Also, I might add, you have a point about your opponent being better and making better moves, but only if the skill difference is very great. Being a bit better than your opponent doesn’t matter much, since making slightly better moves is pointless in bullet, because 1. that requires greater calculation and 2. being in a better position doesn’t matter when it’s 5s vs. 15s on the clock. It’s mostly about moving fast.
Are chess players athletes? 💨
Sort:
May 8, 2022
0
#143
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
being in a better position doesn’t matter when it’s 5s vs. 15s on the clock. It’s mostly about moving fast.
Being in a clearly better position is often enough to win with 5 seconds against 15.
This position is a theoretical draw, but if I had white (with 5 seconds) and Hikaru Nakamura had black (with 15 seconds) I would expect to win easily.
I am mostly in agreement with you and llama, in that the clock influences every decision, but I still consider that to mean the position is more important than the clock, since whoever is winning on the board will almost always be winning on the clock as well - since better positions can be played quickly. Even in a king and pawn ending a single pawn up, most good players on lichess could win with less than half a second left on the clock.
Maybe I don’t play enough bullet, but I don’t agree with that. If I were white, I’d just take the bishop and call it a day. Won and drawn endgames are about looking at your opponents moves and responding accordingly. And that takes time, because even if the move is obvious to make, seeing it takes at least half a second. Even in the king and pawn endgame, take this position with black to move
Black can go Kd5 or Kf5. Now, obviously white wins either way, but white has to see and respond to black’s move accordingly, which takes at least 0.3 seconds each. Even in a totally won position such as this
White needs to see blacks move and respond accordingly. 5 seconds is plausible, but I don’t think white could successfully win here with 3-4 seconds on the clock, because you need to react, and you can’t just blindly autopilot.
“whoever is winning on the board will almost always be winning on the clock as well - since better positions can be played quickly.”
yes, but reaching that won position in the first place is not plausible unless your opponent is significantly worse that you, since good moves and calculation are not rewarded in bullet, and will instead net you a deficit on the clock. slowly outplaying your opponent isn’t plausible in bullet, I’d think.
May 8, 2022
0
#146
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
I still see bullet chess as chess, but I totally understand your point. 75% of the time, maybe more, it’s not about who’s better. It’s about who can move the pieces faster. I don’t see the appeal, IMO. If I wanted to shuffle things around I would have played osu instead.
Despite me being a faster player and having better mouse ability than all of my opponents, I often still lose 10 second ultrabullet games simply because my opponent makes better moves than me and wins on the board.
people who say "bullet is just about moving fast" will lose 100% of the time against a reasonable player.
by the way, osu is actually excellent practice for bullet and hyperbullet
Half-truth. If you blunder in the beginning it makes the resulting position significantly easier to play for your opponent, and therefore lets them play faster. But blundering when both of you have like 5 seconds doesn’t matter since all that matters is moving fast at that point.
Blundering when both players have five seconds is a conscious and often successful strategy. As Booby Phischer said, “sack, sack, flag”.
May 8, 2022
0
#147
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
Black can go Kd5 or Kf5. Now, obviously white wins either way, but white has to see and respond to black’s move accordingly, which takes at least 0.3 seconds each. Even in a totally won position such as this
Maybe I don’t play enough bullet, but I don’t agree with that. If I were white, I’d just take the bishop and call it a day. Won and drawn endgames are about looking at your opponents moves and responding accordingly. And that takes time, because even if the move is obvious to make, seeing it takes at least half a second. Even in the king and pawn endgame, take this position with black to move
Black can go Kd5 or Kf5. Now, obviously white wins either way, but white has to see and respond to black’s move accordingly, which takes at least 0.3 seconds each. Even in a totally won position such as this
White needs to see blacks move and respond accordingly. 5 seconds is plausible, but I don’t think white could successfully win here with 3-4 seconds on the clock, because you need to react, and you can’t just blindly autopilot.
I’ve played from your pawn ending to mate in under ten seconds a few times. You can do some premoves with the queen that do not fail. You can also guess correctly in some cases. Also a wrong guess will not be implemented when you are performing an outflanking manoeuvre.
I agree with your point, but some ending have become very easy for me because I’ve spent a hundred hours teaching them to children.
I'm thinking chess yoga would be kinda fun... the downward knight 🤷♀️ next question is yoga a sport? 😂
May 9, 2022
0
#149
autumncurtis wrote:
Or generally esports players? ♟️ at a professional level*
Magnus Carlsen was once asked if he thought of himself as an athlete, and he said something like "no, but I think of myself as a sportsman."
May 9, 2022
0
#150
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
Black can go Kd5 or Kf5. Now, obviously white wins either way, but white has to see and respond to black’s move accordingly, which takes at least 0.3 seconds each. Even in a totally won position such as this
Maybe I don’t play enough bullet, but I don’t agree with that. If I were white, I’d just take the bishop and call it a day. Won and drawn endgames are about looking at your opponents moves and responding accordingly. And that takes time, because even if the move is obvious to make, seeing it takes at least half a second. Even in the king and pawn endgame, take this position with black to move
Black can go Kd5 or Kf5. Now, obviously white wins either way, but white has to see and respond to black’s move accordingly, which takes at least 0.3 seconds each. Even in a totally won position such as this
White needs to see blacks move and respond accordingly. 5 seconds is plausible, but I don’t think white could successfully win here with 3-4 seconds on the clock, because you need to react, and you can’t just blindly autopilot.
Nah, I could win those on lichess where premoves cost no time.
For example you simply premove Kf4 and then pick up the king and hover it over d4. Then as soon as you hear/see anything you release your mouse button. That way no matter what white does you can move in under 0.5 seconds easily. Probably around 0.2 seconds. Immediatly after releasing the button you premove Ke4. Then you repeat this process of premove+hover before moving the pawn.
With K+Q vs K you can premove almost every single move by slowly advancing the king and queen on adjacent squares, or if you're a little more experienced (and the opponent isn't good enough to premove every move) then you can just win by playing accurately... 100% premoves is easy enough when the opponent has no ability to make threats.
Optimissed wrote:
technical_knockout wrote:
the primary characteristic of a 'sport' is an element of competition:
this thread isn't about luck vs. skill lol.
In view of the fact that everyone seems to be at liberty to define whatever we want as sports, for whatever reasons we can imagine, IfPatriotGames and I, being old friends, have a tacit agreement that anything is a sport where there's a lot of luck and you can get your feet wet.
I can't disagree with that. We have baseball, golf, soccer, football, archery, shooting, panning for gold, fox hunting, and bricklaying. Footwear is important in all those sports. It helps minimize the luck factor.
I've only panned for gold once in my life. It was about 10 years ago near Superstition mountain in Arizona. We did find gold, and I still have it. It was a single specule about the size of a piece of sand. The trip was really all about the hike.
KevinOSh wrote:
autumncurtis wrote:
Or generally esports players? ♟️ at a professional level*
Magnus Carlsen was once asked if he thought of himself as an athlete, and he said something like "no, but I think of myself as a sportsman."
Thanks for that! That's actually really awesome 😲
Yah I’m a sportsman
*wii sports music*
Watch my superb sleuthing skills in action
Optimissed wrote:
lfPatriotGames wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
technical_knockout wrote:
the primary characteristic of a 'sport' is an element of competition:
this thread isn't about luck vs. skill lol.
In view of the fact that everyone seems to be at liberty to define whatever we want as sports, for whatever reasons we can imagine, IfPatriotGames and I, being old friends, have a tacit agreement that anything is a sport where there's a lot of luck and you can get your feet wet.
I can't disagree with that. We have baseball, golf, soccer, football, archery, shooting, panning for gold, fox hunting, and bricklaying. Footwear is important in all those sports. It helps minimize the luck factor.
I've only panned for gold once in my life. It was about 10 years ago near Superstition mountain in Arizona. We did find gold, and I still have it. It was a single specule about the size of a piece of sand. The trip was really all about the hike.
Some stupid bonehead has disliked your post. Whoever it is should learn to be more polite. They'll never be President of the USA with an attitude like that.
I saw that. I assume he was not satisfied with the amount of gold we found that day. I admit it was disappointing, but I didn't have high expectations in the first place. That's the thing with sports like stamp collecting, bricklaying, and panning for gold. If you just keep the emphasis on fun, you'll never be disappointed.
No I wouldn’t consider them athletes, there’s no physical activity really
No. Just because they are in a condition that can be induced by physical activity, does not mean the activity in question was caused by a surplus of physical activity. Just because they “look like it”, does not mean that was the case. It is obvious to anyone that sitting down and thinking is not physical activity. And mentioning that many of them work-out is irrelevant.
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
No. Just because they are in a condition that can be induced by physical activity, does not mean the activity in question was caused by a surplus of physical activity. Just because they “look like it”, does not mean that was the case. It is obvious to anyone that sitting down and thinking is not physical activity. And mentioning that many of them work-out is irrelevant.
You are right, it's obvious. But, as we all know, something being obvious often doesn't stop someone from wishing otherwise.
I think it's a product of todays environment. For example someone may come in last place, but they are still told they are a winner. Or someone may be a male, but that doesn't stop them from wishing otherwise. So I think some people simply "identify" chess as a sport.
Not an extreme sport, like Crazy 8s or crossword puzzles, but rather a spectator sport. Like stamp collecting and tic tac toe.
lfPatriotGames wrote:
InsertInterestingNameHere wrote:
No. Just because they are in a condition that can be induced by physical activity, does not mean the activity in question was caused by a surplus of physical activity. Just because they “look like it”, does not mean that was the case. It is obvious to anyone that sitting down and thinking is not physical activity. And mentioning that many of them work-out is irrelevant.
You are right, it's obvious. But, as we all know, something being obvious often doesn't stop someone from wishing otherwise.
I think it's a product of todays environment. For example someone may come in last place, but they are still told they are a winner. Or someone may be a male, but that doesn't stop them from wishing otherwise. So I think some people simply "identify" chess as a sport.
Not an extreme sport, like Crazy 8s or crossword puzzles, but rather a spectator sport. Like stamp collecting and tic tac toe.
“Reality can be whatever I want it to be”
-Thanos
Do you prefer hyperbullet on chess.com or lichess?
I prefer playing on chess.com - I prefer everything about the way this site handles time scrambles (multi-premoves, 0.1 loss for premove, minor piece vs. lone king = draw) but I don't get to play very often since it take as many as 30 mins to get a game here. On lichess I get a game at all hours of the day in under a minute, so I typically play there. It's a shame, since I feel like I'm faster on chess.com and I prefer playing here.