Can somebody explains what is the logic behind 1 min, 3 min or 5 min. games?

  • #61
    HotBoxRes wrote:
    Zinsch wrote:
    Likhit1 wrote:
    jambyvedar wrote:
    madvilain wrote:

    mindless fun

    Nope blitz is not mindless fun, if it's mindless fun, then club players should have achieved very high blitz  rating long time ago.

    Now bullet and blitz are different. Bullet is not chess. 

    Not Chess?What is it then,Football?

    Goal of chess: checkmate your opponent.

    Goal of bullet: get your opponent to time out.

    Actually the goal of bullet is to checkmate (or outplay) your opponent before the clock runs out.

    Not all the time, as I told Nakamura the best online bullet player ever, thinks bullet is not chess.

  • #62

    Chess at any time control is played for the same reason,  fun. As long as both time controls are the same, there is no unfair advantage.

    Not learning anything? I would disagree. There are some people who know how to do one minute chess. And some who do not. (Guilty!) There must skill involved of some form.

    I do agree that it is a bit silly to go on forums, and analyze these quick games. But not to play them.

  • #63
    jambyvedar wrote:

    Not all the time, as I told Nakamura the best online bullet player ever, thinks bullet is not chess.

    It's chess until the pushing starts. The final few seconds of pushing don't negate the first 55 seconds of chess.

  • #64

    Well I will take the opinion of Nakamura than yours, and many GM thinks bullet is crap.

  • #65

    Have you watched Naka play? The guy's a pusher when he needs to be, and he'd be the first to admit it. He'll happily try to flag even when he's getting stomped.

    There are other GM's who would rather play good moves and time out than push with crap moves. So for them, it's chess. For Naka, it may not be.

  • #66

    Blitz and normal chess are different games. They are obviously related but require different skill sets. Someone who is good at one may not be (relatively) as good in the other. It is rare that someone will have identical ratings across all time controls.

    An analogy would be running short and long distances. Marathon runners often are fairly slow when running sprints. Similarly, very fast sprinters may not be able to even finish a marathon.

    Notably, Nakamura is better at blitz than many GMs rated higher than him in standard chess.

    BTW, in my view, OTB chess is very different from online chess. I find that I "see" the board more clearly on a physical chess set than a computer screen, whereas I have heard some (mostly younger) players say the opposite. Also it physically takes me longer to select a piece with a mouse and then move it by clicking than moving a physical chess piece and punching the clock.

  • #67

    It is interesting that players who mainly play online chess feel than 15 and 30 minute games are "slow" games. Standard games in USCF are 2 hours for the first 40 moves and 1 hour for the remainder. Often there is also a 5 second delay per move in addition. I have played many USCF tournament games that lasted close to 5 hours, and I have watched games that went over 6 hours. I would argue that these games are very different from the 1 minute bullet games played on chess.com.

    LongIslandMark wrote:

    Serious question: I've been advised to play "longer games". I now play 10 minute Blitz. Next longer might be 15/5. On average, how long does a 15/5 game actually take in real time?

  • #68
    HotBoxRes wrote

    There are other GM's who would rather play good moves and time out than push with crap moves. So for them, it's chess. For Naka, it may not be.

    That's becuase there no big money involve. I am sure if there is a big money involve these GM will play crap moves just to win by time. You will never see big time bullet otb tournaments, because bullet is crap.

    If a player wants to really win in bullet, if necessary he/she will play crap moves.

  • #69
    pt22064 wrote:

    Blitz and normal chess are different games. 

    And blitz and bullet are also different.

  • #70

    Because it is EXTREME CHESS! All the cool kids are doing it!

    I don't see the point of speed chess either, which is why I rarely play chess online. It is too hard to find someone who wants to play with reasonable time controls (I think 10/10 or similar is fine). If I don't have time to think about moves until I'm satisfied I've come up with the best move (within the limits of my ability), then neither a loss nor a win means anything to me. 

    My real preference is playing on an actual board with an opponent sitting across the table, and no time controls at all, which is how chess has most commonly been played for as long as it has existed.

  • #71
    MaximRecoil wrote:

    Because it is EXTREME CHESS! All the cool kids are doing it!

    I don't see the point of speed chess either, which is why I rarely play chess online. It is too hard to find someone who wants to play with reasonable time controls (I think 10/10 or similar is fine). If I don't have time to think about moves until I'm satisfied I've come up with the best move (within the limits of my ability), then neither a loss nor a win means anything to me. 

    My real preference is playing on an actual board with an opponent sitting across the table, and no time controls at all, which is how chess has most commonly been played for as long as it has existed.

    except, for, you know, all tournaments, all games played OTB over around 1000 USCF (except casual, but even those get long and boring without agreed time controls), and every game that counts for something. 

  • #72
    falcogrine wrote:
    MaximRecoil wrote:

    Because it is EXTREME CHESS! All the cool kids are doing it!

    I don't see the point of speed chess either, which is why I rarely play chess online. It is too hard to find someone who wants to play with reasonable time controls (I think 10/10 or similar is fine). If I don't have time to think about moves until I'm satisfied I've come up with the best move (within the limits of my ability), then neither a loss nor a win means anything to me. 

    My real preference is playing on an actual board with an opponent sitting across the table, and no time controls at all, which is how chess has most commonly been played for as long as it has existed.

    except, for, you know, all tournaments, all games played OTB over around 1000 USCF (except casual, but even those get long and boring without agreed time controls), and every game that counts for something. 

    Yes, which is why I used the term "most commonly" as opposed to "always". Informal games played at home or school or wherever are far more common than games played in tournaments, especially when you take the entire history of the game into account.

    I've never played with time controls except on a computer (I don't have a chess clock, and neither does anyone I know), nor has anyone I've ever played against in person ever even suggested time controls. I've never run into a problem with games taking too long. Most of them end up taking 20-30 minutes.

    People who play in tournaments may be the norm on this forum, but among the general population, they are rare.

  • #73

    Personally, I don't have the time for anything over a couple minutes anymore. Except, sometimes I will spend days at a tournament with a big time control. I respect your love of casual chess, but still believe that, especially on chess.com, internet chess (timed) has grown or overtaken casual chess. Also, any competitive game, such as at an event, or for a prize, has to be timed. It's amazing how many variants of chess there are. Casual, blitz, Long, Standard, etc.

  • #74

    its fun. relax fruity

  • #75

    yeah, I should try to stay away from the forums and just focus on chess. Too late now, though.

  • #76

    My one pet peeve with chess is playing without clocks. If you are playing chess to win, which I hope you are, then you  should take more time. However, as there is no limit, you could take indefinitely long. And taking long would be rude to your friend who you play with. Also, I like to know concretely how much time I have.

  • #77

    Sometimes, between friends, a single game will last several years, with months passing between moves. (they each keep the game on a board at their own homes).

    Deep thinks.

  • #78

    VERY deep thinks.

  • #79

    In bullet,blitz,super blitz and lightning games,u can have fun with a quick or maybe a couple of chess games when there is no time for a 30min,and also because many people dont like to wait for their opponent to move for so much time.Furthermore,if you haven't tried it ,try it...there is so much adrenaline behind it,cause you try to play a lot of good moves as fast as possible and you try to make 0 errors at them ,in otherwords you try to play well while thinking of the time,plus you can try many new openings and traps and see how they work out at every level or every time control.Blitz and in fast-time-control games in general(especially with no time addings after every move)you play with your instict and you quickly try to see what is the best plan to survive the battle.That is why, in my opinion,blitz and fast games are so exciting. 

  • #80

    While playing blitz is fun,  not mindless and require skills to play, the true beauty and art of chess lies on longer time control than blitz. I have seen many new players here complaining that ther are not improving at chess, if you will look at their games they only play blitz. To improve a beginner should not play blitz.

or Join

Online Now