FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
Another one in terms of quality, the blitz games of GM are better than the long games of ordinary players(just check with Houdini). But blitz is not a serious chess, you will find the true beauty of chess in longer time control, and if a player wants to improve, he/should play games on longer time control.
Playing blitz is good to check your ability to pick quality candidate moves quickly. I'm 54 and I don't think as fast as I used to, therefore I play much slower games. Tal and Fischer were said to be the greatest blitz players of that era. I've heard that Fischer said "blitz destroys the creative spirit" or something to that effect. I believe its good to play 5/0 or 10/0 once in a while.
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?
Not everyone can play one game for hours/days/weeks/months/vacations...
Ask the best online bullet player ever Nakamura about that , he told bullet is not chess in his bullet book. And he has a point, where in chess do you find not grabbing a queen for material advantage is a brilliant move, yes only in bullet, as Nakamura show in the book. I agree with Nakamura, bullet is not chess.
Please explain the logic of such short games where tactical supereority doesn't matter. In my humble opinion, such games just make ur game worse. New should strictly be advised not to play short games.
I agree with your sentiments (most of which I didn't repeat here) BUT I don't think it really matters what you and I think here. People play blitz chess because that's what they want to do. They don't want to play longer TLs that require more effort and time. Some chessplayers are like lots of non-chessplayers, in that they want instant gratification (donchanknow).
And BTW where did you come up with the idea that tactical superiority "doesn't matter" in short games? Playing the same fast (or super-fast) TL over and over again probably does result in improvement for many players - at that TL at least. BUT it also encourages fast and sloppy thinking at much slower TLs IMHO.
I'm a terrible blitz player ( some would say I'm terrible - period! But ego won't let me go THAT far!) But blitz still has a place in my chess life. Reasons?
(1) fun and relaxation; (2) strange as it sounds, to help get over a spell of sloppy, superficial, blundering play at slower TLs - by playing blitz games with blunderchecking and "playing discipline" as the only objective; (3) to get a feel for new opening lines.
By the way, I think time increments are a godsend for us blitz "slowpokes." For me there's a world of difference between plain ol' 5-minute and 5 minute with a 2-second increment.
Fun and logic are inversely proportional to the square of time (1,3,5 etc)
Goal of chess: checkmate your opponent.
Goal of bullet: get your opponent to time out.
So, why is it that the best chess players also tend to be the best bullet players?
Naka's point about bullet chess is that it's different from standard chess. But it's still chess.
Nakamura and Caruana are not the top of the bullet checkers rating lists.
You also have to ask why someone such as Caruana plays 1-minute and 3-minute chess almost exclusively here. Occasionally, he may play a really long game: 5-minute chess. Obviously, he not only sees fast chess as fun, but he also sees a use for it. Otherwise someone with realistic aspirations of playing for the world championship wouldn't waste his time playing so many games!
They've pretty much ended the discussion on whether blitz and bullet is chess by their actions more than their words. They've also answered, along with Carlsen and the other young guns, whether they think blitz and bullet chess are inherently bad for their game.
Aristotle was right, moderation in all things. It's possible to overdo blitz and bullet, but as long as they are also working on their long game, playing chess is playing chess. And it has obviously helped Caruana, Naka, and even Carlsen!
Supporting @SmyslovFan's argument above --
In a nutshell, if you can't play Game in 1/5, or at least Game in 3/5, then you simply can't play chess.
"Old age" is the only legitimate excuse for not being able (or willing) to play at relatively high speeds.
Anyone who can "play chess," can certainly learn to play Game in 3/5 with just a little PRACTICE.
Your effective playing strength at higher speeds might be 200-300 points lower, but SO WHAT.
Logic ain't got nothing to do with it. Knowledge and physical reflexes are all it takes. That's why "old age folks" get a pass, although many of them still don't need it.
I suck at Game in 3/0 (or faster) but give me a 5 second bonus, and I'm as happy as a clam. It's simple, and provides the best of both worlds.
What's not to like? Learn it, Do it. End of Story.
'Bullet Chess is not Chess'-wtf?It is most definitely chess.It is just a form of chess where time plays a greater role than in classical chess.
I like the 10 minute Blitz game - couldn't imaging having fun at 1, 3 or 5 minutes. I like to be able to take a whole 60 seconds sometimes to think about a single move.
Actually, I think the best time management in 5 min blitz does include thinking for a whole minute when the critical move occur. And I use the same kind of time management for 30|10 tournaments, ie spend 10 min on a move if I feel it needs so.
Sure, sometimes you have to rush through the endgame, and every time you have to play the obvious moves without checking twice.
I couldn't imagine playing seriously a shorter time control than 5|0 though. The percentage of wins by timeouts would be a good indicator of how serious a time control is, and I suspect it drops around the 5 or 10 min mark.
I think that any game with a time control less than 60 m isn't "real" chess.
I'm ok with 15/10 tournaments. Moderate time to think per game and it takes about 3 hours to finish the tournament.
5 rounds tournaments it is then ? I don't like those - one loss and you're out of the race...
Yes, 5 rounds but like yesterday, I lost the first game and won 4 but I came first. I think it depends on your tie score. Thanks!
bullet chess doesn't look pretty, pieces flying around pieces.
only played on a computer chess looks pretty if it is bullet and everyone can play it as neat and correctly.
otb 1 minutes games is something very few can do correctly. if you search on youtube on bullet chess you will see what I mean. pieces fly around. players knocks over pieces and wrongfully complete their time and correct the piece after that. At the end of bullet games even grandmaster start to mess around on the board due to less than 11 seconds time left.the strange thing is in all the games I have seen the arbiter doesn't interfere.
Actually the goal of bullet is to checkmate (or outplay) your opponent before the clock runs out.