The Inevitability of Blitz

It's inevitable that you play fast blitz games differently than you might standard games. You often take chances you couldn't calculate in seconds, or make blunders from not looking over the board with caution and you more often than not play for quick tactics rather than for strong positions -- just as your opponent might do the same. This often leads to flawed but interesting, even humorous, games.
In this 3/0 game I played a poor opening, followed up with several mistakes and at least one blunder, none of which my opponent fully exploited.  (Blitzy Blunders is the name of a two-way street.) So, after looking over the game to see how I might have played better, I made some observation that I put in the game notes.

Well as with most other forms of chess variants, 'blitz' (along with 'bullet/lightning') games really do not pose much difference towards that of the reliance upon tactics, strategy, and opening theory, other than perhaps adding to it; i.e. because as the game 'variant' [often] has to do more about beating the clock, one can often afford then to play the suspect moves/replies at their disposal in any phase of the game's play.  Therefore, [I believe] the expenditure of time/energy towards [deeply] analysing such ['blitz'] games may not only be but a trivial matter [for time's sake] to the player[s] in question, but merely adds to the insult for the royal game's true understanding - i.e. that the game of chess was meant to defy time itself.

And that's the way 'I' see it! ...

Let's see if I got all this right...
If I post a win, I should have posted a loss.
If I post a game sans annotation, I should annotate my games.
If I lightly annotate, I'm trivializing or rather insulting chess' "true understanding."
If I post a blitz game with the expressed opinion that some of the main elements of blitz is its lack of depth and a potential for not only making mistakes, but missing one's opponent's mistake, I'm informed that such a 'variant's' primary goal is to run your opponent out of time but also "adds to" ... tactics, strategy and opening theory."

In order to object to my brief notes that ate up a few minutes of my time, someone spend far more time writing a somewhat confused rebuttal to my trivial posting.... go figure.

If it makes you feel better, Batgirl, I always enjoy your posted blitz games.  Your ability to come up with tactics while under time pressure is impressive.  Thanks.

.

You can't win the internet, Batgirl. But neither can they. Don't let the turkeys get you down. Keep posting.

 the post from  samadams1980 disappeared .

"everyone makes mistakes when they play chess-but strong players do not make the same mistake twice" Tim Harding

Thanks for taking the time to post the game, Batgirl! I enjoyed seeing it. That was a cool mate. 

I agree with Lisa. It's a pretty cool game Batgirl.

There will always be people who think they have the right to attack you for no reason. They are sticky but try to ignore them and keep up with the good things. They are not worth your time and effort. Cheers, 

In all fairness to Batty, he's the go-to-guy when it comes to chess history. Probably the best chess historian here at chess.com hands down.

Thanks batgirl.

Lovely attack. 

It's true that 17...Qg5 instead of Qh4 was amazing! I just didn't understand why you thought that after 17...Qh4, 18. Nxc4 white would be winning?

Did you think that 18...Nxc4 19. Qb3 would be fatal, attacking c4 and b7?

What I saw here was 18. Nxc4 and instead of 18...Nxc4 black has the in-between move 18...Qg5!

Now if white tries for tricks like 19. f3, counting on a confusion in the black camp so that he keeps his extra piece, then 19...Rxg2 20. Kh1 Qg3 is killing, as mates are threatened on h2 and h3 and there's nothing to do about it. 

On the other hand, after 19. g3, black can now retake on c4, and needn't fear 20. Qb3 as he has 20...Qd5 as a defense, covering both attacked squares with an excellent position up a pawn. Of course he wasn't obliged to lose it by 20. Qb3, but he sure had to go 18.Nxc4...

Thanks:  baddog, Grob, toto, corri, Lisa, red, solskytz.  If it's not yet apparent, I have several, I'll say stalkers for want of a better word, who follow me around just to make mean-spirited comments, for whatever reason. Go to any of my threads to see.  One in particular keeps comming back in different incarnations even after he manages to get each of his accounts closed, which seems to be his only real talent.   These people don't particuarly bother me and I usually just work around them, but occasionally I respond just because they sound so foolish. 
As for posting negligible games such as amateur blitz - chess isn't some closed domain of the elite, but a wide open territory meant for everyone.  There is no one to dictate what one should like, should share or should read; there's no one to dictate how anyone should view chess, to decide what is 'true' chess and what is impostor chess.  If I've learned anything through deeply studying the history of chess for more than a dozen years, it's that chess is flexible and pliant; it bends and accepts.  If it were so rigid and inflexible, it would have died out centuries ago.  There's no Grand Scheme to chess, but rather chess is a river running strong but with little tributaries, eddies, coves and confluences, all flowing from and yet remaining a part of the whole.  The conclusion should be obvious.

you're most welcome :-)

I like that

@Batgirl, you're a killer at high speeds.  Artistic too.  Keep up the good work. 

I assume the game you posted came from another site.  Thanks, in any case.

As usual, you have managed to write what I was thinking, only with eloquence I can't exercise. Kudos.

Indeed, it's all relative. Blitz exchanges quality for a possible level of excitement because the game is less predictable. A blitz game is not ideal for a perfectionist, who wants to spend ages figuring out the most precise solution to a problem, but blitz is able to show the practical side of chess, that remind us of how human we are. There are times where I just need to get my fill of blitz, and even more so of bullet, and players who can play these kinds of games well are definitely impressive, how they condense their understanding into instant moves. I am basically a perfectionist, but blitz is good sometimes for breaking the monotony of staring at a position for an hour, and still not touching a single piece.

Admittedly it can get annoying when you have an appreciation of harmony in chess, and you can't execute it because you are being rushed with your moves. But I should always remember the points in the first paragraph, taking a more objective view. Easier said than done!