Does blitz variants improve or destroy your standard chess match?

The big question that always has controversial opinions.. Does playing blitz, lightning, etc ruin or help your standard chess games?  Personally I think 1 0 lightning has to be one of the most ridiculous chess variants ever invented

I think it have to be treated with carefulness.

If the player is begginer or midle level player, should avoid it, Becouse when win the game maybe think he is playing good, and in that kind of chess it is very often to find no so brigth ideas and games, so when try to play the same ideas against someone who is thinking the moves, things can be very different.

In the other end, if a player want to become profecional this is a must skill to be able to play in this way. becouse in tournaments maybe is runing out of time and needs to be able to play fast and good enougth.

So in my opinion a player should avoid this if want to enjoy the thinking of the game, if want to be profecional then should first become a strong and solid player and only then practice the fast games in controled shortining of time, like first games with time control 15 minutes each, then 10 then 5 then 3 and finaly 1.

This game seccions should become with the company of other more proper chess to compensate. Like tactics, openings, or 1 hour games. Also after the game the player should try to play it back by memory, on the board, be able to recreate the moves of the whole game, if is not able then shorter moves, like the game ends on the move 30 at 5 minutes control time, kinda rule. Do not Study this bullet games, do not use them for study, analisys nor make any display of them as example of your game. Asume they are so full of mistakes it is no wortly the time to spend analicing them.

If the player gets a rush for fast moving, then play some ping-pong instead of chess.

That is my opinion.

Blitz and bullet are a lot of pattern recognition.  There's no time to make a careful calculation or challenge your initial evaluation.  So if you play more speed chess than anything you're practicing this mindset and method of play.  When that method starts to carry over to your long games your skill and improvement is stunted.

My $0.02

Personally I think bullet chess is worthless - worse, it is detrimental -to your standard chess. Now I have played quite a lot of bullet (too much I admit), the sole reason being that it's nevertheless fun. But it encourages impulsive behavior, lack of calculation, relying on intuition and just playing FAST, not WELL. Blitz chess might be a good way to try new openings, but bullet... no. I lose most of my bullet games on time, often with a clear advantage on the board, and it's sometimes a bit frustrating how lousy play is sufficient to win a bullet game. I'm just slow, and that's why my bullet rating hovers well below my other ratings.

Note that I'm not saying there's something wrong with playing bullet in general, but if your aim is to improve in standard chess, my advice would be to keep bullet at a minimum.   

I think playing *any* form of chess is better than not playing at all. Blitz probably does nothing for strategical skills, but I'd say it has its value as far as tactics are concerned.

If you have played lots of blitz and then play a long game, you just have to remind yourself that this is not a blitz game, take your time and really try to find the best moves instead of blitzing out the first ones that come to mind.

Yes, too much chess based on speed, hurts my "real" chess playing, which is based on a more careful analysis of positions. 

This is gr8.  thx 4 all your responses!

bullet is worthless. why does anyone need to spot a probably dubious combination in a second or two?

I would no go so far to say bullet is worthless. There are some situations where it is usefull. As in some tournament where the player is running out of time. Or as in a simultaneus exibition where 1 player is agains 50 boards and so need to move fast to avoid having the event extend over couple of hours.

So the skill of finding good enougth moves in short time is at some level valuable. Beside this unusual situations bullet does nothing to actually improve chess level on a player, and it is very posible that instead hurt the players game.

 For me playing blitz and regular chess are two different things, I even think differently. Bullet is the other thing completely, where I just look for hanging pieces. If you are not obsessed with playing blitz and bullet hundreds games per day, I say it won't hurn your regular chess. It becomes a problem when all you do is bullet or blitz, and your regular chess play associates with blitz and bullet. 

Bullet is near worthless (playing for time/flagging at higher levels) while blitz has several merits mentioned above.

1) Pattern recognition for tactics

2) Allows you to test your openings or new ideas that you want to try that would otherwise be risky in tournament play without experience

3) Can be useful in tournament play when low on time, as you have experience making decisions under time pressure

Of course, it's not very good for long term strategy and endgame calculations (which can be complex) but overall I think it does some good.

Clearly, rapid and "spectacular" chess never helps us, beginners, to improve.

I think it is funny that some people are talking about how blitz and bullet are "worthless" because they don't transfer over to other types of play. This type of claim is funny because people who make it forget what chess is: a game. Bullet chess is just as much of a game as "real" touranament chess. And chess is a competitive game. What is the point of bullet chess? To be better than other players at that time restraint. Who cares if the skills you need to be a good bullet player are not the same skills as to play other forms of chess. Maybe the good bullet player wants to be able to say "I can think faster than you. My mind is swift and my intuition is sharp. I wish to battle my fast intuition against other intuitions." Why is the battle of intuition not just as legitimate as a form of competition than the battle of calculation in long-form chess? If people want to compete over who can play the fastest, this is just as legitimate as a game as any other kind of chess. This is why it's silly to say playing blitz is "worthless". Maybe someone just wants to be good at blitz and doesn't care about other time variants? What's wrong with wanting to be the best blitz player? The "worth" of any given activity is relative to your goals. Chess is just a game. If your favorite stlye of competitive game play is to test your quick intuition, then you don't need to justify yourself to anyone. 

blitz helps u in a real tournament game in generally seeing tactics quicker so as to save time and helping u in time trouble when ur clock runs low on time

Well orestestmantra the main reason bullet is considered "worthless" by many is that in the end it leaves so much more room for luck rather than your true chess ability. Secondly the style of play is concerned heavily on how you can waste your opponents time more than playing good moves. I mean sure it's just another variation of a "game" but in general when we do things we want to try to make the best out of what we do which really is not permitted in bullet. In the end really no matter the time constraint the overall chess is still chess and your understanding of the game itself is neither improved nor really utilized as well in bullet. I'm not saying it can't be fun and I have no problem with people playing it but if it doesn't allow for the full potential of the game it's nothing more than just a part of it that does not need to be taken seriously as chess itself. 

As for blitz I think it's useful mostly for the chess experience but should not be overplayed. After a while you can get into a sort of over aggressive mindset with a more general mentality of hoping your opponent makes a mistake rather than you making a good move. But otherwise you can get play experience in time constraint, tactics, openings, and general position.