For anyone who enjoys blitz chess: I'll never understand you.

I think most chess players will beat the same people at blitz as they beat OTB, will lose to the same people, will make the same good moves and blunders and make the same bad moves.

Do you want to grind over the board for an hour plus for the same outcome or play 8-10 games in that period?

Very few of us are so elite at our games that our quality of play is that much better at 30 min or more per side.

You don't have to be "elite" to play much better at longer games. I play way better in a 30 minute game than a 3 minute game.

Seems we were separated at birth. Hello brother.

To borrow Jack Nicholson's line in As Good As It Gets, but in a different context, "Think of a chess player, then take away reason and accountability." That's speed chess, and particularly bullet. I'm waiting for A-Bomb chess, which is the entire game in 15 seconds. The board goes up in flames and disintegrates like the buildings in those old A-bomb test videos from the late 1940s and early 1950s. Ought to be a real crowd pleaser.

But seriously, I can excuse speed chess as pure recreation, but not to decide some Classical Chess championship. Dan Heisman, the award winning trainer, believes it has some practical benefit in trying out a variety of openings in a short period of time, and is also good for developing board vision (versus visualization and tactical vision: see Mr. Heisman's instructive video here). You're not going get strategic gems coming out of speed chess. However, like you, I don't really enjoy it and have never played it at Chess.com.

Bullet is another matter. Obviously the quick hand is more important than the thoughtful eye in Bullet. From my perspective, it appeals to adrenaline junkies and trivializes the game, but the fact the Armageddon (i.e. 5 minutes for White, 3 minutes and draw odds for Black) is used to determine important championships shows official chess organizations have institutionalized the trivial. Blame them, not the Bullet player for where things have gone.

"But seriously, I can excuse speed chess as pure recreation, but not to decide some Classical Chess championship."

I'm with you Bob.   If the WC match is tied after so many games, then the champion retains the title.  That was how they did it before.  

Agreed.  Deciding a world championship on speed chess is like deciding the super bowl with a sprinting contest.

I like the comparison, FishEyedFools, but even better is deciding the Super Bowl by a kneeling contest  (ho ho).

Gamificast, I understand your point. In blitz or fast game is difficult to play whole good game. But you can divide your goals on parts and fulfil only that partyaly goals in blitz- and not react on time at all. Looose by flag? Don't bother about it.

Play 4 out of 5 minute in your style or by your goals ( study opening, work on calculation, work on ending or somthing else-prophylactical thinking for example...) and on last 1 minute play blitz. It will looses by time in most games but you will work on your skills/ Blitz can be positif  and useful even you every game lost on time

You do know what Botvinnik thought of Blitz, don't you, XAJIK?

Most people don't have time to play 10 minute+ games. 

<bowing> Thank You Sir!

Blitz, bullet, etc. all have a place in chess.  I dont think anyone would argue that.  But deciding the championship on it is wrong.  I even prefer the old days of when Portisch beat Spassky on the spin of a roulette wheel. or when a match was decided on who had black more.  

Thats pretty much what i use it for.  During lunch, and to kill time.  

Perhaps that's true for a lot of people nowadays, PaullHutchh, or perhaps that's just an excuse; perhaps it's both.

You can see from my Chess.com profile or reading my Amazon review of Edward Lasker's Chess for Fun & Chess for Blood that even at the age of eight I was attracted to the game for its aesthetic qualities. I have no doubt I would have passed on chess if the inaesthetic sloppiness of Blitz and Bullet was the first thing I was exposed to.

It seems to me chess, like many other activities, has followed the dictates of today's popular culture and gone from the intellectually aesthetic to the kinesthetic.

I play long games too. Yet Blitz has some advatages:
- if you are going to lose you don't have to suffer for a long time  
- and you can still apply some tricks (which usually won't work in a long game)

I know that some people hate it, but there is no necessity to play it if you don't want it.
I have met people who play 3 0 (without increment) who complain when they lose on time. They could play 5 5 for example.

Amazing.  I'd lay money these folks don't take responsibility for their own actions outside of chess either.

Blitz chess is the best mode

It's what you make of it. Gets the heart beating a bit faster and helps kill ten minutes. I enjoy 5 minute blitz. Does it make me a better player? Not sure. Chess is a game, after all. Have fun.

Blitz chess is for fun. You cant expect to play at your best with 5 minutes. When I play blitz I know the possibility of hanging the whole game when I have a winning advantage in one move is there, and it has actually happened. If you get mad because of a blunder at chess or find it frustrating you just have a different mindset. Anyways it looks like this thread will turn into a childish discussion in around 10 hours so I better leave.

Right! Most normal people win some, lose some. Just love the damn game.

It is possible to be much more aggressive in blitz and sacrifice pieces without worrying too much. During longer games the tenor of the game is usually much different since any risky play is often punished. In blitz calculation is still important and being able to see tactics quickly can decide a game; however, calculating all the time is impossible so it is necessary to have an intuitive sense for when tactics are present and calculation is necessary.