50-50
Another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert. I haven't posted any of my Sicilian wins lately because I got tired of all the "experts" (you know who you are) who say things like "Your opponent made mistakes" or "You didn't play it right". The entire purpose of this thread is to show that even us average players can have success with the Sicilian with a little preparation and practice. In that vein, here is another one of my wins with the Sicilian.
Another win with the Sicilian by "Not an Expert. I haven't posted any of my Sicilian wins lately because I got tired of all the "experts" (you know who you are) who say things like "Your opponent made mistakes" or "You didn't play it right". The entire purpose of this thread is to show that even us average players can have success with the Sicilian with a little preparation and practice. In that vein, here is another one of my wins with the Sicilian.
9.Qf3 LOL
I can see what (almost) all those "experts" in this thread, which recommend to beginners playing a lot of blitz games, have in common:
They are untitled (but of course, they do know how superGM's are training- what the hell?).
Just a coincidence, I guess.