x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

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

  • #81
    SeniorPatzer wrote:

    "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.  

    I think allowing speed games to determine the world championship is an abomination.  Yeah, in the past if the match was tied after 24 games, the champion would retain the title and the challenger would get a rematch the next year.  That was better than the current tie-break system.  However, especially considering that nowadays the match is only 12 games (classical), I think it would be much better to add two games if the match is tied after 12 and then two more if it's still tied after 14, etc.

  • #82

    'If God Master woud have a brain he would play blitz chess!'

    it is out of the purpose of the game but it can be done! though the normal games must be long to be chess or mind games the final must not be longer than 15 minutes!

  • #83
    FBloggs wrote:
    SeniorPatzer wrote:

    "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.  

    I think allowing speed games to determine the world championship is an abomination.  Yeah, in the past if the match was tied after 24 games, the champion would retain the title and the challenger would get a rematch the next year.  That was better than the current tie-break system.  However, especially considering that nowadays the match is only 12 games (classical), I think it would be much better to add two games if the match is tied after 12 and then two more if it's still tied after 14, etc.

    The WCC has been on a path toward trivialization for years due to FIDE President Ilyumzhinov and various monied interests. Fischer wanted 10 outright wins for his rematch in 1975; take a look at his letter to FIDE in 1974:

    The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match. If the score is nine wins to nine wins, draws not counting, the champion retains title and the match is declared drawn with the money split equally. Versus the old system of the best of 24 games wins the match (12.5 points) and if 12-12 the match is drawn with the champion retaining the title and prize fund is split equally. Draws do count in this system.

    The unlimited match favors the better player. This is the most important point, because in the limited game system the match outcome can turn on a very low number of wins, giving the weaker player a chance to "luck out." Also, in the limited game system the player who takes a game or two lead has an advantage out of all proportion. This creates an added element of chance. The player who wins the match should be the player who plays best over the long run, not the player who jumps off to an early lead.

    Unfortunately, FIDE soured on even six outright wins after the aborted Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984.  When Ilyumzhinov took over as FIDE President he took it the opposite direction with "knockout tournaments of short matches."  Anyone remember Alexander Khalifman, WCC Champ in 1999, except as a writer?  People were still following Kasparov's "Classical" Chess cycle.

    Frankly, I don't know how many formats Ilyumzhinov has proposed over the years, but I have no doubt the sponsors like the shorter 12 game match with Rapid, then Blitz and eventually Armageddon if the draws keep on coming.  They look at it as a sports match, and indeed that's what it has become.

    As Mr. Rao has pointed out, shorter time controls favor the more intuitive player rather than the deeper thinker, but Magnus Carlsen has proven to the world he is both.  We can be thankful for that, at least.

     

  • #84
    fightingbob wrote:
    FBloggs wrote:
    SeniorPatzer wrote:

    "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.  

    I think allowing speed games to determine the world championship is an abomination.  Yeah, in the past if the match was tied after 24 games, the champion would retain the title and the challenger would get a rematch the next year.  That was better than the current tie-break system.  However, especially considering that nowadays the match is only 12 games (classical), I think it would be much better to add two games if the match is tied after 12 and then two more if it's still tied after 14, etc.

     

    The WCC has been on a path toward trivialization for years due to FIDE President Ilyumzhinov and various monied interests. Fischer wanted 10 outright wins for his rematch in 1975; take a look at his letter to FIDE in 1974:

    The first player to win ten games, draws not counting, with unlimited number of games wins the match. If the score is nine wins to nine wins, draws not counting, the champion retains title and the match is declared drawn with the money split equally. Versus the old system of the best of 24 games wins the match (12.5 points) and if 12-12 the match is drawn with the champion retaining the title and prize fund is split equally. Draws do count in this system.

    The unlimited match favors the better player. This is the most important point, because in the limited game system the match outcome can turn on a very low number of wins, giving the weaker player a chance to "luck out." Also, in the limited game system the player who takes a game or two lead has an advantage out of all proportion. This creates an added element of chance. The player who wins the match should be the player who plays best over the long run, not the player who jumps off to an early lead.

    Unfortunately, FIDE soured on even six outright wins after the aborted Karpov-Kasparov match in 1984.  When Ilyumzhinov took over as FIDE President he took it other direction with "knockout tournaments of short matches."  Anyone remember Alexander Khalifman, WCC Champ in 1999, except as a writer?  People were still following Kasparov's "Classical" Chess cycle.

    Frankly, I don't know how many formats Ilyumzhinov has proposed over the years, but I have no doubt the sponsors like the shorter 12 game match with Rapid, then Blitz and eventually Armageddon if the draws keep on coming.  They look at it as a sports match, and indeed that's what it has become.

    As Mr. Rao has pointed out, shorter time controls favor the more intuitive player rather than the deeper thinker, but Magnus Carlsen has proven to the world he is both.  We can be thankful for that, at least.

     

    I think Karpov was right when he said a world championship match to 10 wins was enough chess for a life time.  My opinion...The format of the first to 6 wins was the most beneficial.

  • #85
    #77

    I don't intend to spend my time here insulting people, I simply want to discuss the topic at hand. Would you like to discuss that? If so, why not check my other comment rather then trying to undermine me? If not, why are you in this thread? You are literally proving my point by ignoring my topics of discussion and throwing bad shots at me. Seriously. If I was here to engage in this I'd go to off topic.

    I didn't think a chess discussion was too much to ask. But obviously it was for some people, unless you would like to get back on topic?
  • #86
    VicountVonJames wrote:
    #77

    I don't intend to spend my time here insulting people, I simply want to discuss the topic at hand. Would you like to discuss that? If so, why not check my other comment rather then trying to undermine me? If not, why are you in this thread? You are literally proving my point by ignoring my topics of discussion and throwing bad shots at me. Seriously. If I was here to engage in this I'd go to off topic.

    I didn't think a chess discussion was too much to ask. But obviously it was for some people, unless you would like to get back on topic?

    You wrote in Post #54 "It [speed chess] dosen't (sic) take away the asthetics (sic) of chess- that is absolutely ridiculous in my opinion" and I wrote in Post #39 "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." (see kinesthetic learning)

    So, what's to discuss? Never the twain shall meet.  I'm not saying there isn't a separate aesthetic, an unusual beauty, to movement as in ballet or gymnastics, but that's not the primary aesthetic of chess, which lies with the conception and not the physical execution.

    Due respect was given to Mr. Rao, and I concede his points on blitz, but read Post #80 because that's all I have to say on the matter.

  • #87
    VicountVonJames wrote:
    Id be similar.

    I don't have time for potentially hour long games, but some short ones? Fine!

     

    An hour long chess game doesn't even qualify as classical. Basically - chess isn't for you if you can't stand a 2-5 hour game. You enjoy slapping the pieces around, playing a speed variant of chess. Not chess itself.

     

    Blitz players are typically young and immature. They don't take the game seriously so they play an extremely casual variant of chess that FIDE and the national associations don't even award any titles or acknowledgment whatsoever for.

  • #88
    CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
    ...

    Blitz players are typically young and immature. They don't take the game seriously so they play an extremely casual variant of chess that FIDE and the national associations don't even award any titles or acknowledgment whatsoever for.

     

    There is a world Blitz and Rapid Championship: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=28&view=category

     

    I hate blitz but play it on occasion grin.png

    ...well, I hate losing in blitz to very stupid blunders and flag falls.

  • #89

    Give me the classic 40/2 and im fine.

  • #90
    Martin_Stahl wrote:
    CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
    ...

    Blitz players are typically young and immature. They don't take the game seriously so they play an extremely casual variant of chess that FIDE and the national associations don't even award any titles or acknowledgment whatsoever for.

     

    There is a world Blitz and Rapid Championship: http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=28&view=category

     

    I hate blitz but play it on occasion

    ...well, I hate losing in blitz to very stupid blunders and flag falls.

     

    In all reality, I play quite a bit of blitz. I also play a lot of rapid and classical. Blitz certainly has it's place, but those who are constantly fantasizing about it replacing classical chess as the prime format for competitive chess are only going to continue to be disappointed. Classical is King.

  • #91
    Ashvapathi wrote:

    Blitz is how chess is supposed to be played normally. I can understand people wanting to play long format chess once in a while. But, it is not something for everyday use. Who has the time or patience to play slow games regularly? Maybe rapid games can be played once or twice a week. And truth be told, it's not even fun(compared to blitz) to play them regularly. Maybe old people prefer slow games... which is understandable. But even old people will play rapid. No  one plays classical time control when given a choice. As for championships, they should just abandon classical format and shift to some kind of rapid format(like 30 min + 15 sec increment). With a 15 sec increment, flagging would become pretty difficult. An avg game would take about 80 min to 120 min. And thus, it would be viewer friendly. Classical format(3 - 5 hrs) is just not viewer friendly. And therefore chess is forced to depend on donations and charity. Slow chess should die a fast death to save chess.

     

    Outstanding troll post, Greg Shahade. 10/10.

  • #92
    CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
    Ashvapathi wrote:

    Blitz is how chess is supposed to be played normally. I can understand people wanting to play long format chess once in a while. But, it is not something for everyday use. Who has the time or patience to play slow games regularly? Maybe rapid games can be played once or twice a week. And truth be told, it's not even fun(compared to blitz) to play them regularly. Maybe old people prefer slow games... which is understandable. But even old people will play rapid. No  one plays classical time control when given a choice. As for championships, they should just abandon classical format and shift to some kind of rapid format(like 30 min + 15 sec increment). With a 15 sec increment, flagging would become pretty difficult. An avg game would take about 80 min to 120 min. And thus, it would be viewer friendly. Classical format(3 - 5 hrs) is just not viewer friendly. And therefore chess is forced to depend on donations and charity. Slow chess should die a fast death to save chess.

     

    Outstanding troll post, Greg Shahade. 10/10.

    Well I'll be damned, CoffeeAnd420, I thought the same thing and didn't say it.  I found Shahade's original article on "Slow chess should die a fast death" to be shallow in the extreme.

  • #93

    Slow chess is a test of long-term calculation and strategy. Blitz is a test of intuition and spur of the moment improvising.

  • #94
    kinglysack wrote:

    Slow chess is a test of long-term calculation and strategy. Blitz is a test of intuition and spur of the moment improvising.

    That's already been said or implied in previous posts.

  • #95

    5 minute blitz games are perfect for familiarizing yourself with openings.

    Slow games have cons as well:

    -cannot fit as many into one session (i.e if your practicing an opening)

    -may lose focus because game is going on too long

    -most people online don't want to play super long games (e.g. g/45 d10) and even this is very fast compared to OTB

    -Chess is about having fun, If you are not having fun, you shouldn't be playing, I often find blitz games very fun and long games kind of tedious (opponent can stall for a while)

    Pros of blitz:

    -fun

    -practice openings

    -learn how to deal with time trouble

    -develop intuition

    -not very serious or stressful

    -can fit a lot into one session

    there are some bad things about blitz as well but it can be treated as a tool for learning and for improving ur chess.

     

     

  • #96

    If you're going to play blitz at least use an increment. 3+2, 5+3, and 5+5 are great time controls for working on tactics and seeing a high number of decent quality endgames. 3/0 and 5/0, below the 2300+ level, is a circus. It changes the game to something that really doesn't resemble chess much at all.

  • #97
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #98
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #99
    FishEyedFools wrote:

     I think Karpov was right when he said a world championship match to 10 wins was enough chess for a life time.  My opinion...The format of the first to 6 wins was the most beneficial.

    I don't like that one either because as you all know, it can result in some very long matches.  I think the 24 game match was just right except that it allowed the champion to retain his title if the match was drawn.  That required a rematch the following year.  As I said above, I think it would be better to play two additional games and if the match was still tied, two more, etc.  That would make the match longer of course but it would eliminate the need for a rematch and it's doubtful that it would extend the match to 40 or 50-something games.

Top

Online Now