Seriously? I can understand bullet, but blitz? They would never outlaw it. That sounds like a Fascist regime.
Blitz and Bullet are not chess
Sort:
Draughts is not chess. Ballroom dancing is not chess. Bullet chess and blitz chess are chess. I dont enjoy them, they are not my scene, but its madness to claim they are not chess. Is this some "purist" argument? Chess below the level of Tal and Fischer is not chess then. Playing against a computer doesnt feel like chess to me either but hey, if people enjoy it and they use the rules of chess, THEN ITS CHESS.
Where's the fourth chapter, Plenty?
TOtally agree,except for the "I suggest chess.com forbid those players whose rating lower than 2200 playing blitz or bullet" part
_not_ wrote:
Ryan390 wrote:
Fail.
That is your contribution? LOL - the "fail" is on you.
Apologies, allow me to contribute properly..
Your basing your theory from a one off victory over a GM during bullet chess.. 
I'd be much more impressed if you beat even a couple of strong club level players at regular chess.
Your correct about blitz/bullet still being chess, however I personally feel it requires less tactical knowledge / positional understanding of the game.
It kind of feels a bit like drag racing versus formula 1. It's over pretty quickly, rather than enduring the psychological strain of endless complex positions, feeling the pressure of having to find the best move, for every move.
In a long game against a strong / stronger opponent, there can be no lies, or flukes. The position is absolute and both players are racking the back of their minds to wrestle for a winning position.
Blitz/Bullet are a bit different, where 1 mistake isn't necessarily the end of the game, it may not even be noticed by the players as they are rushing so much. I've seen fairly high rated blitz players miss hanging pieces just because they were rushing so much.
I tanks the organization of chess.com by not restricting the bullet games. They are a lot of fun, its all about distracting the opponent. And there is a lot of tricks and strategies that one develops also, not only recognition of patterns.
Jul 8, 2012
0
#48
People have different ideas of fun -- including those who can take a week to play a game (especially without "databases"?) -- so I don't see how one can debate that. But to improve one's game, some may learn best by trial and error, and then maybe blitz chess works best. Others, who gain knowledge and wisdom in a single week-long game, may feel they have gained more than if they played a couple dozen blitz games. So it depends on your way of learning -- and of course your idea of fun!!
It's no coincidence that bullet chess and bull**** share the same first four letters
When/if FIDE is stupid enough to change the time controls of the World Chess Championship to anything other than classical time controls, we'll know chess has been permanently dumbed down
Chess is too complex a game to think that 99 percent of players can find the best move or understand "the truth of the board" in bullet or blitz time controls. It's just a matter, in those games, of who makes the last in a mountain of blunders.
kneejo wrote:
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.
I agree. If chess was a real war then I'd call it the snowflake war. Every game should be played differently. Some games are like the battle of Littlebig Horn, and others World War 1. I just don't see how you could gain any satisfaction from a game that you know what's going to happen. The problem with this is if the opponent switches styles after you start playing whatever opening, then what, you most likely may not be prepared. It only takes memory to play lines from a book, but it takes a true genius to be able to create a winning position in any situation.
Getting back on topic, Blitz, Bullet, and Lightning chess are more like variants. Chess doesn't have to always be serious though. Sometimes it should be fun and entertaining. I don't know why you guys are complaining though, it's not like anyone's FORCINGyou to play any of the three. If you don't like it fine, don't play it. But stop complaining, and don't get it taken away for the people who enjoy having fun playing it.
I think blitz and bullet are fine if they're left out of Interzonals and championships and don't reduce the number of over-the-board tournaments with classical time controls for amateurs.
The Continental Chess Association struck a good compromise - each of their five-game tournaments take place over three days for players who like classical time controls and two days for players who don't. Then the two sides merge and compete against each other on the final day for two games under the longer time control. At least the players who like blitz get three games of blitz out of five games overall.
Chess players who like to watch and play over the best possible games of GMs won't be able to do that if blitz becomes the norm at tournaments. That's the only reason I dislike it; that and the possibility of fewer amateur tournaments with classical time controls. I'm not even thinking about Internet chess but it'd be nice if a live game of G/120 were available
No, it comes down to available thinking time. If a player is in a very complex or tactical position, will he or she make the best possible move with two minutes of time or 20 minutes? Will he or she have the time to investigate/calculate the consequences of a queen sacrifice with two minutes to play or 20 (or longer)? It's not semantics at all.
I like, though, how you assumed you knew my answer. Pretty arrogant of you, but I'll it slide:)
Good grief - if you can't see that a chess player is less likely to blunder or make a mistake with 20 minutes to think vs. 2 minutes to think and is also less likely to play a sound queen sacrifice because he or she didn't have enough time to calculate the consequences of it, I can't help you. Stop trying to argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4. You're embarrassing yourself
Why would I care to elaborate on your foolish answer to your own question? That was your answer - not mine. But feel free to keep digging in the hole you're in. Maybe someone will come along with a rope to pull you out once you've exhausted yourself:)
Chess players are more prone to make mistakes in blitz. It's why lower-rated GMs can beat super GMs. I'm not claiming that holds for every single game but it's simply logical - if someone has 10 seconds to move in an endgame, are they likely to play the best move? If his/her opponent also has 10 seconds, the refutation of a less-than-ideal move may go unnoticed. How do you think Alexandra Kosteniuk managed to beat Carlsen, Anand and Polgar at blitz when her rating was 300 to 400 points lower?
To the later post: Obviously both sides get the same amount of time in blitz - that just means the likelihood for blunders, mistakes or whatever you want to call them increases for both sides, resulting in a higher likelihood of total blunders for each player.
"Lack of time for analysis is irrelevant regarding level of complexity" - I have no idea what you mean here. Are you saying it's irrelevant because each side has a lack of time? If so, that makes sense vis a vis the outcome of the game but not the quality of the chess.
Yes, it was a metaphor.
My use of the words "foolish" and "arrogant" were in response to your posing a question and then providing the answer in a rather snotty fashion. Wasn't calling *you* foolish or arrogant, but instead was calling your behavior foolish and arrogant *in that instance.*
My objection to bullet/blitz is only if it becomes the norm for Interzonals and WCC and if it decreases the number of available amateur tournaments with classical time controls. I couldn't care less if people play blitz/bullet as long as it doesn't replace or reduce the number of games with a classical time control
Bullet and Blitz are all about pattern recognition. Some people recognise them faster than others. I suck at "normal" chess, but I have beaten a grand-master in bullet. To say it's not "real" chess is just witness to a limited, opinioated and most of all SLOW mind
Fail.