Blitz and Bullet are not chess

backwardinduction

Unless you have a really high rating and fast mind, blitz and bullet are not chess at all. I have watch several fast games here on chess.com and find that blitz and bullet are way more popular than standard game. In most blitz and bullet games, even high rating players make stupid moves so frequently, the only thing matters is time. Although some players are so good that they can make checkmate in 5 seconds, most players can not do that at all. So far as I see, chess is a game that need careful thinking and careful thinking takes time. Moving pieces just to see who can move faster is kind of childish, this make chess ugly. I suggest chess.com forbid those players whose rating lower than 2200 playing blitz or bullet.

MrMonkeyWrench

You've just stirred up a hornet's nest, although I agree with you in principle.

Where I disagree is that those who like to play speed chess...well, live and let live is my motto.

Now...turn-based chess where players use a database...is that chess??? I wouldn't even care to make a guess.

sclukey

I respectfully disagree with your opinion on Blitz chess, I am a firm believer in using Blitz as a tool to familiarize oneself with an opening. Now Bullet chess is a whole different story. In bullet it is all about the time and who can play the fastest (and commit less mistakes), so I don't really play it. I dedicate a small portion of time to blitz and balance it off with Rapid chess and countless hours of studying a week. Blitz is a fun way to release pressure from the mind and just play for fun, and it is more attractive to spectators (chess players and non chess players alike). So, it's ok to play blitz as long as you don't over do yourself.

i_r_n00b

op hasnt even played blitz or bullet on chess.com. he has only observed them.

i suggest chess.com restrict anyone under the rating of 2200 from voicing their opinion. we clearly dont understand chess.

selfmate

It depends how you define "chess".

I mean, clearly, when looking at the bullet games of weak players, including myself, they are filled with gross errors (hung pieces, missed mates in one etc.). But the long games of weak players would hardly constitute chess to any GM looking at the games.

I myself have to play correspondene games to have any hopes of playing a game accurately and soundly enough to constitute something approaching real "chess".

GlennBk

If a player can be graded then he is a chess player.

Better players need longer to think and plan that is why masters find it so difficult to win against computers at speed chess.

For the likes of me ( average club) anything longer than five minutes over one move would be abortive. You do not see further by simply staring at a board for longer.

Watch the computer thinking it soon settles on a move and then stays on that move for a very longtime.

backwardinduction
i_r_n00b wrote:

op hasnt even played blitz or bullet on chess.com. he has only observed them.

i suggest chess.com restrict anyone under the rating of 2200 from voicing their opinion. we clearly dont understand chess.


 Your suggestiong will make yourself unable to say anything

i_r_n00b

and im okay with that, if it is better for all of us

shauny79

I would like to add playing Bullet 1 min personally is so much fun, and over a length of playing it and building quite a high rating, my standard game has improved. I dont try to beat the opponent on time, I do try and play the best moves, and of course the more you play the faster you become, and the faster your decisions are, all stimulating the brain I think and making you a better player.

xxdanielxx

it's all for fun, long games on a computer are a bit over the top no? if you get winning position and opponent leaves you for 10 mins is not my idea of fun...

chesshoudini

I don't agree, blitz is chess but bullet IS kind of random......

Puchiko

I don't like bullet, and I only play blitz in a hyperactive, mania-like state of mind.

However, there's no reason to take the option away from players who enjoy it.

SimonSeirup

GM Allan Stig Rasmussen from Denmark, recommend players to play blitz to improve.

backwardinduction

I agree now that blitz makes sense, like 10 min games. But I strongly reconmend chess.com to do something to limit the prevaling bullet "chess" among low-rating players, since thinking carefully is a good habit for low-rating players like me to improve.

caseyFgriffin
backwardinduction wrote:

Unless you have a really high rating and fast mind, blitz and bullet are not chess at all. I have watch several fast games here on chess.com and find that blitz and bullet are way more popular than standard game. In most blitz and bullet games, even high rating players make stupid moves so frequently, the only thing matters is time. Although some players are so good that they can make checkmate in 5 seconds, most players can not do that at all. So far as I see, chess is a game that need careful thinking and careful thinking takes time. Moving pieces just to see who can move faster is kind of childish, this make chess ugly. I suggest chess.com forbid those players whose rating lower than 2200 playing blitz or bullet.


Well you know a lot of people do this weird thing where they play chess for fun and to have a good time.... 

If you don't want to play blitz don't but other people should be aloud to whether they make blunders every move or not.

jonager

bullet chess is still chess. and in standard chess you only have like 2 hours,what's real chess for you, having a week to play a single game?

stanhope13

Blitz and bullet are games which depends on luck, you see it or you don't. Tough luck or good luck.

kneejo

For me, the fun in chess comes from playing my own game. For this reason I don't like to learn lines from databases, or using opening books in correspondence chess. In my opinion, if I do that, I'm playing someone else's game. Maybe my game won't be as good as, say, a Fischer game. But at least I know I've made up every strategy myself. And that means much more to me.

I would rejoice, for instance, if all the chessbooks that exist would be burned today, all the players have their memory of them wiped so we could play the game as two equal minds. Every human has a tremendous long-term memory, which in chess can be used in two ways; either by memorizing lines played by grandmasters, or by working with the associative pattern-recognizing function of the brain.. i.e. working with the knowledge that you personally developed by simply playing a lot of games. And your memory really doesn't need to be eidetic to get an edge. If you don't work with pictures in your mind, you probably work with words.

Having said that, I believe Blitz is good for checking up on my pattern-recognition, and is more close to 'real' chess than using books in a cc-game.

The exeption would be when I would ever become a grandmaster (lol) and would have to compete against a certain person, I would study their game, to try to invent a counter-game that wins. Like Fischer did in his '72 matches against the russians.

GlennBk

If all chessbooks were burned today we would still have all the different levels of players and slowly the books would all be written again as they put their ideas on paper.There is no convincing evidence that the opening book knowledge confirs any great advantage. Try turning off your computers opening book ( I have) you still won't win. Have a look at Sultan Khan he could not read or write and knew no chess openings Capablanca ( who he did beat in one famous game) called him a chess genuis.

 

 

 

there

Puchiko
kneejo wrote:
Every human has a tremendous long-term memory, which in chess can be used in two ways; either by memorizing lines played by grandmasters, or by working with the associative pattern-recognizing function of the brain.. i.e. working with the knowledge that you personally developed by simply playing a lot of games.

These aren't the only two uses of memory. Rote memorisation isn't the only, let alone best, use of chess books! Opening books are meant to explain the principles and ideas behind the lines-if you only memorise the lines, you'll be dumbstruck when someone plays a "wrong" (nonbook move). Learning an opening means you know why you make each move.

Similarly, books on strategy can help a player understand what's really important-not in that specific position, which you'll probably never reach again-but in general: how to evaluate the position (spot the weaknesses), how to make a good plan.

Good book learning is not passive, it's active.