How to improve Blitz?

In the last 2 years I went from 1800 fide to 2050 but my Blitz rating went up only 100 points! I am playing few Blitz but that can`t be the reason!? Teahers say one can improve Blitz by training, but they also say anyone can become a 2400 fide player. I think these teachers don`t know what they are talking about? I see some kids with the same fide rating like me has 400 points more than I in Blitz. So good in Blitz means simply faster not better? Just like ability to play blindfold is just memory.(quoted Kasparov).

I thought it might make sense to look at your games to help answer your question, but I see a whole lot of time-outs. Any reason why? 

Typically, the better you get at slow chess, the better your blitz rating gets as  as your stored mental database of patterns (augmented by tons of slow + serious games) become a lethal arsenal under short time controls. 

FIDE 2050 is a federation rating.  I did not know FIDE had something called a blitz rating? Could you clarify? Or were you comparing a FIDE rating to an online blitz rating? 

There is a saying, long games test what you know, blitz games test how well you know it. In a blitz game, you don't have a lot of time to think about a move, so you have to decide based on instinct. If you're running out of time it may be because you need to get used to playing with only a little bit of time on your clock.

Blitz is less-respected than normal chess and it only helps you in situations where you need to play quickly. So, unless you like playing blitz, don't worry about it.

Less respected? I've never heard this before and I don't agree.

I don't like Blitz at all personally and I'm a terrible Blitz player, but there is no reason to respect it less.

I've always looked at Blitz as simply a different form of chess. The time crunch makes it a totally different game to me. Blitz is to standard time control chess as hockey is to soccer. The object is the same, but the pace is very different.

Just one man's opinion, I guess... But I don't think Blitz is less respected than slow chess.

Not sure why an argument sprung up over whether blitz is less respected or not.

Of course it is.

Look at the purses for classical tournaments vs blitz ones.

When you think of the highest-rated players in the world, are you thinking of their classical ratings, or their blitz ones?

When you think of world chess champions, and world chess championships, are you thinking of blitz?

I don't think there's anything inherently superior about one form of a game over another.  But that's got nothing to do with respect as it plays out in the real world.  In the world we live in, chess at classical time controls is clearly and demonstrably "more respected" than blitz, and the case is so open and shut as to be pointless to discuss.

I do, however, agree with the standpoint: "who cares?"  I'll not be gathering up prize money in either, so I'll just play what I have more fun with.

lol morons of course blitz is less respected are you kidding me?

Why are hoards of people (fans and players) mad at current candidates match?  Not enough classical games and no one wants it to be decided on quick or blitz games.

How many world blitz champions can you name in order?  Ok now how many classical world chess champions?

How many top blitz tournaments are held each year (much easier for organizers so should be popular right?)  I guess not because how many top classical tournaments are held each year?

Kasparov never even attended the amber stuff (blindfold and rapid event).

How about national blitz rating?  Oh there is none, just "rapid" or "quick" which is also hour long games.

Bottom line tell someone your online blitz rating of xxxx, and they get a vague idea of how good you might be.  Tell someone your national (or FIDE) rating or xxxx and it's immediately more respectable.

In blitz you can play good moves (lets say first player is at a rating level of X) but if you're somewhat slow you'll lose.  That's not a big deal because that's true for classical games as well.  The point is in blitz someone may have a strength of rating level X - 300  and beat the first player with crappy moves just because the moves were played much faster.

Now if you want to know which format is more respected for speed... yeah it's blitz.  Which format is more respected for ability of the player... it's always been long time controls (hours per game).

Sure, an important part of your arsenal like a strong opening.  Some players are also respected for their knowledge on the Najdorf, or like you don't play the KID against Kramnik.  But we don't think "Kramnik is strong in the KID but Anand is WC" it's not even a comparison.

And the blitz is only forced onto the players when the organizers can't drum up the money (maybe because they believe in aliens and are nuts?)

For the record, guys, I play mostly blitz. But I don't have to pretend that it has the same prestige as classical games in order to feel good about myself.

As I say, if you enjoy it, play it. If you don't enjoy and you're not good at it, nobody is going to give a damn if you don't play (unless you're Kramnik).

Huh? No. It doesn't...

Whether or not people can answer questions about the history of each kind of chess has nothing at all to do with respect. That has to do with knowledge. If you are trying to make the argument that the level of knowledge about a subject and the level of respect for that subject go hand in hand, then I think your argument is flawed.

Worth mentioning that the best blitz players in the world happen to be the best slow game players in the world.

As fanciful as one might think that a non-titled Player X on Online Server Y is rated 4000+ and is virtually unstoppable, he will have his a## handed to him by anyone in the top tier levels in the world ... including Grischuk, Gelfand (now why these two as examples?) or any other player one might not normally associate with blitz chess greatness.

I used to think I was a demon at blitz chess.  One night this one 2100 rated player at my club suggested some blitz... I knew he didn't stand a chance... he was a very slow and thoughtful player and even in G/20 or G/30 I would get him down on the clock and in 4 years I'd never seen him move quickly.

But holy **** he destroyed me in those 5 minute games... it wasn't even close and he never took more than a few seconds for a move.

The point is Gelfand vs unknown blitz dude is going to know roughly 1000 opening "do not play this move" moves and the exact follow up to punish it when it happens.  I'm not talking drop a knight traps, I'm talking the difference between 7...d6 and 8...d6 and how to work that extra half pawn worth of advantage.

This isn't even taking into account any GMs incredible tactical vision... watch some bullet ICC games sometime when they play a KID or Najdorf... I hardly notice there's a tactic at all before a 7 move tactic with 3 intermezzos and a zugzwang comes from nowhere. 

And their defense?!  One player forks the king and queen and you're thinking it's all over, but when the dust clears somehow they manged to sac a queen and two pawns for a rook and three minors?!  And you're thinking what the hell is going on I thought it was over but I'm not even sure who is winning.

To say some unknown bullet player has perfected the game without being good at long play means you misunderstand bullet play all together.

Look at the top bullet ICC players... they're titled.  For those that don't know ICC has very tough blitz players, the rating pool isn't even comparable to chess.com.

Now can we return to the poor lad's question? Or are there egos still wounded by my cruel heartless blow?

Like Ivandh said - long chess is what you know about chess and Blitz how well you know it. Blitz is nothing more than the speed of recall of information from your memory. There are 1800 fide rated players who have 300 more rating than me in online Blitz and my fide is 2185 and I am an aggressive player. Those 1800`s who are good in Blitz play like shit. They don`t care about strong moves, they don`t care about good moves they just care about making a move that is playable. I call it idiot-mentality.In Blitz as long as position is not totaly lost, whethere you stand better or worst does not matter in Blitz. What matters is the speed with which you can lead the game. If it`s slower than opponent`s you lose due to time.

Umm... I win in bullet all the time by playing fast in a losing position.  I also win in drawn positions with pre-moves often enough... it's just part of the game when you play 1 or 2 minute chess.  So I don't know what you mean uhohspaghettio... of course the faster player wins.

Or I'm winning and so my opponent does some crazy sacrifice to put pressure on my king... sure it's BS, but because it takes 4-5 moves to prove it's BS they gain precious seconds on the clock.  Stuff like that.  It's hard to believe an experienced bullet player wouldn't use these tricks himself.

lol, or to put it another way, how many bullet games have you angled for an endgame advantage due to pawn structure (or similar) where you'd definitely have the advantage, but it would take 50-60 moves to prove it.  No one plays bullet like this, it's always about thing like initiative, time saving tactics, and complications.

Silly Fezzik, real chess is for long time controls :)

Didn't this guy claim that he could beat Carlsen at blitz?