I like blitz, but...

Sort:
daxternator
SRenault wrote:

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.


me - either

J_Piper
uhohspaghettio wrote:

I love blitz and really hate standard. I usually find standard incredibly boring and dull.

TC, I don't know why you're crying over or what you expect is going to happen. People aren't going to change their habits because of your lengthy topic, you just have to accept the fact that people prefer blitz. I think it's better as well.

You can talk about your multiple dimensions nonsense all you like, for most people standard is a waste of time.


 How is standard chess a waste of time?  How can you compare the two as being the same?  The quality, typically for weaker players as myself, will improve if we are able to slow down and actually use our minds to cordinate movements.  Blitz, in reality is nothing more than memorizing openings and making strategic mistakes "on purpose," other words making a bold enough move, which will make the opponent stutter to figure it out, thus losing on time. (Bullet)  However, blitz and bullet I use as entertainment when I don't put much emphasis on the result; nice with a few drinks and when you want to chill.  But, I pride myself and my thinking when slower time controls are utilized.

Elubas

Blitz is a special contest: Who can win without thinking?

That said, that instinctive ability is a very important part of any time control. Just that in standard, it's merely a component of the many parts you need to win a chess game; in blitz, it's nearly the whole machine.

ozzie_c_cobblepot

If standard chess is learning, blitz is the pop quiz.

Elubas

lol, yes Smile

Elubas

I strongly agree on how it highlights your weaknesses almost obnoxiously. I think the reason I had trouble with blitz was that my skills were very lopsided -- I was comfortable with abstract strategic thinking, and this was very good before tactics hit the board. In fact, in standard games I still didn't have a ton of tactical problems since I could think them through; in blitz though I simply couldn't -- tactics just didn't come to me in an instant like they had to. I knew what a knight fork was, but that doesn't mean I could spot one every time -- I had to be very, very comfortable with the knight fork and so on. I didn't like having to play on instinct and just predict whether a plan or attack would work.

I think I was really good at one thing, and really bad at the other; standard highlighted the former, blitz the latter, so those ratings were very different. Now I can play decent blitz chess because I can concentrate on the big picture rather than feel I need to calculate every little detail (which is impossible even for the millions of times faster (!) computers), and simply have more patterns stuck in my head, waiting to be recited.

So, blitz certainly embodies certain chess skills. A big however though: I think it's effective to get better at blitz by getting better at certain parts of chess but I do not think it goes the other way around. As far as instructive purposes go, it's more like a quick-and-easy diagnosis of your flaws.