Anyone else absolutely terrible at blitz?
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
satan_llama wrote:
Exactly. You should always play a combination of blitz bullet and rapid. Play bullet and blitz to warm up, play some rapid games and analyse them. Then take a deep breath and pull your sleeves and get ready to play some blitz.
I would say never play bullet. What's the point?
he said to warm up
Optimissed wrote:
To me that's a bad idea. You only need to warm up for bullet itself and bullet's a bad idea too.
I kinda agree with you, whenever I play bullet my mind is still in bullet mode when I switch to another time control.
My friend Gurksi is the worst
Jan 25, 2025
0
#28
I am so bad at blitz. It is about 500 lower than my rapid score. I take that to mean a few things.
First, I don't know openings really.
Second, I have no "intuition" for chess. I need time to think to play even a little well, and "well" means for me about 750. A 700-800 does not really "calculate," but I am dependent on the little calculating I do to have any chance of winning. Take that away, I have absolutely nothing.
Third, I get paralyzed by indecision when I can't calculate. I miss basic tactics and make huge blunders. Tunnel vision is very real. Heck, I have time trouble with a 10 minute rapid game. A 3 minute blitz game is hell on earth for me. I am like 300 elo. My brain doesn't think that fast. It is soul crushing. Playing more has not helped. I don't get mad if I lose a rapid game, even if I blunder. However, blitz makes me so angry, and I am not an angry person by nature.
Blitz is sole crushing.
I'm terrible at chess in general
Jan 25, 2025
0
#30
Yes. Terrible at blitz as well (in comparison to other time controls). I was ok at best years ago. Now in my 60s, I can still learn and improve at chess but that doesn’t translate into blitz. Only other time controls. I can analyze a game at a 2000-2200 level and teach but the playing live thing at fast time controls seems to deteriorate further and further over time.
i suck at all chess like #33 said
You can play blitz for fun. But for players rated below 1700, it is a poor way to learn. If your goal is to become a good chessplayer, stick to classical chess and then analyze your games. If you were my student, I would have you spend most of your time with lessons on general principles.
mikewier wrote:
You can play blitz for fun. But for players rated below 1700, it is a poor way to learn. If your goal is to become a good chessplayer, stick to classical chess and then analyze your games. If you were my student, I would have you spend most of your time with lessons on general principles.
what’s classic chess?
Jan 25, 2025
0
#34
GSOhammy wrote:
mikewier wrote:
You can play blitz for fun. But for players rated below 1700, it is a poor way to learn. If your goal is to become a good chessplayer, stick to classical chess and then analyze your games. If you were my student, I would have you spend most of your time with lessons on general principles.
what’s classic chess?
classical is 30+ min
sleepyzenith wrote:
GSOhammy wrote:
mikewier wrote:
You can play blitz for fun. But for players rated below 1700, it is a poor way to learn. If your goal is to become a good chessplayer, stick to classical chess and then analyze your games. If you were my student, I would have you spend most of your time with lessons on general principles.
what’s classic chess?
classical is 30+ min
tysm
"stick to classical chess"
There is no classical chess on chess.com. Even 60/0 is "rapid".
Bullet is pattern recognition and who can play fast blitz is more intuition and classical is calculation and fast calculations are typically harder to make then no calculations or good ones
whiteknight1968 wrote:
"stick to classical chess"
There is no classical chess on chess.com. Even 60/0 is "rapid".
Classical chess also sux on chess.com
same here