Not so much the pressure itself... I agree that can't be simulated. I was thinking the mindset. What you value and how you look for it. With a big enough increment though, it doesn't really matter, and the goal should be to avoid those situations in the first place.
In my opinion the best practice for tournament play is to play in tournaments.
I guess I think the truth is there is a limited amount of things we can really do in time pressure (as much as we'd like to think otherwise!). I think that once you learn the general principles of, for example, just making a move rather than losing on time, looking for simple solutions if you're winning, look for lines that increase pressure in mutual time pressure, basically stuff we all learn really early on, there isn't much else to learn. There will come certain points where you have to choose between losing on time, or playing a move you know is lost. Some time pressure problems just can't be solved no matter how much practice you have for it. And remember the only real way to play good moves fast is to first learn how to play good moves slowly and develop pattern recognition.
Focus is important though. If you're more focused that will help in time pressure. But focus is not really blitz or standard specific.
Maybe you're right and I'm romanticizing it.
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
It's true, because it is hard or impossible to use an engine
For me, as an older player, quick thinking is the first to go. Heh. My memory capacity is reasonably "fine"...though it's definitely not to par 10yrs ago.
Positions I play nowadays vs strong opponents certainly take me longer to calculate than it used to take me. Guess that's why blitz/bullet aren't really for me, although I did enjoy Live games before connection issues got too much (and annoying).
Anyways, I still believe ratings are just indicative of one's strengths. Not substance in forums or of one's overall abilities in this site.
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
It's true, because it is hard or impossible to use an engine
Nonsense.
- Live crap rating is skewed by random "disconnetions" (i.e. chess.com's live server failures).
- It is possible (and quite common) to cheat using bot.
If achieved honestly, turn-based rating is much more valuable.
A complete chessplayer is good at all timecontrols.
And someone who has an understanding of the game IS good at all timecontrols.
So stop making excuses one way or the other. 
I'm complete. I'm bad at all time controls.
Live standard is the only serious time control. You have enough time to make a plan and play good quality moves but not so much time that you can analyze a position extensively and take 3 days to make a move. Having a high correspondence rating doesn't mean much and I've also seen good blitz players who, when it comes down to slow chess, are much weaker.
I'm tired of people bragging about having '' high '' correspondence chess ratings, yet see thier blitz rating be a measily 1200. Having a 1800+ bullet/blitz rating is more respectable than being a 2000 in Correspondence chess
I'm rating 1850 uscf rating in chess, and my bullet/blitz rating accurately describes it. Correspondence chess is extremely unrealistically long, what tournament in the world will you have more than 2 weeks for a game? If your good at chess, the moves will come to you quick, you dont need 24 hours to analyze.
and it's so easy to cheat in correspodence chess every once in a while, you can look at a chess engince for a couple of moves & it will go unnoticed. But you dont have time to fool around with blitz/bullet.
It's true, because it is hard or impossible to use an engine
Nonsense.
- Live crap rating is skewed by random "disconnetions" (i.e. chess.com's live server failures).
- It is possible (and quite common) to cheat using bot.
If achieved honestly, turn-based rating is much more valuable.
How?
I have plenty of online games going on at any given time, I have spells playing a bunch of bullet games when I'm in the mood for quickfire lots of games and during lunch times at work or sometimes at home I play 10, 5 or 3 minute blitz chess. All forms have plenty of value, but I take my rating in each of them with a pinch of salt.
Cheating on the internet is possible in any time control above bullet and clearly bullet rating is not an accurate measure of chess ability.
I rarely play "standard" time control because I don't generally want to commit 30-60 minutes to a single game, rather if I'm playing chess I like to fit in many bullet or blitz games or plough through waiting moves in my online games.
You can cheat in 3/0? What about 1/0?
It's true, because it is hard or impossible to use an engine
Nonsense.
- It is possible (and quite common) to cheat using bot.
How?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jATffyCre8c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7-5mrU-xj4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwOskkPnS0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW1vMXHJdnM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5osrRuz4tvM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0AX-XSCLIk
it is hard or impossible to use an engine
Nonsense.
- It is possible (and quite common) to cheat using bot.
How?
I thought you were trolling...
You can use a bot to play even 1 minute games for you since 10 years ago.
Elubas wrote:
Yeah I used to say blitz was a good sort of diagnosis of what is wrong in your game. But even that I'm not so sure about anymore, because again what you get wrong in blitz may be incredibly different from what you get wrong in standard. In standard you have enough time to slow down, philosophize a bit about the goals, and gradually problem solve. In blitz it's more like you have to pick the most relevant intuitive thought that comes to your head in a short amount of time. While intuition does reflect knowledge, it's subject to all sorts of randomness. With standard you know your decision won't be a sudden whimsical thought that looks good for 5 seconds, because afterwards you'll relax a bit. In blitz, you sort of just have to play that move, or else you'll fall too far behind on the clock. In blitz, you're missing out on that problem solving process that is such a big determining factor in standard. (With exception to maybe a minute-long think or two if you can find time, and even that of course is not a very long think)
In other words blitz still won't tell you much about whether this "problem solving process" is good or bad because you're not really doing it. There are many mistakes I make in blitz that I have virtually zero chance of making in standard because once I have my little "position analysis ritual" I'm fully focused on the important details of the position. Once again what happens in blitz can be misleading in regards to what it means for your play in general.
Elubas wrote:
The point of classical chess by the way is not to play perfect chess, but to really get engaged with the struggle. Yeah, two hours is long enough to look for schemes and such -- no one said that means look at every single possible move every time. In any case it's certainly not going to emphasize reflexes or something. If of course you manage your time poorly, you have to deal with the consequences, but when you get into time pressure in that sort of time control you can never say you didn't see it coming -- you had plenty of time to plan out your usage of time.
Well stated and very acccurate in comparing blitz to standard chess.
A lot blitz game are poor quality, base on impulse and cheap tricks instead of accuarte assessment of a position and proper analyzing a position.
It all evens out as for as your opponents go. If you take it seriously and play regularly then you can compare yourself to others on the same site.
And things like your chesscube being much higher... well of course, everyone's chesscube is higher.
"To me, trying to say one rating matters more than another is just foolish. It's all about how seriously you and your opponents take a certain type of game in a certain place."
This is certainly a big thing. Truth be told, as about a 1700 blitz player at the moment, I could probably get to 1900-2000 in blitz after maybe a few weeks of really hard work specifically directed towards blitz (including opening choice). I don't know this for sure of course; I just know that shaping the knowledge you have in the right way can improve your results drastically, especially if you do it a lot. The same, to a lesser extent, applies to standard as well, although not in the same way since you have to make different kinds of adjustments.
But I would never want to resign myself to doing the work and getting the 1900-2000 blitz rating, just so that I could see a nice large number and worship myself because of it. I just want to increase understanding and apply that to tournament chess because I think that's more satisfying in the end. Spending too much time building up the blitz rating means less time that can be spent on general chess study.
+1 @ elubas.
Also too much blitz, IMO, hurts your ability to analyze... that is, if you play blitz enough to start really getting used to it and increasing your rating.
If you did both blitz and tournaments often enough, it probably doesn't matter and you'd be good at both of them. But as Elubas said that takes a lot more time.
Personally online blitz is not a good gage in showing a players strength or any online games, correspondence games. A real test to a player's true strength is rated over the board games, not online blitz or correspondence.
My friend who is an expert is highest rating is 2017 uscf and highest quick rating is 1906 uscf. Is Current otb rating 2017 uscf and current quick rating 1843 uscf but is online chess.com is 2400 bullet. His otb winning persentage is 55.4 %.
I am an expert and my highest otb rating was 2110 uscf and my highest quick rating 2029 uscf. Mine current rating is 2011 uscf and mine quick rating is 1958 uscf. My otb winning percentage is 71.3 %, I know how to win against strong experts and masters and below my rating.
Who cares about some blitz online rating. some players boost like it is some great accomplishment.
Online chess is only for fun and doesn't mean anything in terms in accomplishment any significant; come on correspondence grandmaster, I have more respect for uscf master.
We shouldnt forget that blitz can also be very good as a tournament preparation, guys. What I mean is that you can try out all your prepared opening lines in so many different games and against so many different types of opponents that you might really find the weak points in your preparation. It might help you to build up a more solid and complete opening repertoire.