15-Minute vs. Blitz

Sort:
Warbringer33
Milliern wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:

 

Interesting post. Thanks for chiming in.

Rough estimate: It seems like they're suggesting about 70% 90+30 and longer games (I guess we would include 45+45 into this) 20% 15 minute games, and 10% blitz games. It does revolve around a high volume of play and tactical training though.

 

You are very welcome.

 

Again, I think the spread really depends upon a number of considerations, such as age, how much analysis you are willing to put in, the particular player's weaknesses, and others.  For example, many adult players don't analyze blitz at all.  Therefore, the 10% proposal is probably good.  However, between the consideration that blitz allows a player to see many, many more unique positions than spending the same allotment on longer games, and if the analysis performed finds the primary reasons for loss, etc., then the blitz could immediately become more valuable.  A player with strong intuition for choosing candidate moves, but poor visualization and calculation, could find more value in longer games.  While there certainly are universal rules that a re helpful in guiding players on which time controls to work on, none of these rules apply universally, because we are all unique in our needs.  I have completely halted blitz, for example, because I am playing very creatively and intuitively, but not calculating well enough to confirm my intuition in long games; and so I often make erroneous moves in longer games, because I calculate my intuition's chosen candidate moves as fallacious and losing, though they are winning!  What does it matter if I can pick the best moves in a blitz game, but cannot calculate and visualize well enough to verify these moves in a long USCF game?

 

On the age point, my coach and other players I speak to say that their youths play absoltely positively no long games except for USCF tournament games.  They suck up patterns, ideas, and technique like it is nobody's business, and they get bored playin G/10 and longer.  I see this in the long USCF games: I played a slow positional game against a kid rated around 1793, and he was bored to death.  He played poor moves because of it.  In such cases, something drastic, like close to 100% blitz, is the only kind of control that can be effective for learning, since they can't pay attention at longer controls, even if USCF classic points are on the line.

 

It's really surprising to me that coaches have so much difficulty in getting their youths to focus on longer time controls. I mean, I understand some are going to be more mature than others but you would think the satisfaction they get from a win would fuel them to dig deeper. Maybe it's just a sign of the times.

Basically, I've gotten to the point where I hardly ever hang a piece in anything 15/0 or longer. I can't remember the last time I hung anything other than a pawn unless I was literally down to seconds on the clock and just throwing everything at the enemy king. I figure as long as I can play stable, review worthy chess at this time control it will continue to help my opening understandings, tactics, and clock management. As for going to anything faster, I really don't know yet. I almost don't want to start with blitz at all again as since I haven't played it in nearly a month, my long game has improved significantly. That could also just be because I've studied and played so much. One might have nothing to do with the other.

What I do know is that if I show up to the chess club to play there's going to be some blitz. They all like playing 5/0 to warm up. Then again, I think we've established that the best preparation for blitz is long time controls. That said, I should see myself playing much better blitz chess than I did a month ago as my tactical vision and positional understanding has jumped up quite a bit.

hhnngg1
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
 

 

Look at the clocks. Some of these games turn out to be the same length as a 5/0 or 5/2. Close enough, at least.

This game is about the same quality as a 3-minute game played by 1250s on chess.com.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is but ...you're really not rated much higher than me. ICC is a more competitive player pool. That's well established. I obviously play at a much higher level than 1250 when we start moving to longer time controls like 30+30, 45+45, or 90+30.

 

I'm not highly rated but since you say you are equivalent strength to me,compare:

 

Your blitz rating after 200 games: <950ish

Mine after like many thosands of games (!): 1350-1450ish

You're deluding yourself if you want to keep telling yourself you're as strong as a 1400 blitz player here on chess.com. 

 

So contrary to your post, I actually am rating significantly higher than you. If you're comparing my standard rating, you're using a flawed measure - I've played less than 6 standard games here.

 

I've never once said anywhere that I was playing 1400 blitz chess. I said standard chess. Which I am playing at a 1400+ level.

Nobody cares about your blitz rating, man. Your classical is all that matters and I'm a guy who's been around the game a year and is almost as highly rated as you (on this site). I'm rated almost 1500 in the 25+10 pool on ICC and I doubt you would be yourself. It's much more competitive on that server.

The point was that you shouldn't act all high and mighty when you're talking to a beginner who's almost at your level in a year. Obviously, I have more innate talent than you do.

 

And what I'm saying is that I'm not all high and mighty but trust me - you are NOT playing at OTB 1400 level. I was a USCF 1400 player before, so I know what it is.


And contrary to what you think having a blitz rating of 940 after 200 games says a lot about your overall chess ability. It sounds like your barrage of posts about 'long games' is self-denial, and trying to prove that your higher (more inflated) ratings are the 'true' measure of your chess ability, whereas anyone can see that a 940 blitz player here will get their pants clobbered in ANY time control by a 1400 blitz player here. It's nearly an order of magnitude difference in chess ability between the two. (Albeit, you can def make up ground fast and get to 1400 blitz quickly.)

 

I'm far from a strong player, but you're really deluding yourself if you think that you can play someone even at longer time controls if both your blitz ratings here are 940 (yours) and 1400+ (mine or someone else's.)

 

Forget about long vs blitz ratings, or trying to justify your rating by restricting use to long games. Just try and get better overall, and ALL of your ratings will get pulled upwards. 

Warbringer33
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
 

 

Look at the clocks. Some of these games turn out to be the same length as a 5/0 or 5/2. Close enough, at least.

This game is about the same quality as a 3-minute game played by 1250s on chess.com.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is but ...you're really not rated much higher than me. ICC is a more competitive player pool. That's well established. I obviously play at a much higher level than 1250 when we start moving to longer time controls like 30+30, 45+45, or 90+30.

 

I'm not highly rated but since you say you are equivalent strength to me,compare:

 

Your blitz rating after 200 games: <950ish

Mine after like many thosands of games (!): 1350-1450ish

You're deluding yourself if you want to keep telling yourself you're as strong as a 1400 blitz player here on chess.com. 

 

So contrary to your post, I actually am rating significantly higher than you. If you're comparing my standard rating, you're using a flawed measure - I've played less than 6 standard games here.

 

I've never once said anywhere that I was playing 1400 blitz chess. I said standard chess. Which I am playing at a 1400+ level.

Nobody cares about your blitz rating, man. Your classical is all that matters and I'm a guy who's been around the game a year and is almost as highly rated as you (on this site). I'm rated almost 1500 in the 25+10 pool on ICC and I doubt you would be yourself. It's much more competitive on that server.

The point was that you shouldn't act all high and mighty when you're talking to a beginner who's almost at your level in a year. Obviously, I have more innate talent than you do.

 

And what I'm saying is that I'm not all high and mighty but trust me - you are NOT playing at OTB 1400 level. I was a USCF 1400 player before, so I know what it is.


And contrary to what you think having a blitz rating of 940 after 200 games says a lot about your overall chess ability. It sounds like your barrage of posts about 'long games' is self-denial, and trying to prove that your higher (more inflated) ratings are the 'true' measure of your chess ability, whereas anyone can see that a 940 blitz player here will get their pants clobbered in ANY time control by a 1400 blitz player here. It's nearly an order of magnitude difference in chess ability between the two. (Albeit, you can def make up ground fast and get to 1400 blitz quickly.)

 

I'm far from a strong player, but you're really deluding yourself if you think that you can play someone even at longer time controls if both your blitz ratings here are 940 (yours) and 1400+ (mine or someone else's.)

 

Forget about long vs blitz ratings, or trying to justify your rating by restricting use to long games. Just try and get better overall, and ALL of your ratings will get pulled upwards. 

 

You just don't read. I've been around the game a short period of time, haven't played very many games outside of this site total, and haven't played blitz on here in a month. Do you know how much better I've gotten in that time?

It's really pathetic that you would sit there and point to a number that means next to nothing at this point. 1) Someone's blitz rating isn't really indicative of their chess ability whatsoever. This is true whether you agree with it or not. 2) My standard rating here, on ICC, and in their 25+10 pool, is not that far behind yours and I've been playing chess competitively for less than a year. If you're just going to try and discredit me by pointing at a stupid, outdated, blitz rating when the only blitz I played was 3/2 (yes, so that's a 3/2 rating from over a month ago by a player who has played more long chess in that month than he had total in the year before it), this is going nowhere. 

I'm pretty sure that in a few months I'll eclipse your 1500'ish rating here on Chess.com. Further, as I've told you, I've already played against 1400+ players in the USCF. Both games went 40+ moves. That was last January. If you think YOU'RE playing at a 1400+ level because that's what you're absolutely, totally irrelevant blitz rating on the softest chess site on earth is well...then you're the one who's deluded, my friend.

The thing is that it's obvious you're just upset that all of the dialogue on this forum and others the past two weeks has proven - undeniably - that there really isn't any improvement value in playing blitz. You're another one who's been playing for years and is stagnated at a very early point. 1500's have a lot of weak spots. Maybe this has to do with your obsession with playing a time control that hampers your chess ability? I know a lot of people who have been around the game as long as you have but few of them are stuck like glue @ 1500.

Start sitting down and avoiding the urge to play blitz and I'm sure you'll get up to the level most players with your amount of experience are at in no time.

 

NATHANKRISHNA

I think 18 minutes games would be good,max.time for difference between

two moves 15 mts-no internet disconnection etc..no additional time for

moves like 15/10 as at present...

Warbringer33
NATHANKRISHNA wrote:

I think 18 minutes games would be good,max.time for difference between

two moves 15 mts-no internet disconnection etc..no additional time for

moves like 15/10 as at present...

 

For the USCF Online Rated Blitz & Rapid games here they do 15/10 one night a week and on ICC they do 12+3. 12+3 is fun because it's fast and furious over there on ICC but 15/10 is FIDE's "standard" rapid time control along with now, more frequently, 25+10.

I'm starting to like the 15/0's though, of course, as I'm playing a lot of them but the thing is that I play literally a few hundred points higher chess when there's a 10 or more second increment than I do without it. If you go through my games, you'll see tons of flaggings in 30/0's on here ...which is why I was playing them. To work on time control. 15-minutes on ICC seems even better than this at this point since I play 30+30 and 45+45 games regularly.

SpiritoftheVictory

I say think of 15 min or 15|10 as "slow blitz." It's fun and you have the time to calculate deeper in variations and learn a thing or two in the process. Probably the optimal way of playing if you don't take chess too seriously but also want to learn at least a little bit. Just my two cents.

EvgeniyKovalev

СКАЧАЙТЕ СОЦИАЛЬНАЯ ОНЧЕСС /A DIGITAL TREE

NATHANKRISHNA

15/0 is good no additional time and max time between 2 moves be

10 mts..no time allowed for internet disconnection and no pre-move..

to ensure the other player just doesn't runaway keeping the other waiting.

hhnngg1
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
 

 

Look at the clocks. Some of these games turn out to be the same length as a 5/0 or 5/2. Close enough, at least.

This game is about the same quality as a 3-minute game played by 1250s on chess.com.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is but ...you're really not rated much higher than me. ICC is a more competitive player pool. That's well established. I obviously play at a much higher level than 1250 when we start moving to longer time controls like 30+30, 45+45, or 90+30.

 

I'm not highly rated but since you say you are equivalent strength to me,compare:

 

Your blitz rating after 200 games: <950ish

Mine after like many thosands of games (!): 1350-1450ish

You're deluding yourself if you want to keep telling yourself you're as strong as a 1400 blitz player here on chess.com. 

 

So contrary to your post, I actually am rating significantly higher than you. If you're comparing my standard rating, you're using a flawed measure - I've played less than 6 standard games here.

 

I've never once said anywhere that I was playing 1400 blitz chess. I said standard chess. Which I am playing at a 1400+ level.

Nobody cares about your blitz rating, man. Your classical is all that matters and I'm a guy who's been around the game a year and is almost as highly rated as you (on this site). I'm rated almost 1500 in the 25+10 pool on ICC and I doubt you would be yourself. It's much more competitive on that server.

The point was that you shouldn't act all high and mighty when you're talking to a beginner who's almost at your level in a year. Obviously, I have more innate talent than you do.

 

And what I'm saying is that I'm not all high and mighty but trust me - you are NOT playing at OTB 1400 level. I was a USCF 1400 player before, so I know what it is.


And contrary to what you think having a blitz rating of 940 after 200 games says a lot about your overall chess ability. It sounds like your barrage of posts about 'long games' is self-denial, and trying to prove that your higher (more inflated) ratings are the 'true' measure of your chess ability, whereas anyone can see that a 940 blitz player here will get their pants clobbered in ANY time control by a 1400 blitz player here. It's nearly an order of magnitude difference in chess ability between the two. (Albeit, you can def make up ground fast and get to 1400 blitz quickly.)

 

I'm far from a strong player, but you're really deluding yourself if you think that you can play someone even at longer time controls if both your blitz ratings here are 940 (yours) and 1400+ (mine or someone else's.)

 

Forget about long vs blitz ratings, or trying to justify your rating by restricting use to long games. Just try and get better overall, and ALL of your ratings will get pulled upwards. 

 

You just don't read. I've been around the game a short period of time, haven't played very many games outside of this site total, and haven't played blitz on here in a month. Do you know how much better I've gotten in that time?

It's really pathetic that you would sit there and point to a number that means next to nothing at this point. 1) Someone's blitz rating isn't really indicative of their chess ability whatsoever. This is true whether you agree with it or not. 2) My standard rating here, on ICC, and in their 25+10 pool, is not that far behind yours and I've been playing chess competitively for less than a year. If you're just going to try and discredit me by pointing at a stupid, outdated, blitz rating when the only blitz I played was 3/2 (yes, so that's a 3/2 rating from over a month ago by a player who has played more long chess in that month than he had total in the year before it), this is going nowhere. 

I'm pretty sure that in a few months I'll eclipse your 1500'ish rating here on Chess.com. Further, as I've told you, I've already played against 1400+ players in the USCF. Both games went 40+ moves. That was last January. If you think YOU'RE playing at a 1400+ level because that's what you're absolutely, totally irrelevant blitz rating on the softest chess site on earth is well...then you're the one who's deluded, my friend.

The thing is that it's obvious you're just upset that all of the dialogue on this forum and others the past two weeks has proven - undeniably - that there really isn't any improvement value in playing blitz. You're another one who's been playing for years and is stagnated at a very early point. 1500's have a lot of weak spots. Maybe this has to do with your obsession with playing a time control that hampers your chess ability? I know a lot of people who have been around the game as long as you have but few of them are stuck like glue @ 1500.

Start sitting down and avoiding the urge to play blitz and I'm sure you'll get up to the level most players with your amount of experience are at in no time.

 

I'm rated 1800-1900 on ICC and lichess btw, since you're still so hung up on thinking you play as well as a 1400 blitz player. Sorry, but no. 

 

And learn to read - I've played only 5 long games here. I wouldn't judge your blitz rating if you'd played <20 games, but you've played 200 so it's a pretty fair measure of your ability. 

 

And I'm not the one upset here. You're the one who clearly is hung up on something - you've started like 4 threads on the same exact subject in the span of a week about it, all of which are "long games are better than blitz games" but really seem to be mostly explaining how you play like a 1400+ player in long games as an excusve for your lower blitz rating here. 

 

Either way, I wouldn't be so defensive about your 940 blitz rating, but rather use it as a guidepost to figuring out where the big holes in your game are. 

Ziryab

A couple of points:

1) I believe that blitz is both an excellent indicator of chess skill and a useful tool for improvement.

2) I recommend short "standard" games to my students (15 10, 20 0, 30 0) and play them myself. However, I find that my suspicions of foul play are more often aroused in these games.

3) I disagree with Milliern concerning the Instant Chess interface. I don't like very many of their chess sets. I play there, mostly on the iPad.

4) I agree that ICC's pools offer the best live chess playing environment available online both for competitiveness and fairness.

Let me say more concerning the first two points, as that's the focus here.

I have played 15 10 games where my opponent uses 15-30 seconds per move even during forcing sequences that are pretty straightforward and in the opening. It's very difficult to believe that such a player is not getting some sort of help. I have played 15+ games where my opponent stops moving and times out, and I have to keep one eye on the computer for as long as half an hour just in case he returns with a few seconds left--some do. With these experiences, I am averse to playing 45 45.

I have written a lot about blitz on this site and on my blog (http://chessskill.blogspot.com/). I am a blitz junkie who plays bad chess for many hours on end. I also have been known to exercise discipline, often for several months, limiting blitz to half a dozen games per day. I frequently analyze blitz games in great depth.

On the one hand, my 100,000+ blitz and bullet games since 1998 have assured that there is very little that I have not seen, and has facilited many hours of practice of many elementary endings. On the other hand, I find myself falling prey to shallow thinking and superficial tactics in OTB play. I have delivered checkmate at the end of a pawn race in games where I needed eight seconds for 15 or more moves. I have underpromoted pawns to a knight and bishop and practiced that checkmate with less than a minute left on the clock.

Did I rise from USCF C Class to strong A Class because lots of blitz gave me immense experience? Maybe.

Would I be a master if I had invested half of that time playing longer games and reading chess books? Possibly. 

Ziryab

Does anyone have a link to the Heisman article referenced earlier?

little_paw

I disagree both, neither blitz doesnt represent chess strength nor blitz is indicator of chess strength is true. But both of them true partially.

Blitz strength is related to chess strength (a little bit imprecise because other factors also affects) but this statement holds only after some level, an 1300 OTB player may have 1500 blitz other 1500 OTB may have 1100 blitz (i have seen many examples) But lets say players stronger than 1600 OTB have blitz rating in range of their OTB rating +-200 Elo. Of course this also doesnt hold at the other side of continum. Lots of IM and GMS have 2700-3000 blitz rating with 2300-2500 OTB. We can assume after 2100-2200 level blitz tends to be +100/+700 range instead of -200/+200 range. Of course exceptions are always possible.

Ziryab

You are looking at ratings. You need to examine these same ratings in terms relative to their pools.

Most of the top five percent of blitz players will be in the top five percent OTB.

hhnngg1
little_paw wrote:

I disagree both, neither blitz doesnt represent chess strength nor blitz is indicator of chess strength is true. But both of them true partially.

Blitz strength is related to chess strength (a little bit imprecise because other factors also affects) but this statement holds only after some level, an 1300 OTB player may have 1500 blitz other 1500 OTB may have 1100 blitz (i have seen many examples) But lets say players stronger than 1600 OTB have blitz rating in range of their OTB rating +-200 Elo. Of course this also doesnt hold at the other side of continum. Lots of IM and GMS have 2700-3000 blitz rating with 2300-2500 OTB. We can assume after 2100-2200 level blitz tends to be +100/+700 range instead of -200/+200 range. Of course exceptions are always possible.

You're mistaken, at least for the ratings here on chess.com, which I'm referring to.

 

Play a 1200 here in 5-min blitz and compare in strength to a 1200 long-rated player here. The 5-min blitz player will be substantially stronger. And it's not because they're just so much better at blitz. They're just significantly better players.

 

For here, the starting level for any new player is 1200. That 1200 rating is given to new slow-time control players, but also to new blitz players.

 

 

Since most new players are nowhere near good enough to even survive a 5-min blitz game, they'll play mostly slow time control games. So you're dealing with a much more competitive pool of players in the blitz section here, since all the real newbs aren't even participating.

 

 

For the GM/master ranges, yes, it's more skill-specific related, I'll grant you that, but that is pretty irrelevant to our class-level ratings, and specific to chess.com which is what I'm referring to.

 

Even overall though, blitz ratings def do reflect one's skill to a large extent.

Warbringer33
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
hhnngg1 wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:
 

 

Look at the clocks. Some of these games turn out to be the same length as a 5/0 or 5/2. Close enough, at least.

This game is about the same quality as a 3-minute game played by 1250s on chess.com.

 

I'm not really sure what your point is but ...you're really not rated much higher than me. ICC is a more competitive player pool. That's well established. I obviously play at a much higher level than 1250 when we start moving to longer time controls like 30+30, 45+45, or 90+30.

 

I'm not highly rated but since you say you are equivalent strength to me,compare:

 

Your blitz rating after 200 games: <950ish

Mine after like many thosands of games (!): 1350-1450ish

You're deluding yourself if you want to keep telling yourself you're as strong as a 1400 blitz player here on chess.com. 

 

So contrary to your post, I actually am rating significantly higher than you. If you're comparing my standard rating, you're using a flawed measure - I've played less than 6 standard games here.

 

I've never once said anywhere that I was playing 1400 blitz chess. I said standard chess. Which I am playing at a 1400+ level.

Nobody cares about your blitz rating, man. Your classical is all that matters and I'm a guy who's been around the game a year and is almost as highly rated as you (on this site). I'm rated almost 1500 in the 25+10 pool on ICC and I doubt you would be yourself. It's much more competitive on that server.

The point was that you shouldn't act all high and mighty when you're talking to a beginner who's almost at your level in a year. Obviously, I have more innate talent than you do.

 

And what I'm saying is that I'm not all high and mighty but trust me - you are NOT playing at OTB 1400 level. I was a USCF 1400 player before, so I know what it is.


And contrary to what you think having a blitz rating of 940 after 200 games says a lot about your overall chess ability. It sounds like your barrage of posts about 'long games' is self-denial, and trying to prove that your higher (more inflated) ratings are the 'true' measure of your chess ability, whereas anyone can see that a 940 blitz player here will get their pants clobbered in ANY time control by a 1400 blitz player here. It's nearly an order of magnitude difference in chess ability between the two. (Albeit, you can def make up ground fast and get to 1400 blitz quickly.)

 

I'm far from a strong player, but you're really deluding yourself if you think that you can play someone even at longer time controls if both your blitz ratings here are 940 (yours) and 1400+ (mine or someone else's.)

 

Forget about long vs blitz ratings, or trying to justify your rating by restricting use to long games. Just try and get better overall, and ALL of your ratings will get pulled upwards. 

 

You just don't read. I've been around the game a short period of time, haven't played very many games outside of this site total, and haven't played blitz on here in a month. Do you know how much better I've gotten in that time?

It's really pathetic that you would sit there and point to a number that means next to nothing at this point. 1) Someone's blitz rating isn't really indicative of their chess ability whatsoever. This is true whether you agree with it or not. 2) My standard rating here, on ICC, and in their 25+10 pool, is not that far behind yours and I've been playing chess competitively for less than a year. If you're just going to try and discredit me by pointing at a stupid, outdated, blitz rating when the only blitz I played was 3/2 (yes, so that's a 3/2 rating from over a month ago by a player who has played more long chess in that month than he had total in the year before it), this is going nowhere. 

I'm pretty sure that in a few months I'll eclipse your 1500'ish rating here on Chess.com. Further, as I've told you, I've already played against 1400+ players in the USCF. Both games went 40+ moves. That was last January. If you think YOU'RE playing at a 1400+ level because that's what you're absolutely, totally irrelevant blitz rating on the softest chess site on earth is well...then you're the one who's deluded, my friend.

The thing is that it's obvious you're just upset that all of the dialogue on this forum and others the past two weeks has proven - undeniably - that there really isn't any improvement value in playing blitz. You're another one who's been playing for years and is stagnated at a very early point. 1500's have a lot of weak spots. Maybe this has to do with your obsession with playing a time control that hampers your chess ability? I know a lot of people who have been around the game as long as you have but few of them are stuck like glue @ 1500.

Start sitting down and avoiding the urge to play blitz and I'm sure you'll get up to the level most players with your amount of experience are at in no time.

 

I'm rated 1800-1900 on ICC and lichess btw, since you're still so hung up on thinking you play as well as a 1400 blitz player. Sorry, but no. 

 

And learn to read - I've played only 5 long games here. I wouldn't judge your blitz rating if you'd played <20 games, but you've played 200 so it's a pretty fair measure of your ability. 

 

And I'm not the one upset here. You're the one who clearly is hung up on something - you've started like 4 threads on the same exact subject in the span of a week about it, all of which are "long games are better than blitz games" but really seem to be mostly explaining how you play like a 1400+ player in long games as an excusve for your lower blitz rating here. 

 

Either way, I wouldn't be so defensive about your 940 blitz rating, but rather use it as a guidepost to figuring out where the big holes in your game are. 

 

You read my whole post, know I haven't played blitz in over a month, know that nobody cares about anyone's blitz rating, and see that I'm rated just about as high as you are in classical on two sites and THAT's how you respond?

Obviously having a further discussion with you is pointless. As I said before, maybe you should play less blitz and more long games and you won't be stuck at a level many players pass within a year or two. I mean, look at me - I'm almost rated as high as you are in STANDARD chess on two servers which means I'm just about as good as you. You've been playing for years. I've been playing for one. No wonder you're so bothered.

 

Please, stop deluding yourself into believing that anyone, anywhere, cares about anyone's blitz rating. It is not indicative of chess ability - Standard/Classical is.

You finish off your post by stating that blitz chess IS reflective of a player's overall ability? It's been proven, without a doubt, all week since that Shahade article that this is false. Many, many good classical and rapid players don't even waste their time on blitz because NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR BLITZ RATING. You really need to get out of denial and realize that blitz chess means absolutely nothing. Nobody cares if you're rated 1700 in blitz if you're rated 1500 in standard on chess.com, have been playing for years, and are stuck like glue, just sum up that this game may not be for you. How many years are you going to play stuck at 1500 standard? How many times are you going to sit in denial and pretend that anyone even looks at your blitz rating when they view your profile? Nobody does. It's just classical because that's all anyone cares about and that's all that matters. For you shallow thinkers who can't handle the length of a real chess game, you have a nice little side variant to play around with. Enjoy it and have fun!

VLaurenT
Warbringer33 wrote:

I brought this up in a couple of other threads because it was in line with the topic but there wasn't really much resolution on the discussion and there never seems to be when I talk about it.

Some players advocate playing blitz (once you get to a certain proficiency tactically) as a means of pattern recognition, game volume, opening preparation and practice, clock  management, etc. I agree with these things. However, why would a game like a 3/2 or a 5/0 be MORE effective for all of these things while training than playing repeated 15-minute or 15/10 games instead?

Open to all comments, ideas, suggestions anything. It's just a question I've had for a while and I'm interested in what people have to say.

 

Both are okay. The main point is to take the time to learn (remember) something from the game.

15-min is probably better to have time to calculate, but blitz allows you to cover more ground.

Warbringer33
Ziryab wrote:

A couple of points:

1) I believe that blitz is both an excellent indicator of chess skill and a useful tool for improvement.

2) I recommend short "standard" games to my students (15 10, 20 0, 30 0) and play them myself. However, I find that my suspicions of foul play are more often aroused in these games.

3) I disagree with Milliern concerning the Instant Chess interface. I don't like very many of their chess sets. I play there, mostly on the iPad.

4) I agree that ICC's pools offer the best live chess playing environment available online both for competitiveness and fairness.

Let me say more concerning the first two points, as that's the focus here.

I have played 15 10 games where my opponent uses 15-30 seconds per move even during forcing sequences that are pretty straightforward and in the opening. It's very difficult to believe that such a player is not getting some sort of help. I have played 15+ games where my opponent stops moving and times out, and I have to keep one eye on the computer for as long as half an hour just in case he returns with a few seconds left--some do. With these experiences, I am averse to playing 45 45.

I have written a lot about blitz on this site and on my blog (http://chessskill.blogspot.com/). I am a blitz junkie who plays bad chess for many hours on end. I also have been known to exercise discipline, often for several months, limiting blitz to half a dozen games per day. I frequently analyze blitz games in great depth.

On the one hand, my 100,000+ blitz and bullet games since 1998 have assured that there is very little that I have not seen, and has facilited many hours of practice of many elementary endings. On the other hand, I find myself falling prey to shallow thinking and superficial tactics in OTB play. I have delivered checkmate at the end of a pawn race in games where I needed eight seconds for 15 or more moves. I have underpromoted pawns to a knight and bishop and practiced that checkmate with less than a minute left on the clock.

Did I rise from USCF C Class to strong A Class because lots of blitz gave me immense experience? Maybe.

Would I be a master if I had invested half of that time playing longer games and reading chess books? Possibly. 

 

You're cool and everything but you've written extensive blogs in the past both in favor for and against blitz chess. You flip flop on this issue constantly. You and I both know that you have an addiction to it and that's why you play it. It's definitely playing a role in why you haven't hit master class yet. Your competition doesn't give a hoot about blitz chess. They're playing long games and studying all day. The fact that someone may cheat you (you're overly paranoid about this) doesn't matter: If they're using an engine, it's only helping you get stronger. Long chess is hands down agreed upon as the only chess that matters and the only way to truly improve in the game.

Warbringer33
hicetnunc wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:

I brought this up in a couple of other threads because it was in line with the topic but there wasn't really much resolution on the discussion and there never seems to be when I talk about it.

Some players advocate playing blitz (once you get to a certain proficiency tactically) as a means of pattern recognition, game volume, opening preparation and practice, clock  management, etc. I agree with these things. However, why would a game like a 3/2 or a 5/0 be MORE effective for all of these things while training than playing repeated 15-minute or 15/10 games instead?

Open to all comments, ideas, suggestions anything. It's just a question I've had for a while and I'm interested in what people have to say.

 

Both are okay. The main point is to take the time to learn (remember) something from the game.

15-min is probably better to have time to calculate, but blitz allows you to cover more ground.

 

I played a couple of 30/0's on here last night and they seemed a bit longer than usual (which is good for me) after a week of primarily 15/0. I'm sure if I went to a 45+45 now I would see a big improvement in my clock management. I'm still a long, long way off being proficient at faster time controls (let alone classical) but at least I have a plan now.

I will mention that I probably did 250 blitz tactics on ChessTempo yesterday. So, I'm not just playing long and rapid but also doing standard and blitz tactics galore along with my book study and review.

Ziryab
Warbringer33 wrote:

 You flip flop on this issue constantly. 

I prefer to think that my views are complex and nuanced.

Warbringer33
Ziryab wrote:
Warbringer33 wrote:

 You flip flop on this issue constantly. 

I prefer to think that my views are complex and nuanced.

 

Haha...very well put...lol.

I'm in the same boat, as you see. The thing is that I do seem to do a better job of avoiding blitz. The 15 and 30 minute games are like Methadone, you know?