Blitz - harmful or not?

Blitz has been the single most harmful, useless, poisonous piece of stupidity that I have ever been so stupid as to dream of aiding my chess improvement.

Write it in the laws of physics and the solar system: I cannot ever, this day, any day, play this nonsense called blitz. The best thing that I ever did in chess was to stop playing it. I never learnt one thing from playing it.

Also, contrary to what some people think, terrible blitz players can still be OK in OTB time scrambles at a classic control such as 90 30. It does not follow that bad at blitz = bad in time scrambles.

I'm no expert by any means, but I can say I've read quite a few chess books, as probably many members of this site have. Of all the times I've read a master discuss blitz chess, they all recommended staying away from blitz and I've never heard of one recommending it. If anyone can cite one, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I play blitz every once in a while for fun. It IS fun, but I think it's bad for your game.

I have a major criticism of blitz from a cognitive standpoint.

Differerent time controls involve absorbing different amounts of information. They also involve different degrees of feel and intuitive processes. I fail to see how you can see 90 30 as being the same as 5 0. I would never take on a chess coach who played only blitz if I was trying to improve at a long time control.

Blitz is better than nothing. My response to that is that a formula one racing driver should practice with a Go Cart if the car isn't there. A Go Cart. Or car video games. Yes. They are better than nothing.

Well that's the problem. 1400s drop pieces in 2 hour games and 5 minute ones.

Now compare 2000. And 2200? I don't think they are dropping pieces every game. Your complaints only can only be true of your rating and your skill. They aren't good for making broad generalizations.

And the point was not moot - you simply missed it. No where did I ever compare standard and blitz. I was comparing finding tactics in a blitz game versus finding tactics in tactics trainer.

At first I was agreeing with TacticalSymphony, but instead of continuing with logic, he uses stupidity mode! He starts to attack the person commenting, not the comment itself, which is a common logical fallacy knowned as ad hominem(attacking the arguer instead of the argument). No wonder everyone thinks you are stupid, and don't worry, I am expecting another "comment" from you.
BTW, I am more of a standard time chess player, since as others have already said blitz does not improve analytic skills and calculations. 

Tactical You are being way too sensitive and now you're losing your objectivity.

First I in no way claimed that I was a better chess player than you or anyone else here. So take your insecurities else where. If you want to have a legitimate discussion then fine but I am not going to participate in some pissing contest and I will not engage in conversation with anyone stooping to ad hominems.

Secondly your GM friend said that they drop pieces "every now and then" which is a lot less than you described in your post. So I will again assert that the amount of blunders depends on the level of the player.

When you can construct an opinion without insulting everyone around you then you can expect replies. Until then I suggest you calm down.

AND I NEVER SAID I WAS!! Why can you not see that?

No you're being soft. You are 1500. That alone is reason enough that you blunder more than a GM. If you take that as an insult then that is on you but it is the truth. That obviously applies for me as well as I am no where near 2000. How you could take that personally is just crazy...

So because I'm a "fish" my opinions are supposed to be all wrong? Gimme a break. Like I said you're projecting again. I never once said I was a great player. I made a statement about the amount of blunders as compared to rating.

Again if you see that as some kind of power move then that is your problem not mine. But nowhere do I ever state that I am better than you or anyone here.

Why can't you make a statement without being insulting? Seriously man why can't you do that? I'm done. You dont need to defend yourself as I wasnt't even attacking you...

how to get better at not spending time over the board thinking about young women instead of the next moves.. cant concentrate at all in games longer than 3 min/side. Dont know if blitz did this to me or if it's all the funny tobacco

Im not going to argue with a narcissist.

Calm down, guys. Let's get back to the issue here. Is blitz beneficial or detrimental?

There are those on both sides who will argue the issue. Someone who has done well, eventually, using one method will argue in favor of his method. One who has done well with the opposite method, will argue in favor of that method. What can we deduce from this. Objectively, nothing, except that there may be more than one way to achieve success, and different people may be better suited to different methods.

What are the plusses for blitz? You play a lot of chess, and see a lot of things. It's a lot of practice, although it may expose you to a lot of garbage. IF you can sort out the garbage and find that which is of value, it may be of benefit.

What are the minuses of blitz? There is a lot of garbage to sort through. Even blitz players admit to using dubious methods to attempt to gain time. Since many more games are decided more by the clock than by position/strategy/tactics ... one must call into question the value of blitz in developing skill with position, strategy, and tactics.

Since one does not have the time to calculate the possibilities in complex positions, one is faced with with the necessity of quick reactions. There is some value in having this ability, but is blitz the best way of developing this, or does this come from experience and analysis?

I suspect most accomplished blitz players spend a good portion of their time NOT playing, but analyzing positions they have reached, looking for improvements to their openings or tactics, in anticipation of their next games.

A serious player, wishing to improve, will do likewise. The difference is, he will attempt to learn to do so during the games played.

I have previously stated that, when I was playing g/90 tournament games, I found g/30 recreational games detrimental. I found myself, faced with a complicated position, playing what some people call "hope chess." Lacking the time to calculate adequately, I'd play moves thinking "let's see what happerns if I do this ..." It hurt my serious game.

Consequently, it is my belief that blitz is for accomplished players who want to practice what thery already know, in order to sharpen their skills with further experience. For the inexperienced, it may be of value as an occasional diversion, but is likely to be a much slower route to development if played to excess.

Blitz is not harmful. Next question please

Blitz is great for practicing openings and its a lot of fun.

Blitz is harmful if we play too much on it. 

...or just it is me who have a problem because I can't adjust when I play long time control, I still move piece like a blitz player. 

Coach Heisman likes blitz and finds it useful for practicing openings as Frank said.  He also believes it imperative that you review the games or it does become a waste of time.   He also believes no more than 10% of your playing time should be devoted to it, the rest to slow chess.  Of course if you're really playing slow 3 to 4 hour chess, then 10% of that still leaves time for quite a few 5 minute games.  All this came out in Friday's TV show, but I'm sure the same sentiment is expressed on his wonderful web site (danheisman.com).

The troll's just sleeping I think, wait for tomorrow.