While many people will argue that you still need lots of chess skill to play good blitz (which you do), it certainly streamlines the game. The standard of move played is much lower, and you miss out on all the little plans one can get out of a position.
What tends to happen with me is, after going on an oath never to play blitz again, I start playing it realize "hey, this is fun!" but after 5-10 straight games I realize how much duller the game has become, because one can only come up with relatively simple moves like 95% of the time for most people, and guess what, even weaker chess players aren't so bad at that! It's also annoying how people who think taking en passant is cool keep beating me with such cheap ideas. Anyway, I make a new oath and the cycle starts again.
I think to make it your main form of chess is to really miss out on the incredible depth that comes with choosing the best move or really figuring out a position. I honestly think people get so addicted to blitz they don't realize how much of the game they're actually missing.
Blitz is driving me away from chess.
Let me explain. One of the reasons I like chess is the challenge of fighting a battle based on nuances. In standard chess, one simple pawn move can have consequences much later in the game, one can struggle to slowly change the focus of tension from one point of the board to the other, most of the time one is searching for the best move, which doesn’t mean that the consequences will be immediate, we struggle to see deeper, considering moves which, in a first glance, wouldn’t be considered, etc. I’m relatively new to chess, but I already experienced those thrills.
Blitz is more about fast pattern recognition… it’s not like “I can write the best text!”, but “I can write faster than you!”. It’s more like reflexes than reflection. In standard, with players of equal level, most of the time one will have to be able to explore minor errors, while in blitz it isn’t rare that the game is decided in a major blunder, being the initial construction useless and the end just a matter of formality or a struggle to delay mate in order to win on time. I just hate games which are decided on major blunders. It’s as if that was the only important move of the game.
Don’t get me wrong, I like blitz. I think it’s a good way to play a game when we’re short on time, a good way to exercise pattern recognition and to learn how to deal with time pressure and, sometimes, when I don’t lose or win the game through a terrible blunder, it can be fun.
The problem is that one of the reasons I like chess is that it is universal. One can find an opponent almost everywhere in the world and talk to a large group of people involved with the game. But, it seems that, rather than being an alternative way of playing, blitz seems to be asphyxiating standard chess. I’m not a great player, as you can see from my profile, but I also have very few games played until today (less than 200, I think), but, everywhere I go, people only want to play blitz. Here in chess.com, a site for turn based chess, I tried to find opponents for a long game and it seems to be a difficult task… most of the games popping on the screen are less than 10 minutes. Most of the games on youtube are blitz and one sees comments like “oh,no big deal, I have seen faster”.
It seems that the average chess player mind frame is changing and most begin to think of chess as a speed contest on pattern recognition. It’s like, IMHO, thinking that winners of those algebra operations contests are the best mathematicians. They have an ability for sure, but mathematics is much more than that.
We are coming to the point that when we talk about chess, it seems that, automatically, people are beginning to associate it with the 5 minute game they play. Like “oh, you were talking about long chess…”.
I’m not an experienced player, but I have read a lot already going around and talking to people that play chess.
You’ll say, go play long games and stop whining. I’m not whining. As I said, I like blitz, but I really prefer standard and would like to know from you if it will die or will restrict itself to a very small group of people.