Btw, I understand the sentiment that blitz chess is closer to tnmt OTB chess than correspondence chess is.
I strongly disagree with that point. Yes, there is the fact that you have to play a whole extra game when you use a clock, but nevertheless the fact that you can actually think for reaonable amounts of time in cc makes me connect that to OTB more than I could say for blitz.
"Blitz has improved my play far, far more than long games ever would have."
How do you know? I'm sure it improved your blitz, but...
I think I'm probably an exception to the idea that all time controls are well correlated, because the way I play is just much more effective in long time controls. I'm a perfectionist, trying to see every little positional and tactical subtlety (and that's why unclear positions can piss me off, cause I won't be able to 
), and it doesn't always work well in blitz. That said, I ironically got somewhat better at blitz by still taking time to plan like I would in a long game, just cutting it short as opposed to moving purely on instinct (that's for bullet only). If there is 0 increment, it is true I may end up a minute behind or so, but I will be in that position likely with a clear plan and an advantage, assuming the other guy played less purposeful moves for the sake of speed. Nevertheless, the perfectionist method works markedly better the further you go up in time.
Bullet is not chess. I repeat bullet is not chess. Its about speed. The faster you are, the more you win. Please check out this blog http://dengmei.blogspot.com for your kind information.
A small factor would result in rating inflation. For example, when I was using a good laptop with good internet connection, my rating was above 2200 on average. But when I use someone's computer, its average is a little above 2000. See how it influences my play by mouse, connection etc. Also, in a day losing/gaining more than 200 pts is possible ie in a fine day my rating would be too high.
A bullet is more about enjoyment. Serious young chess players should avoid it. Winning a lot of bullet chess against real GMs didn't make me happy cos its bullet which means rating is not worth it either.
Just compare your OTB rating and bullet rating and you will find out that bullet rating is higher by minimum 200 pts.
Blitz is a great way to get better fast!
Forget about the ranking. Blitz is a great way to get better fast!
I reckon they all have advantages:
Bullet - Learn patterns by recognition. Good for learning strategy and seeing both your oppenent's and your own attacks/weaknesses. Fun too, and easy to find time for.
Blitz - similar, but you can't pull the time trick here so your moves must be slightly more considered.
To be good at these you need good basic fundamentals - the popular openings and some idea of positional play. These are also very good for obtaining a solid chess mindset.
Standard - Allows for much more calculation, but maintains some time pressure. I'd say this is less useful than the others, but is required to see how your practice translates to OTB play. I'd also try out Chess960 in this time - enough time to analyse very unfamiliar positions, but not too much - so more time pressure.
CC - Helps improve your understanding of positions. I've not played any myself, but this will allow you to improve you appreciation of what you are trying to achieve - sort of like bullet but instead of speed it emphasises depth.
Obviously different levels of player and types of people will benefit from each differently, but the above is my take on each variant and their advantages.
If you play only bullet and blitz you can't improve in tactics and strategy, because you can't analyze well the position. You must also play long chess.
I was wondering is bullet/blitz chess on the computer shows your true actual rating, or how good you are. I mean i often make mistakes in blitz chess due to time shortages that i often dont make in a regular game. So does blitz/bullet chess show your true rating or does it show how good a player is with the mouse?
A lot of blitz skill comes from instincts that have been developed from chess play. It has little to do with your skill with a mouse unless you are playing 0 increment blitz, and I have no idea what kind of person would do such a thing.
A lot of blitz skill comes from instincts that have been developed from chess play. It has little to do with your skill with a mouse unless you are playing 0 increment blitz, and I have no idea what kind of person would do such a thing.
I play bullet 1|0 normally...
For the fastest speeds I think 0 increment is sensible, but for Standard games I'd say 0 increment is a bad idea.
As for everyone who says blitz is bad - I was stuck at ~1300 on Standard. I switched to bullet, my rating fell to 700, and I've got it up to over 1500. I'd wager that I'm much better at all the other forms of chess now (excluding perhaps correspondance).
For someone seeking to improve positional play, blitz/bullet is very helpful as that's the only way to play.
when i loose in blitz i play bullet, and vice versa. both my ratings are almost same.
but i m afraid to play standard too often because a loss is staggering.
Nonetheless, all my rating are at the same level, so i think it does show your true rating unless ur not playing longer games at all.
subtleties like pawn structure half open files or activity of pieces don't matter squat in blitz but can mean the result in otb as well as correspondence chess.
subtleties like pawn structure half open files or activity of pieces don't matter squat in blitz but can mean the result in otb as well as correspondence chess.
You have obviously not seen Karpov play Blitz if you claim that pawn structure doesn't matter and piece activity is probably even more important in blitz than with longer time controls.
It's a logical argument in many ways to say that positional factors, since they influence tactics, are important to blitz. Yet I have lost too many times where I have developed good plans, maybe lasting for a long time, but just had some sort of "prosaic" oversight after dozens of moves of hard work -- I get the suspicion that the above argument is a little specious.
I would say if the positional advantage is large, then its force in affecting the course of the game, even a blitz game, is considerable, as the side with the advantage simply doesn't have to worry about as many threats and such. Yet that little "oh white has a small but nagging edge and will torture black for many moves to come" -- I just feel like it doesn't have so much value in blitz. That sort of little edge is small enough that both sides still have room to make oversights; it's the kind of edge you can only utilize with precise play, something that probably won't happen in blitz.
So I think the positional advantage has to be very pronounced and have noticeable effects on the ease with which the inferior side can make moves without allowing threats to be executed. I don't think it's very hard to, in the course of a game, maneuver for 10 moves, develop a subtle advantage, and have it all amount to nothing after a more crude oversight later -- it can be hard to maintain such an edge in long chess, let alone in blitz.
i believe blitz/bullet is more accurrate than correspondence; at least here in this site chess.com
whether you admit it or not, people cheat in correspondence; that's a fact.
Avoid blitz, play longer games. Blitz/bullets don't improve your rating unless you analyse them. I'd stick with cooresponce games.
Playing blitz will improve your otb play much more then correspondence will.
? I think you're in a minority with this opinion. I know I disagree. My impression is the correspondence is generally considered pretty good training for OTB and blitz is considered irrelevant at best... this agrees with my own personal experience as well.
We have different ratings for different reasons, as addressed in previous posts in this forum- and each rating is for it's own specific category. Every type of chess (bullet, blitz, and standard) differ from each other in terms of what they require for a high rating (bullet- fast mouse, very strong intuition; blitz- great tactical eye, solid positional knowledge, and the ability to anticipate and make premoves; standard- the ability to analytically handle several continuations, strong positional and tactical knowledge and a significant amount of patience). However I disagree that blitz is irrelevant to your otb rating. In fact, there has been a distinct correlation shown in 2 studies conducted that your blitz rating here is about 200 points lower than your otb rating- and this data set had numerous data points. This is likely based in the fact that bullet has a bit two much deviation from regular chess (way too quick) and standard allows for cheaters (via the use of computer engines). Blitz is quick enough to proportionally measure skill, whilst still avoiding any "challenging" aspects (in terms of computing a correct rating) when compared to all other forms of chess on this site.
Interesting discussion. As someone who typically lacks time, Blitz is a great way to gain knowledge and skills in a short of amount of time as possible. My brother has a 1200 rating in Blitz but 1700 in 15 minutes games. I personally do not know, because I never have the long timed games, but a I think a good Blitz player can get good at Blitz and reap the benefits of experiene with longer game as well.
For example, counting moves in end game in Blitz, you have seconds to do and finally flex and make a decision in a very short period of time. With the luxury of time, I think a Blitz mind could be over-stimulated that could get them much better, but maybe stint them for highly highly complex positions (i.e. complex position for 1700-1800+ games). But then again, the brain has muscle memory, so if the Blitz player sees that position several times, then that in itself requires less thought/analysis.
Avoid blitz, play longer games. Blitz/bullets don't improve your rating unless you analyse them. I'd stick with cooresponce games.
Playing blitz will improve your otb play much more then correspondence will.
"Several OTB grandmasters have used postal games, especially in their teenage years, to improve their analytical skills and opening knowledge and to deepen their general understanding of chess. When I interviewed Boris Spassky in Dublin in 1991, I asked him what advice he would offer to a young player wanting to improve. 'Play correspondence chess!' Spassky immediately replied."
From "Winning at Correspondence Chess" by Tim Harding
Also from that book, "'It is only half a game,' once wrote C.H.O'D. Alexander, one of Britain's leading post-war masters who took up CC towards the end of his life, claiming: "It does not make anything like the demands on character, willpower, nervous stamina that OTB does."
I think that is a fair and true critique of CC, though I'm not sure I agree that makes it 'half a game'
All of this however is in reference to pre-computer assisted CC. (Chess.com CC most
of the time) Computer assisted chess is a separate topic imho.
Blitz (against an evenly matched opponent) is tons and tons of funs! Addictive even. It probably doesn't do much for your slow-chess game but who cares.
I think a blitz rating is indicative of how well you play blitz. Kray-Z!