Blitz Chess is the only real Chess

What's the point of playing if you spend a long time thinking? If you have to think in order to make good plays, that means you aren't truly good. You gotta know what the best plays are, when you don't know you should rely on instinct. That's why Firouzja is the best player of all(as he is showing in Tata Steel).

Chess is a thinking game and a long run type of game and not like your life decision you been doing right now. People who thinks he's good in chess just because he's good in blitz is not a good chess player. A good chess player knows how to play every time control like Magnus Carlsen.

Nah. It sounds like an excuse. You know that in order to improve you should focus on slow chess.

"... thinking correctly in most positions takes time. Playing almost exclusively fast games obviously precludes practicing correctly, and so you will never get very good! Sure, fast games are fine for practicing openings (not the most important part of the game for most players) and possibly developing decent board vision and tactical 'shots', but the kind of thinking it takes to plan, evaluate, play long endgames, and find deep combinations is just not possible in quick chess. … for serious improvement ... consistently play many slow games to practice good thinking habits. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

"... Most internet players think that 30 5 is slow, but that is unlikely slow enough to play 'real' chess. You need a game slow enough so that for most of the game you have time to consider all your candidate moves as well as your opponent’s possible replies that at least include his checks, captures, and serious threats, to make sure you can meet all of them. For the average OTB player G/90 is about the fastest, which might be roughly 60 10 online, where there is some delay. But there is no absolute; some people think faster than others and others can play real chess faster because of experience. Many internet players are reluctant to play slower than 30 5 so you might have to settle for that as a 'slow' game." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627010008/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman12.pdf

@breakingbad12 Very true.

How much time you need depends on your skill.

Pro Rubik cubers can figure out in 10 seconds while beginners takes more than 10 hours.

A pro Lead guitarist can play 10 strokes correctly in 1 second while a beginner might take 10 seconds to figure out every single cords.

In chess some positions require time for both human and engines but approx 80-90% of positions in chess doesnt require time to calculate accurately. Even a few seconds is enough to figure out  the correct play by using memorized  patterns in chess. What does this mean? A top human can play with more than 90% accuracy in even 3 min blitz.

For human, of course.

Take out 3 min blitz games of top 10 human players vs 3 hour classical games of 1200-1500 rated human.

I will says 3 mins of their blitz will be more accurate than 3 hour play of beginners.

Note.. Dont count the moves when  blitz players hit < 10 seconds.

When people say, chess need more time, it is almost always by 1200-1500 rated beginners opinions.

The difference is that a top classical player can excel at blitz with practice (see:  Carlsen).  A top blitz player that has never played classical cannot excel there without unlearning a bunch of bad habits. Even a practiced classical player that plays primarily blitz and bullet starts to have trouble in classical (see:  Nakamura).

if Leonard De Vinci was painting in a blitz, he would be an unknown guy

You need to see the same patterns as many times as you can in order to become good, the best way to do so is by playing blitz.

An alternative is doing tactical puzzles. Doing 1000 easy tactical puzzles a day is better than doing 10 hard ones, it's the same idea.

That's the easy, lazy and wrong way to practice chess.

There's no wrong way to play chess, but there are wrong ways to PRACTICE chess

In my understanding, 

2000 3 min blitz 》》1000 rated 3 h Classical

15000  3 min 》》》》 500 rated 3 h Classical.

If you improve by +150 to +200  elo, you are as strong as 2x time control of lower rated player.

Not only the pros,  even 2000 or 1500 can play blitz vs classical TC against 1000 lower rated than their ratings.( 1 vs 30 or 1 vs 40 simulations)

I'm new to this website. I'm just wondering what "blitz" chess is?

I understand.  I will have to try a game of each and see how it works. Thanks for your answer WeakLava.

https://support.chess.com/article/445-how-do-the-time-controls-work-in-live-chess

Studying a lot is good. Playing a lot is good. Practing a lot is good. Thinking in the middle of the game is not good. You should make moves, not think.

Live Chess has three different ratings based on different time controls:

• Bullet rating - For games under 3 minutes.
• Blitz rating - For games of 3 minutes to 10 minutes.
• Rapid rating - For games 11 minutes and longer.

I like blitz but I agree that for begginer you should play slow matches

I disagree.  I think CC is the most real chess.  I mean classical CC without computer assistance.

Chess is a series of moves made in an abstract space of possibilities, where the task is to find the best move or most correct move.  The closer one gets to the ideal over the course of a game, the better the game is played and the stronger the player.  In that case, CC should better facilitate a higher quality game if one gives significant time to analysis.  Now here is the question:  Is instinctive pattern recognition ultimately subordinate to the highest quality analysis?  I say it is because the best or strongest analytical ability subsumes tactical ability, calculation, and combination.  Simply put, a blitz game played by two players at any rating level generally will not be equal in quality to a serious CC game played by those same two players.  This means that CC is, in that sense, the more perfect form of the game.