No. and here's why:
ALL OTB titles are for classical.
Blitz makes you want to play fast, but it can ruin your time managment in classical.
Blitz is a superior time format - Change my mind
Sort:
Jan 20, 2023
0
#23
Blitz is amazing, it is definitely the time control that helps you the most if you're trying to find instinctive moves but still want to think a bit... it's certainly my favorite (if I have time)!
but of course, classical is the best because you get to enjoy the game without worrying a lot about time 
@Defaultedwastaken sure, but haven't you noticed that OTB is slowly going out of fashion? This new generation much prefers online events, and streamed matches which are 90% Blitz Tournaments. A large portion of chess fans couldn't care less about classical titles. It's names like Carlsen and Hikaru who keep it alive, but the focus has clearly shifted, dramatically.
OTB is still alive and going well, it will be hard seeing it die anytime soon
Jan 20, 2023
0
#26
Colby-Covington wrote:
@DejaDeJugarBlitz Why do you believe that Blitz players inherently make incoherent moves? The time element forces you to have your lines memorized to perfection.
No
B1ZMARK wrote:
Colby-Covington wrote:
@DejaDeJugarBlitz Why do you believe that Blitz players inherently make incoherent moves? The time element forces you to have your lines memorized to perfection.
No
With the op's games you get similar examples from literally all of his games. But he apparently believes that he and his opponents know his openings inside out.
@DejaDeJugarBlitz of course there will be 50% outliers and failure, that's the case with most chess players, regardless of time control. Also, I find it humorous how assertive and confident some of you beginners are. :P
I think we've reached the point where someone is contradicting themselves.
That 50% of movements are outliers and failures is not knowing your openings perfectly and that does not happen regardless of the rhythm of time. Also, not taking advantage of opening deviations that are clear errors has nothing to do with knowing your openings perfectly. I watched 20 of your games and they all had opening errors in the first moves by both players, which I don't want to criticize because that's not the point here. What you describe in three-minute blitz games has nothing to do with what happens in your games, so it's not right for you to say or affirm things based on assumptions that you can't prove yourself.
Yes it is true that you can try to practice openings with blitz, but if you don't really try you won't be doing it just for the sake of playing blitz. Also, it shows that you don't study much and you only like to play for speed, which is not bad if you like to have fun, no one would question that if you weren't saying things that go against what you really practice.
@DejaDeJugarBlitz Sorry, but I'm not gonna have someone 500 points below me, give a lecture on my opening accuracy.
I have tried to be polite, but it's getting comical now. You don't play Blitz on any meaningful level, thus your opinion is irrelevant.
Anyone who says what I have said regardless of their rating would be right. I'm glad I don't have anything to match you anyway. The truth is that seeing your elo in tactics and that you only play blitz for 3 minutes, I'm sure that if you played 5 minutes your elo would drop a lot, on the contrary if I played 5 minutes my elo increased.
The number of games you have in blitz added to your rating in tactics defines that you simply drank a lot of coffee several days in a row and did your best to push the time of your opponents; What I'm not saying is bad, the problem is that you want to make people believe that you're a perfectionist of patters, when you're not. Maybe you have some skill, but I know people who have reached 2900 rating in blitz and they are not able to beat me in rapid or classic games.
You're just saying that you're supposedly an opening expert and that you practice that by playing 3-minute blitz when you don't see that in your games. In addition, you make it seem easy as if it were a magical method to improve, and that can confuse certain people who believe that if they imitate what you do, they will raise the level when obviously that is not going to happen. It shows that you played a lot of friendly blitz games against very strong players (probably OTB), because that's the only thing that explains how knowing almost nothing about openings or tactics you can get close to 2400 just by playing as fast as you can.
What if it is true that the 3 minute blitz is a lot of fun, we obviously all agree on that.
Rapid>
DejaDeJugarBlitz wrote:
Maybe you have some skill, but I know people who have reached 2900 rating in blitz and they are not able to beat me in rapid or classic games.
Lmao.
This has been entertaining, thank you. However, at this point I'm politely asking you to settle down. I would like other members who actually play chess to share their opinions, as well. Pointing out somebody's low rating is not cool and I apologize for that, but you are practically asking for it.
Colby-Covington wrote:
Rarely will you find anyone rated above 2400 who enjoys to play chess with a time control longer than 5 minutes. It's excruciating for someone who knows their openings and has countless lines memorized, to sit there and wait for nothing. They only play classical when it's required in tournaments, but most advanced players simply don't care for it.
This just isn’t true, no one is “requiring” anyone to play classical tournaments, club players and masters alike play them because they want to.
Colby-Covington wrote:
Lmao.
This has been entertaining, thank you. However, at this point I'm politely asking you to settle down. I would like other members who actually play chess to share their opinions, as well. Pointing out somebody's low rating is not cool and I apologize for that, but you are practically asking for it.
What you say about the rating doesn't affect me at all, plus the rating can mean many things, but not by itself. What is interesting is that the only correlation between your level in blitz (3 minutes) and your rating in tactics indicates that the only thing you do is play a race for whoever consumes fewer seconds, watching your games shows this; Which is not a bad thing, but it is noticeable that in rhythms with longer times your rating would be much lower, which is far from what you want to brag about.
It is curious that you did not pay attention to the rating of others who did not agree with you, but when someone points out more specifically because the things you say are wrong, you proceed to go personal by putting an emote that probably reflects something that you have inside .
I have nothing against you, that you attribute virtues that you do not have, it is not something that harms me. May you have good luck in your life and may one day find true happiness.
FizzyBand wrote:
This just isn’t true, no one is “requiring” anyone to play classical tournaments, club players and masters alike play them because they want to.
Regardless, you are telling me honestly, that you enjoy sitting there for 30 minutes and watch paint dry until somebody finally makes a move?
Also, didn't Hikaru say that classical or "fossil" chess as he put it, is dying out while streaming services are taking over? I'll have to look for that clip.
Rarely will you find anyone rated above 2400 who enjoys to play chess with a time control longer than 5 minutes. It's excruciating for someone who knows their openings and has countless lines memorized, to sit there and wait for nothing. They only play classical when it's required in tournaments, but most advanced players simply don't care for it.