I think blitz is useful to help gain experience. Especially young improving players can play 1000s of games and get a lot of experience... of course they also play lots of OTB too. Blitz is only part of the puzzle.
I don't know if I'd say it improves "intuition" but other than semantics we might not disagree.
Another benefit is that it can help beginners tactical skills.
I know 2 guys that made it to USCF Expert on nothing but tactics, and playing funky openings like the halloween/frankenstein or whatever its called gambit. They do very well at their level. But anytime they have to play in the Open section of a tournament, they get destroyed. Chess is just something fun for them, so its not a big deal to them.
Tactics are overrated, against every single tactical opening there is a positional line.
This debate rages everywhere, and will never end. I personally dont care what anyone studies (chess wise) As long as they are having fun, what does it matter? The debate of "tactics vs. strategy" will go on forever. The only debate i wish would die is "Im rated 400. What opening should i study?"
I think blitz is useful to help gain experience. Especially young improving players can play 1000s of games and get a lot of experience... of course they also play lots of OTB too. Blitz is only part of the puzzle.
I don't know if I'd say it improves "intuition" but other than semantics we might not disagree.
Another benefit is that it can help beginners tactical skills.
I know 2 guys that made it to USCF Expert on nothing but tactics, and playing funky openings like the halloween/frankenstein or whatever its called gambit. They do very well at their level. But anytime they have to play in the Open section of a tournament, they get destroyed. Chess is just something fun for them, so its not a big deal to them.
Tactics are overrated, against every single tactical opening there is a positional line.