I think Speed Chess is garbage.
Sort:
Blitz, bullet, or whatever chess that requires less thought and more on speedy instinct is garbage because it doesn't prove how well a chess player really is only how fast they can play regardless of position.
Yup. Some people like it, others don't.
Aug 17, 2016
0
#3
Regardless theory. Talj and Fischer were the best blitz players of their time. Almost all if not all world champions were strong blitz players as well.
snoozyman wrote:
Blitz, bullet, or whatever chess that requires less thought and more on speedy instinct is garbage because it doesn't prove how well a chess player really is only how fast they can play regardless of position.
I suspect that I am like you, in that I just cannot make enough moves in the time, and lose time and time again through running out of time, or making time-pressure-induced blunders. At lower levels it is true that moving fast is more important than playing strong chess.
But stronger players than me can play respectable chess at sub 5-minutes per game. Super GMs play stronger chess in their 5-minute games than I have ever played at any speed. I suspect they'd still play stronger chess than my slow game at 1-minute bullet speed
snoozyman wrote:
Blitz, bullet, or whatever chess that requires less thought and more on speedy instinct is garbage because it doesn't prove how well a chess player really is only how fast they can play regardless of position.
I suspect that I am like you, in that I just cannot make enough moves in the time, and lose time and time again through running out of time, or making time-pressure-induced blunders. At lower levels it is true that moving fast is more important than playing strong chess.
But stronger players than me can play respectable chess at sub 5-minutes per game. Super GMs play stronger chess in their 5-minute games than I have ever played at any speed. I suspect they'd still play stronger chess than my slow game at 1-minute bullet speed
Aug 17, 2016
0
#6
Then why do you play so much garbage? A combined 4951 (if I added right) games of "garbage" chess to be exact, and only 3 rapid games.
I play a lot of speed chess because it passes time but i just dont believe the scores to be accurate because sometimes i win on time even though i clearly lost if i had more time, same goes vice versa with my opponents. I enjoy playing offline more with a real chess board face to face without time. I just feel like speed chess shouldn't be taken too seriously, its like a boxing match with only 1 round instead of 12 rounds.
Aug 17, 2016
0
#8
The clock is as important as the pieces on the board, especially in speed chess. When I used to play bullet, I won numerous games by throwing everything at the opponents king once we were both under 10 seconds. I've traded my Queen for a pawn just to give a check and cancel their premove to win the time race. Is that a stupid way to win a game of chess? Sure, I won't argue that. But that's what you're supposed to do in really fast time controls. A win on time down material is exactly the same as checkmating. A win is a win.
😆😄😆😄
Aug 17, 2016
0
#10
Fischer invented the concept of the clock where you get an increment after each move, and although the facility exists on chess.com (and did on some of the older online chess sites I have played on), we do not see it being used often.
I prefer rapid chess myself as obviously I play better, but then so of course do my opponents, and I did better in a 5+0 blitz tournament today than I have done in the 15m+10s ones. My one loss was on time, too... Opponent also threw his queen at me when my clock was running out.
Aug 17, 2016
0
#11
I don't even enjoy watching 3 minute chess. It moves too fast for me to see what is happening. I'd prefer something a bit slower. All the top players on this site are playing 3 minute games. Why is that? Does someone in the staff here tell IMs / GMs that 3 minute games are the thing to play?
While bliz/bullet are not my favorites, calling them garbage is a bit extreme. Its your opinion, which youre entitled to.
Your blitz rating roughly reflects your chess ability.
There are small differences in time control differences, but for the most part they are small and normalize pretty quickly with a small amount of practice.
Most people on this site who bemoan "blitz sucks!" and "I'm terrible at blitz" don't realize that on this website, a 1300 3/5 min blitz player is substantially stronger than a 1300 standard player. Like probably 200 points stronger for the same time control. They are NOT equivalent ratings here, with blitz ratings being more 'competitive.'
That is simply because you are [Edited for langauge - Mod.] at it, and probably at real chess too! You are no doubt one of those mentally constipated players who will mull over a rubbish move for an hour!
Aug 17, 2016
0
#15
Says a man who's played 2774 bullet games, 2177 blitz games and only 3 standard games. LOL
Aug 17, 2016
0
#17
Blitz can be useful as long as you have time to consider multiple moves. Also, don't play more games than you're willing to review.
Otherwise yeah, it's just a way to pass the time (and you'll likely be practicing a lot of bad habits).
Aug 17, 2016
0
#18
Diakonia wrote:
While bliz/bullet are not my favorites, calling them garbage is a bit extreme. Its your opinion, which youre entitled to.
The opinion of some gm's as well
Bullet is stupid.
Aug 17, 2016
0
#20
Totally agree. I used to be super addicted to blitz/bullet. A hundred games a day kind of addicted lol. I picked up a lot of bad habits. Now I just play a game or two here and there and only when I'm focused. Playing tons of blitz just to pass time is a very bad idea, unless of course you don't care about improving. In that case, knock yourself out lol.
0110001101101000 wrote:
Blitz can be useful as long as you have time to consider multiple moves. Also, don't play more games than you're willing to review.
Otherwise yeah, it's just a way to pass the time (and you'll likely be practicing a lot of bad habits).