good game trob
i am certain that if this had been a 50+ minute game youwould have slaughtered him
I wanted to say this is a very good point. Fast chess has its place, but it would be very hard for you to have seen the ideas mentioned by people in this thread due to the time issue, just as rainbow and others have mentioned. You should not beat yourself up over this... Do you play any 60 minute games?
no usually i play 30 i dont usually play fast because i need to work on my calculation and planning more and i feel as if the more familiar i am with it, the faster i can perform those tasks. do u think 60 min games would be better?
no usually i play 30 i dont usually play fast because i need to work on my calculation and planning more and i feel as if the more familiar i am with it, the faster i can perform those tasks. do u think 60 min games would be better?
Yes. I would say that if you really want to improve your planning and evaluation you should be playing 60 minute games or perhaps longer. For improving in standard chess I would consider 45 minutes to be the slowest I would play. If not you will not have the time required to apply what you have learned. Having learned anything new it takes time and practice to be able to apply it. If you do not give yourself sufficient time to consider multiple ideas, you will probably not hit on the best one.
Fast chess has its place. It will teach you how to see tactics quickly and it will teach you how to deal with time pressure.
good game trob
i am certain that if this had been a 50+ minute game youwould have slaughtered him