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

I see that you don't like mutual blunders because the result becomes a matter of luck. But if you do the RAR, you can turn the luck factor in your favor! Would you like to be able to win games even if you didn't play good moves? Join the RAR movement to learn how!

Let me tell you one VERY IMPORTANT thing here:

A good chess player must play good bullet, good super blitz, blitz, good rapid and good classical.

If you are a good chess player , then it shouldn't be a problem.

I find what most folks write about Bullet and Blitz, except for players at the highest Grandmaster level, knee-slappingly funny.  Even at the highest levels the game often turns into a blur of hands and a cascade of sloppy mistakes with a letdown that is an intellectual form of a one-night stand.  The endgames that develop out of blitz are particularly ugly, with a grossness that is the diametric opposite of an aesthetically pleasing endgame study.

I can understand the instructive value of blitz as trainer Dan Heisman uses it, but as fun?  It's like playing slop-it-in-the-pocket pool rather than call shot.  How can you take pride in that?

I admit I'm a dyed in the wool curmudgeon and find most of the younger generation's idea of fun mere flotsam and jetsam of a shallow, 21st century popular culture.  So sue me; you have five minutes in which to do so.

but blitz isn't really slop it in the pocket, there's a lot of skill. why does everything have to be an aesthetically pleasing endgame study? 

Yes. I know what Botvinnik said about blitz.  But he played himself  secret blitz matches And he was professional chess player and have time to pkay long training matches too.

I've always had a difficult time playing chess games in 10 minutes or less. For me a good time is when each player has 45 minutes on their clock. I would like to know if really good players, (1700 plus) get anything out of blitz/bullet/speed chess, (I don't even know the difference between these three Or, do players play fast merely for fun?

And where are the games of these secret blitz matches?  Oh, that's right, they were secret.  If true -- you didn't provide any proof -- he had to keep them secret or look like a hypocrite.

Apparently you blitzed out your response because you failed to spell several words correctly.  Ahhhhh, but such is the nature of things when you don't slow down enough to check for mistakes.

There is a skill to everything, but a truncated one in blitz considering the long and storied history of the game.  Now blindfold chess is a skill everyone can appreciate, and a blindfold blitz simul against three opponents is quite remarkable.  Now that's talent!  Watch it here.

 I checked the last four games I played and I had a total of 2 blunders according to the computer. I misremembered an opening and played badly in my 1 loss but played reasonably accurately in all of the other games. If you find inaccurate play in blitz humorous then you should also let everyone that is about 1600 and below over the board know that you think their games are hilarious as well since their quality of play in a long game is likely worse than mine in 3 minutes.

Can you understand those who prefer to run 100m and not marathon? Two different sport activities. Two different games.

I'm also one who plays awful in Blitz and strong with an hour or more of clock.

But I have to admit that Blitz is an exciting form of chess.

When I was the USCF Tournament Director for my county's OTB Swiss-system chess tournaments, we had 30 min. regular-rated games, but we had unrated playoffs for trophies (best under 1200, etc.) using 5-min Blitz games to decide them.  They were clearly the most exciting to watch because there were no quiet periods during the games.

Why would you appreciate blindfold chess? It is incongruous with your previous train of logic. It is also a needlessly handicapped form of chess where blunders abound at lower levels. Blitz chess emphasizes quicker tactical awareness and intuition while blindfold chess emphasizes visualization during the calculation process to a higher degree.

Cause chess hipsters are a thing.

Maybe you ought to be a more careful reader, Mr. Rao.  I wrote "I find what most folks write about Bullet and Blitz, except for players at the highest Grandmaster level, knee-slappingly funny."  I didn't say I find Blitz funny, I find what people write about it funny, sort of like your post.

At least you're one of the few posters who can put up a decent argument for blitz.  As I said in previous posts, speed chess is good for honing one's board vision, and by extension, one's tactical vision.  Yes, intuition is involved if you are talking about pattern recognition that has been inculcated and is now intuitive.  Of course, that's sort of playing by rote, isn't it?

Yes, I realize that pattern recognition is part of every form of chess and blindfold is no exception, but visualization and, to certain extent, strategic evaluation, is a vital part of blindfold.  That's why I said blitz is a truncated form of chess; these qualities are grossly attenuated if not completely absent.

Say what?  Hipster?  You don't know the meaning of the word.  You obviously didn't read my original post but only the mashup by pretzel2.  Go back and read it; I was making a comparison between two extremes.

Sometimes I wonder how chess players who jump to conclusions can play chess well since they aren't going by the evidence if front of them, failing to interpret what they see (or in this case read or didn't read) correctly.

I don't know how you define strategic evaluation but it plays a very large role in blitz as well. Without adequate time to calculate concrete lines prior to ever move, determining what to do is often done primarily by a strategic evaluation of a position. The differences between blitz and classical chess arise from the lack of calculation. From my experience when I first began playing chess, I would also guess that individuals at the lower end of the rating scale don't have the ability to visualize and calculate with much accuracy for very many moves so giving them 1 hour instead of 10-15 minutes might not result in that much of a difference in playing strength.

How much did you pay to have someone give you their 7 years old account?