FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Theres not much hope for people who think 1 minute chess and G/2 hours is the same . The rules governing the 2 also differ , they are not the same . The former is much more about speed than the latter , which is much more about actual skill . The stronger titled players prefer blitz/bullet because many of them think its more difficult to cheat at these time controls , most of them also probably dont have the time ( or want to invest it ) to play slow games online .
I think titled players have advantage because many of them had or have a coach. Let's take Danny Rensch. He had very good coaches. It's different for those who started playing like a hobby with only books.
Speaking about blitz/bullet/classical games. I'm still puzzled about their time control. I think in otb it's like this: bullet - 1 min, blitz - 5 min or 3+1(2?), classical - 2 hours for the first 40 moves, 1 hour for next 30 moves and 30 minutes for the rest. Nowdays classical games tend to have increment as well but why? And i don't understand time control in the internet. Here blitz is from 2 till 10 minutes. In other places 10 minutes can be considered as classical. For me 10 - 15 minutes are rapid. And i don't think 2 minute game can be called blitz, it's more close to bullet.
For FIDE Blitz: any fixed time of 10 minutes or less, or the base time + increment*60 is 10 minutes or less. USCF rules (mentioning since this is a US site) is essenitally the same but the fastest ratable time control here is 5 minutes (base time + incremenet/delay, so 3+2 is = 5) up to and inclusive of 10 minutes.
For FIDE Rapid: fixed time greater than 10 minutes and less than 60 minutes. With increment, base + inc*60 greater than 10 or less than 60. USCF is anything greater than 10 and less than 30 is Quick (USCF's term for Rapid) and anything 31 up to 65 is actually Quick and Regular rated.
From: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article under Appendix A and B
The FIDE standard time control is: "90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one." From: https://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=39&view=category
They're certainly not the same, but they are still both chess in the same way that a marathon and a 100m race are both running. They require different skills but en-passant is still en-passant, castling is the same, a knight moves the same, checkmate is still defined the same, etc, etc.
That call for different muscles and strategies. Those good in one are rarely good in the other, although anyone world class in one can beat patzers in the other.
Generally, if you're a GM in standard, you will play GM strength in blitz and bullet. I don't see anyone saying that standard and blitz are the same. But, blitz is a far better predictor of real (standard time, over the board) chess skill than correspondence chess.
The top 100 GMs in the world are also the top 100 in the world in blitz, with maybe two exceptions. And even those exceptions are barely outside the top 100.
Class is class. In that respect, blitz, bullet and standard chess are all very similar while correspondence chess is not quite the same. Take a look at the work of JCButler and others on this site to see how closely blitz correlates to standard chess.
Obviously different time controls require different strategies. That doesn't suddenly make one chess and another "not chess" though. A player who knows how the pieces move in one knows how they move in the other, they just have to adapt to the strategies needed for the different time controls.
Personally my ratings are pretty much similar at all time controls, neither especially good nor bad. I don't regard bullet as a good indicator of chess ability alone, but someone who can't play longer chess can't play bullet chess either.
I am playing blitz as part of my training regime. I like the easy wins, and hate losing on time in a good position.I like the short time it takes to get a result. Different games - different ratings.
Hmm. Indeed. There are alot of rationales of why or why isn't blitz/bullet isn't real chess. As well as for Correspondence (which I'm a big fan of)
Again (dunno if I'd mentioned this in a post)
People playing Online Chess are literally facing an army of opponents at one time. All of them armed or in their reach, resources that often can beat GMs. But if not for players with integrity and honest ta goodness skill Correspondence often prove without a doubt that might does not make right. That this is a human game with falliables with twists & turns
Which sadly isn't often shown in Bullet/Blitz chess.
Mostly ego and who has the quicker clicker. Alot of trash talk before, during and after the game.
Mostly because they'd seen your Online rating pregame and wanted to stick it to you if your rating Online was higher than theirs
I like Blitz OTB rather than on websites. Its very real but even then OTB Blitz players aren't as discriminate with Correspondence players as with websites simply because even they know how hard it is to play Postal chess.
But for some reason...Chess.com Bullet/Blitz players totally hate on Online players because its somehow equal to Cheating. Heh
1. They believe that all Online players are posers & use engines.
2. They realize they can't swindle vs an alert player even lower rated than them.
3. Too lazy ta study. Even basic nuances of Opening play-Rudiamentary Endgames.
4. Its just fun to just play people when they're tired of beating them by hitting the Challenge button again n again. Calling them sissies or poor winners if they dont accept.
5. Heh. Having a ridiculously high Blitz/Bullet rating means you're not a cheater and therefore better than anyone with a lower rating.
That your rating in Bullet/Blitz represents "true" skill, ability.
For me I prefer to play the player true strength not some games data base or opening manuel, where he or she can look up opening line and play like a grandmaster, or refer to endgame books and data base endgame: In correspondence games that is the problem, it is not cheating but is it real chess? If I going to play corespondence games again it will be only 960 chess, there is no opening manuel to refer to or grandmasters game to get middlegame ideas,and I will be playing a player true strength. Blitz and bullet is probably the nearest to otb chess, but some players play for speed and not quality chess move and try to beat a player on how quick they can move the mouse; this is not good for chess improvement and can hurt you in the long run.
I'm not really sure how many people use end game data bases and grandmaster games to play online correspondance chess. I guess some do, but I certainly can't be bothered putting that much time and effort into a game of online chess against some arbitrary opponent. I never even look up an opening, let alone anything more complex!
I lost 200+ points in bullet chess over a bad days, but that's ok I guess since I am bout to play in a 7 day tournament starting saturday. Guys, some like to play fast controls, and some like only to play slow. I play both. Live with it. Instead of spending hours of discussing this we could play chess, or study, or whatever. There is more exciting things to discuss if you still want to discuss something.
For me I prefer to play the player true strength not some games data base or opening manuel, where he or she can look up opening line and play like a grandmaster, or refer to endgame books and data base endgame: In correspondence games that is the problem, it is not cheating but it is real chess. If going to play corespondence games again it will be only 960 chess, there is no opening manuel to refer to or grandmasters game to get middlegame ideas,and I will be playing a player true strength. Blitz and bullet is probably the nearest to otb chess, but some players play for speed and not quality chess move and try to beat a player on how quick they can move the mouse; this is not good for chess improvement and can hurt you in the long run.
Yes, it is real chess. Maybe the realist chess available.
However, there's not much opportunity for research on endings. Tablebases are against the rules.
Even without tablebases, there are plenty of excellent endgame encylopedias and books.
Yes. And I have no qualms about using them despite it being a gray area. However, in more than 1000 correspondence games since the 1970s, the vast majority in the past eight years, I may have consulted Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual once for a game in progress. I have used the analysis board extensively in maybe half a dozen endings. In the past few months I remember a simp,e pawn race that looked superficially like a loss for me, but was in fact a technical draw. I used the analysis board every move to confirm that my king could get across the board fast enough to hold the draw.
I more or less took five years out of otb play, just playing enough county games to maintain my grade (rating) at about 1950. I've just come back to otb chess this season and I've found that I'm sharper than I was and my otb analysis is probably far better, after just playing a few chess.com tournaments at 3 day chess. In my second game after the layoff I beat a 2000+ without trying too hard and I think the reason for that is that the 3-day game strengthens the habit of analysing everything. At my rating, the number of online cheats is extremely minimal. They do occur and it's possible to recognise them and then you find, a few months later, that they've been removed by chess.com, so I think their cheat recognition algorithms aren't that bad. Actually there's an obvious method to tell if someone's cheating but I'm not going to say what it is. We should be able to work it out. Incidentally, I found far, far more cheats at 5 minute chess than at 3-day chess, which is why I use 10 minutes and not five as my Blitz standard. For those complaining that their rating is lower here than elsewhere, it's well known that 1800 here is stronger in general than 1800 elsewhere.